Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Omnibus Amendment To Simplify Vessel Baselines, 31343-31347 [2015-13349]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 105 / Tuesday, June 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This is not a significant
regulatory action and, therefore was not
subject to review under section 6(b) of
E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, dated September 30, 1993. This
rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C.
804.
(FAR Case 2015–019), in
correspondence.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The change is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. The
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) is summarized as follows:
Dated: May 28, 2015.
William Clark,
Director, Office of Government-wide
Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition
Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to
amend the FAR to define multiple-award
contract. On October 2, 2013, the Small
Business Administration (SBA) issued a final
rule (78 FR 61114) to implement various
sections of the Small Business Jobs Act of
2010 (Pub. L. 111–240) by establishing new
policies and procedures for multiple-award
contracts and task and delivery orders. SBA’s
final rule included a definition of multipleaward contract. This proposed rule defines
multiple-award contract to implement that
part of SBA’s final rule in the FAR.
The objective of this proposed rule is to
implement a statutory requirement. The
authorizing legislation is Section 1311 of the
Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L.
111–240).
This rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities within the meaning
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
601, et seq. The proposed rule applies to all
entities who do business with the Federal
Government, but it is not expected to have
a significant impact.
This rule does not impose any new
reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance
requirements. The rule does not duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with any other Federal
rules.
The Regulatory Secretariat has
submitted a copy of the IRFA to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. A copy of the
IRFA may be obtained from the
Regulatory Secretariat. DoD, GSA, and
NASA invite comments from small
business concerns and other interested
parties on the expected impact of this
rule on small entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will also
consider comments from small entities
concerning the existing regulations in
subparts affected by the rule in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested
parties must submit such comments
separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Jun 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
The rule does not contain any
information collection requirements that
require the approval of the Office of
Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35).
List of Subject in 48 CFR Part 2
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA
propose amending 48 CFR part 2 as set
forth below:
PART 2—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS
AND TERMS
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
part 2 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C.
chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
2. Amend section 2.101 in paragraph
(b) by adding, in alphabetical order, the
definition ‘‘Multiple-award contract’’, to
read as follows:
■
2.101
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
Multiple-award contract means a
contract that is—
(1) A Multiple Award Schedule
contract issued by GSA (e.g., GSA
Schedule Contract) or agencies granted
Multiple Award Schedule contract
authority by GSA (e.g., Department of
Veterans Affairs) as described in FAR
part 38;
(2) A multiple-award task-order or
delivery-order contract issued in
accordance with FAR subpart 16.5,
including Governmentwide acquisition
contracts; or
(3) Any other indefinite-delivery,
indefinite-quantity contract entered into
with two or more sources pursuant to
the same solicitation.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–13424 Filed 6–1–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31343
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No: 110907562–5455–02]
RIN 0648–BB40
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States; Omnibus
Amendment To Simplify Vessel
Baselines
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes to approve an
Omnibus Amendment to the Fishery
Management Plans of the Northeastern
United States to simplify vessel
baselines. This Omnibus Amendment to
Simplify Vessel Baselines, which was
submitted by the Mid-Atlantic and New
England Fishery Management Councils,
would eliminate the one-time limit on
vessel upgrades and remove gross and
net tonnages from the vessel baseline
specifications that are considered when
determining a vessel’s baseline for
replacement purposes. Implementing
these measures would reduce the
administrative burden to permit holders
and NMFS and would have little effect
on fleet capacity.
This proposed rule would also
remove the requirement for vessels to
send in negative fishing reports (i.e.,
‘‘did not fish’’ reports) during months or
weeks when fishing did not occur.
NMFS no longer needs these reports due
to improved trip-level matching.
Therefore, NMFS is proposing to
remove this requirement to simplify the
regulations and reduce reporting
burdens for the industry.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before July 17, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2011–0213, by either of the
following methods:
ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION: Submit
all electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
1. Go to www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20110213,
2. Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields,
3. Enter or attach your comments.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02JNP1.SGM
02JNP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31344
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 105 / Tuesday, June 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous).
Copies of the Omnibus Amendment to
Simplify Vessel Baselines, and of the
draft Environmental Assessment and
preliminary Regulatory Impact Review
(EA/RIR), are available from the Greater
Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55
Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA
01930. The EA/RIR is also accessible via
the Internet at:
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.
To review Federal Register
documents referenced in this rule, you
can visit: https://
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/
mediacenter/ongoing/omnibus_
amendment_to_simplify_vessel_
baselines.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Travis Ford, Fishery Policy Analyst,
978–281–9233.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each
Regional Fishery Management Council
to submit any Fishery Management Plan
(FMP) amendment it prepares to NMFS
for review and approval, disapproval, or
partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens
Act also requires that NMFS, upon
receiving an FMP amendment,
immediately publish notification in the
Federal Register that the amendment is
available for public review and
comment. The New England Fishery
Management Council (NEFMC) and the
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (MAFMC) approved this
Baseline Amendment, which would
simplify vessel baseline requirements, at
their November 18, 2014, and October 8,
2014, meetings, respectively. Following
these approvals and on behalf of the
Councils, NMFS prepared additional
analyses for the amendment based on
the preferred alternatives and, once
those were completed, declared a
transmittal date of May 12, 2015. Both
Councils have reviewed the proposed
Baseline Amendment regulations as
drafted by NMFS, and deemed them
necessary and appropriate, as specified
in section 303(c) of the MSA. If
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Jun 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
approved by NMFS, this amendment
would simplify the specifications
considered when determining a vessel’s
baseline for replacement purposes.
Background
The MAFMC developed the first
limited entry program in 1977 for the
surfclam/quahog fishery, which
included restrictions on replacement
vessels. This program required that a
replacement vessel be of ‘‘substantially
similar capacity’’ in an effort to
maintain but not increase the harvest
capacity of the fleet at that time. Over
the following two decades, the MAFMC
and NEFMC implemented additional
limited entry programs. By 1998, there
were four different sets of vessel
upgrade and replacement restrictions
among the various FMPs. The upgrade
restrictions became confusing for fishing
industry members with more than one
limited access permit, because different
vessel upgrade regulations could apply
to each permit. In addition, some
vessels added limited access permits
that originally qualified on another
vessel that was a different size and/or
horsepower. This results in a vessel
having multiple baselines. Thus, in
1999, the MAFMC and NEFMC, in
consultation with NMFS, developed the
Amendment to Achieve Regulatory
Consistency on Permit Related
Provisions for Vessels Issued Limited
Access Federal Fishery Permits (64 FR
8263, February 19, 1999) (Consistency
Amendment) to streamline and make
consistent baseline provisions and
upgrade restrictions across FMPs.
The Consistency Amendment
standardized definitions and restrictions
for vessel baselines, upgrades, and
replacements across all limited access
fisheries. It simplified regulations for
vessel replacements, permit transfers,
and vessel upgrades, making them
consistent and less restrictive in order to
facilitate business transactions.
Although the Consistency Amendment
did standardize the vessel baseline
requirements for the fisheries of the
northeast, some burdensome
requirements remain. Under current
restrictions, a vessel baseline is defined
by vessel length overall, gross tonnage,
net tonnage, and horsepower. We
determine the baseline for a limited
access permit based on the size (length,
gross tonnage, and net tonnage) and
horsepower of the first vessel issued a
limited access permit for that fishery or,
for fisheries that adopted baseline
restrictions through the Consistency
Amendment, the permitted vessel at the
time the final rule became effective.
Current baseline regulations require
that a replacement vessel or an upgrade
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
made to an existing vessel with a
limited access permit be within 10
percent of the size and 20 percent of the
horsepower of the permit’s baseline
vessel. To respect the NEFMC and the
MAFMC’s intended baseline restrictions
of individual fisheries, for vessels with
multiple baselines, we use the most
restrictive of the baselines to judge the
approval of a replacement vessel or
upgrade, unless the permit holder
chooses to relinquish the more
restrictive permit. In addition, current
baseline regulations limit permit
holders to a one-time upgrade of the
vessel size and horsepower
specifications. For example, we limit a
vessel owner that has a 60-ft (18.3-m)
baseline length to upgrading to a vessel
of up to 66 ft (20.1 m). However, if he
moves his permit to a 62-ft (18.9-m)
vessel for any reason, it would
constitute his one-time size upgrade and
he would lose the ability to upgrade to
a vessel of 66 ft (20.1 m). He would only
be able to move his permit to a vessel
of 62 ft (18.9 m) or less. Because he used
his one-time size upgrade, he would not
be able upgrade the vessel’s tonnages.
He would still be able use his
horsepower upgrade to upgrade his
horsepower by 20 percent, but only
once.
The Baseline Amendment would:
1. Eliminate gross and net tonnage
from the baseline specifications
considered when determining a vessel’s
baseline for replacement purposes. Both
the Councils and NMFS consider
tonnages the most variable of vessel
baseline specifications and, therefore,
they have little effect on limiting vessel
capacity when compared to length and
horsepower restrictions. There is more
than one acceptable method of
determining tonnages, and the tonnages
of a vessel can vary significantly
depending on whether an exact
measurement or simplified calculation
is used. In addition, vessel owners can
circumvent net tonnage limits by
modifying internal bulkheads.
Eliminating tonnages would simplify
the vessel baseline verification and
replacement process. In addition, it
could reduce the cost burden on the
industry if they only need horsepower
verification because this would
eliminate the need for a marine survey
prior to any permit transactions.
2. Remove the one-time limit on
vessel upgrades. Eliminating the onetime upgrade limit would provide more
flexibility for vessel owners in the
selection of replacement vessels and
upgrades to existing vessels. Some
vessel owners have been constrained by
the one-time limit because they or a
previous owner did not maximize the
E:\FR\FM\02JNP1.SGM
02JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 105 / Tuesday, June 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
one-time upgrade with a previous vessel
replacement, due to cost or availability
or for other reasons, and have since
been unable to further upgrade the
vessel. Eliminating the one-time limit
would also simplify the baseline
verification and vessel replacement
process for vessel owners and NMFS by
eliminating the need to research and
document whether a vessel owner used
the one-time upgrade during the vessel’s
entire limited access history.
This rule proposes to remove the
requirement for vessels to send in
negative fishing reports (i.e., ‘‘did not
fish’’ reports) during months or weeks
when fishing did not occur. This was
not part of the Baseline Amendment,
but is the result of an internal review of
the trip-level reporting requirements
conducted by the joint Greater Atlantic
Regional Fisheries Office-Northeast
Fisheries Science Center Fishery
Dependent Data Committee (FDDC)
during the past year. The division of the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) responsible for the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), in the interest of
reducing compliance costs for small
businesses, noted a potential cost
savings for fishermen if we remove the
DNF report and asked that we
investigate the possibility of removing
it. As a result of that review, the FDDC
has recommended that the negative
fishing reports are no longer necessary
because the ability to determine if a
vessel has engaged in fishing activity
and submitted required trip reports has
increased in recent years due to
improved trip-level data matching and
the expansion of other monitoring
systems (e.g., Vessel Monitoring
Systems). Therefore, in order to simplify
the regulations and reduce reporting
burdens for the industry, we are
proposing to eliminate the negative
fishing reports requirement in this
action under the Secretary’s authority at
section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. Vessel owners would still be
required to report all fishing trip activity
on a monthly or weekly basis,
depending on the requirements
associated with their vessel permits.
Classification
Pursuant to section 303(c) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the MAFMC
and the NEFMC have deemed the
proposed regulations, with the
exception of those noted above as
proposed under the Secretary’s
authority at § 305(d), to be necessary
and appropriate for the purpose of
implementing the Baseline Amendment.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS
Assistant Administrator has determined
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Jun 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
that this proposed rule is consistent
with the Baseline Amendment, other
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, and other applicable law, subject to
further consideration after public
comment.
A notice of availability of the Draft
EA/RIR, which analyzed the impacts of
all the measures under consideration in
the Baseline Amendment, was
published at 80 FR 28217, May 18,
2014.
This proposed rule has been
determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of
the Department of Commerce certified
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration that this
proposed rule, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed action would apply to
all federally permitted fishing vessels
operating in the Northeast Region
subject to one or more of the affected
FMPs (Black Sea Bass, Summer
Flounder, Scup, Atlantic Herring, Illex
Squid, Longfin Squid, Atlantic
Mackerel, Mahogany Quahog, Monkfish,
Northeast Multispecies, Atlantic Sea
Scallop, and Red Crab). The proposed
rule, if finalized, would eliminate the
one-time limit on vessel upgrades and
remove gross and net tonnages from
vessel baseline specifications
considered when determining a vessel’s
baseline for replacement purposes. It
would also remove the requirement for
vessels to send in negative fishing
reports (i.e., ‘‘did not fish’’ reports)
during months or weeks when fishing
did not occur. Implementing these
measures would reduce the
administrative burden to permit
holders, leading to increased profits for
the regulated community.
Removing tonnages from vessel
baselines may also simplify or eliminate
the need for a permit holder to hire a
naval architect to determine and
document tonnage if it was not
previously established. NMFS estimates
the resulting average cost savings of as
much as $375 per survey. Removing
tonnages and upgrades may negate the
need for a permit holder to hire a third
party to research the permit’s history
and prepare the replacement
application. Estimates of the costs for
these third party services were not
available, but NMFS estimates that
permit holders spend an average of 3
hours, or $270 in labor costs, preparing
vessel replacement applications.
Removing the one-time upgrade limit
would also simplify administration of
vessel baselines by eliminating the need
for permit holders and NMFS to
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31345
determine whether a permit already
used its one-time upgrade or an upgrade
to tonnage at some point in its history.
This research can be a substantial time
and cost burden for a permit holder,
especially if the permit has changed
hands several times.
In addition, removing the requirement
to send in negative fishing reports
would relieve a substantial time and
cost burden for permit holders. The
relief of burden estimates for removing
this requirement applies to all federally
permitted vessels. In 2014, NMFS
received approximately 78,000 did not
fish reports. We estimated public
reporting burden for submitting these
reports to average 2 min per response
with an associated cost of $0.45.
Therefore, 78,000 did not fish reports
would reduce total compliance costs by
$35,100, and reduce reporting burden
by 2,600 hours annually.
Because there are cost savings
resulting from this proposed rule, the
impact on small entities would be a
positive one. Therefore, this rule would
not impose significant costs or burdens
on any small entities. No small entities
would be placed at a competitive
disadvantage to large entities, and the
regulations would not reduce the profit
for any small entities. Because this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is not required and none has
been prepared.
The proposed action contains
collection-of-information requirements
subject to review and approval by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA). The request to remove the
collection burden for vessel gross and
net tonnages, vessel upgrades, and did
not fish report requirements will be
submitted to OMB for approval under
the NMFS Northeast Region Scallop
Report Family of Forms (OMB Control
No. 0648–0202 and 0648–0212).
Vessels would no longer be required
to send in negative fishing reports (i.e.,
‘‘did not fish’’ reports) during months or
weeks when fishing did not occur.
Vessel owners would still be required to
report all fishing trip activity on a
monthly or weekly basis, depending on
the requirements associated with their
vessel permits. The collection of
negative fishing reports is no longer
needed to determine if a vessel has
engaged in fishing activity and
submitted required trip reports due to
improved trip-level data matching and
the expansion of other monitoring
systems (e.g., Vessel Monitoring
Systems).
E:\FR\FM\02JNP1.SGM
02JNP1
31346
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 105 / Tuesday, June 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
The relief of burden estimates for
removing this requirement applies to all
federally permitted vessels. In 2014,
NMFS received approximately 78,000
did not fish reports. We estimated
public reporting burden for submitting
these reports to average 2 min per
response with an associated cost of
$0.45.
Therefore, 78,000 did not fish reports
would reduce total compliance costs by
$35,100, and reduce reporting burden
by 2,600 hr annually.
Public comment is sought regarding:
Whether this proposed reduction in
collection of information is appropriate
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the forgone information would
still have practical utility; the accuracy
of the reduction in burden estimate;
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information,
including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. Send comments
on these or any other aspects of the
collection of information to the Regional
Administrator (See ADDRESSES above),
and email to OIRA_Submission@
omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395–5806.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
All currently approved NOAA
collections of information may be
viewed at: https://www.cio.noaa.gov/
services_programs/prasubs.html.
This action contains no other
compliance costs. It does not duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with any other
Federal law.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Incorporation by reference.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Dated: May 27, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE
NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 648
continues to read as follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Jun 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
§ 648.2
[Amended]
2. In § 648.2, remove the definition of
‘‘Substantially similar harvesting
capacity.’’
■ 3. In § 648.4, revise paragraphs
(a)(1)(i)(E)(1), (a)(1)(i)(E)(2),
(a)(1)(i)(F)(1), (a)(1)(i)(F)(2), (a)(1)(i)(H),
(a)(3)(i)(H), (a)(13)(i)(E)(1), (a)(13)(i)(F),
and (a)(13)(i)(H) to read as follows:
■
§ 648.4
Vessel permits.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) * * *
(1) The replacement vessel’s
horsepower may not exceed the
horsepower of the vessel’s baseline
specifications by more than 20 percent,
as applicable.
(2) The replacement vessel’s length
overall may not exceed the length
overall of the vessel’s baseline
specifications by more than 10 percent,
as applicable.
(F) * * *
(1) The upgraded vessel’s horsepower
may not exceed the horsepower of the
vessel’s baseline specifications by more
than 20 percent, as applicable.
(2) The upgraded vessel’s length
overall may not exceed the vessel’s
baseline length overall by more than 10
percent, as applicable.
*
*
*
*
*
(H) Vessel baseline specifications. The
vessel baseline specifications in this
section are the respective specifications
(length, horsepower) of the vessel that
was initially issued a limited access
permit as of the date the initial vessel
applied for such permit.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(H) Vessel baseline specifications. The
vessel baseline specifications in this
section are the respective specifications
(length, horsepower) of the vessel as of
March 22, 1999, unless the vessel is in
the process of construction or rerigging
or under agreement or written contract
for construction or rerigging, as of the
effective baseline specification date in
which case the baseline specifications
will be established no later than
February 19, 2000.
*
*
*
*
*
(13) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) * * *
(1) To be eligible for a limited access
permit under this section, the
replacement vessel’s length overall may
not exceed the vessel’s baseline length
overall by more than 10 percent. The
replacement vessel must also meet any
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
other applicable criteria under
paragraph (a)(13)(i)(F) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(F) Upgraded vessel. A vessel may be
upgraded, whether through refitting or
replacement, and be eligible to retain or
renew a limited access permit, provided
that the new length overall of the
upgraded vessel does exceed the
vessel’s baseline length overall by more
than 10 percent, as applicable.
*
*
*
*
*
(H) Vessel baseline length. The vessel
baseline length in this section is the
overall length of the vessel indicated on
the vessel’s initial limited access permit
as of the date the initial vessel applies
for such permit.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. In § 648.7, revise paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) and (f)(2)(i) to read as follows:
§ 648.7 Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The owner or operator of any
vessel issued a valid permit or eligible
to renew a limited access permit under
this part must maintain on board the
vessel, and submit, an accurate fishing
log report for each fishing trip,
regardless of species fished for or taken,
on forms supplied by or approved by
the Regional Administrator. If
authorized in writing by the Regional
Administrator, a vessel owner or
operator may submit reports
electronically, for example by using a
VMS or other media. With the exception
of those vessel owners or operators
fishing under a surfclam or ocean
quahog permit, at least the following
information and any other information
required by the Regional Administrator
must be provided: Vessel name; USCG
documentation number (or state
registration number, if undocumented);
permit number; date/time sailed; date/
time landed; trip type; number of crew;
number of anglers (if a charter or party
boat); gear fished; quantity and size of
gear; mesh/ring size; chart area fished;
average depth; latitude/longitude (or
loran station and bearings); total hauls
per area fished; average tow time
duration; hail weight, in pounds (or
count of individual fish, if a party or
charter vessel), by species, of all species,
or parts of species, such as monkfish
livers, landed or discarded; and, in the
case of skate discards, ‘‘small’’ (i.e., less
than 23 inches (58.42 cm), total length)
or ‘‘large’’ (i.e., 23 inches (58.42 cm) or
greater, total length) skates; dealer
permit number; dealer name; date sold,
port and state landed; and vessel
E:\FR\FM\02JNP1.SGM
02JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 105 / Tuesday, June 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
operator’s name, signature, and
operator’s permit number (if applicable).
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) For any vessel not issued a NE
multispecies; Atlantic herring permit; or
any Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid,
Illex squid, or butterfish permit; fishing
vessel log reports, required by paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section, must be
postmarked or received by NMFS
within 15 days after the end of the
reporting month. For any vessel issued
a NE multispecies permit; Atlantic
herring permit; or any Atlantic
mackerel, longfin squid, Illex squid, or
butterfish permit; fishing vessel log
reports must be postmarked or received
by midnight of the first Tuesday
following the end of the reporting week.
For the purposes of this paragraph
(f)(2)(i), the date when fish are offloaded
will establish the reporting week or
month the VTR must be submitted to
NMFS, as appropriate.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. In § 648.14, revise paragraphs (b)(4)
and (k)(2)(i) to read as follows:
§ 648.14
baseline length overall of the transferor
vessel. For the purposes of this program,
the baseline horsepower and length
overall are those associated with the
permit as of January 29, 2004. Upon
approval of the transfer, the baseline of
the transferee vessel would be the
smaller baseline of the two vessels or
the vessel owner could choose to adopt
the larger baseline of the two vessels
provided such an upgrade is consistent
with provisions of this paragraph
(l)(1)(ii). A vessel that has executed a
one-time downgrade of a DAS Leasing
Program baseline in accordance with
paragraph (k)(4)(xi) is subject to the
restrictions of paragraph (k)(4)(xi)(C) of
this section.
(iii) The transferor vessel must
transfer all of its Federal limited access
permits for which it is eligible to the
transferee vessel in accordance with the
vessel replacement restrictions under
§ 648.4, or permanently cancel such
permits. When duplicate permits exist,
i.e., those permits for which both the
transferor and transferee vessel are
eligible, one of the duplicate permits
must be permanently cancelled.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–13349 Filed 6–1–15; 8:45 am]
Prohibitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) Fish for, possess, or land species
regulated under this part with or from
a vessel that is issued a limited access
or moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)
and that has had the horsepower or
length overall of such vessel or its
replacement upgraded or increased in
excess of the limitations specified in
§ 648.4(a)(1)(i)(E) and (F).
*
*
*
*
*
(k) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Fish for, possess, or land NE
multispecies with or from a vessel that
has had the length overall of such
vessel, or its replacement, increased or
upgraded in excess of limitations
specified in § 648.4(a)(1)(i)(E) and (F).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. In § 648.82, revise paragraphs
(l)(1)(ii) and (l)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 648. 82 Effort-control program for NE
multispecies limited access vessels.
16:57 Jun 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 150506428–5468–01]
RIN 0648–BF07
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative
Management Act Provisions; Jonah
Crab Fishery; Control Date for Jonah
Crab Fishery
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR); request for
comments.
AGENCY:
This notice announces a
control date that may limit or restrict
access into the Jonah crab fishery in
Federal waters. This action is necessary
to inform fishery participants that we
are considering future action. We intend
for this notice to promote awareness of
possible future rulemaking, and
discourage speculative entry into and/or
investment in the Jonah crab fishery.
DATES: June 2, 2015 is established as the
‘‘control date’’ for the Jonah crab
SUMMARY:
(l) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) NE multispecies DAS may be
transferred only to a vessel with a
baseline main engine horsepower rating
that is no more than 20 percent greater
than the baseline engine horsepower of
the transferor vessel. NE multispecies
DAS may be transferred only to a vessel
with a baseline length overall that is no
more than 10 percent greater than the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31347
fishery, and may be used as a reference
date for future management measures
related to the Jonah crab fishery,
consistent with applicable Federal laws
and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission’s recommendations.
Written comments must be received on
or before July 2, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2015–0065 by any of the
following methods:
D Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20150065, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
D Mail: Submit written comments to
John K. Bullard, Regional
Administrator, National Marine
Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the
outside of the envelope, ‘‘Comments on
Jonah crab Control Date.’’
Instructions: Comments must be
submitted by one of the above methods
to ensure that the comments are
received, documented, and considered.
We may not consider comments sent by
any other method, to any other address
or individual, or received after the end
of the comment period. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.)
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information. We will accept anonymous
comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in the required
fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Allison Murphy, Fishery Policy Analyst,
978–281–9122.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Jonah crab
(Cancer borealis), also known locally as
rock crab, is not currently managed
under Federal regulations or a
coastwide Interstate Fishery
Management Plan. Some individual
Atlantic states do have management
measures or permit requirements for
Jonah crab. In May 2014, the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission’s
American Lobster Management Board
initiated the development of an
Interstate Fishery Management Plan for
Jonah Crab, throughout the species
range within United States waters. The
Board’s development of a formal
management plan was based on its
E:\FR\FM\02JNP1.SGM
02JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 2, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31343-31347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13349]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No: 110907562-5455-02]
RIN 0648-BB40
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Omnibus
Amendment To Simplify Vessel Baselines
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to approve an Omnibus Amendment to the Fishery
Management Plans of the Northeastern United States to simplify vessel
baselines. This Omnibus Amendment to Simplify Vessel Baselines, which
was submitted by the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management
Councils, would eliminate the one-time limit on vessel upgrades and
remove gross and net tonnages from the vessel baseline specifications
that are considered when determining a vessel's baseline for
replacement purposes. Implementing these measures would reduce the
administrative burden to permit holders and NMFS and would have little
effect on fleet capacity.
This proposed rule would also remove the requirement for vessels to
send in negative fishing reports (i.e., ``did not fish'' reports)
during months or weeks when fishing did not occur. NMFS no longer needs
these reports due to improved trip-level matching. Therefore, NMFS is
proposing to remove this requirement to simplify the regulations and
reduce reporting burdens for the industry.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 17, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2011-0213, by either of the following methods:
ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION: Submit all electronic public comments via
the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2011-0213,
2. Click the ``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields,
3. Enter or attach your comments.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or
[[Page 31344]]
individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public
record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
Copies of the Omnibus Amendment to Simplify Vessel Baselines, and
of the draft Environmental Assessment and preliminary Regulatory Impact
Review (EA/RIR), are available from the Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. The
EA/RIR is also accessible via the Internet at:
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.
To review Federal Register documents referenced in this rule, you
can visit: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/mediacenter/ongoing/omnibus_amendment_to_simplify_vessel_baselines.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Travis Ford, Fishery Policy Analyst,
978-281-9233.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each Regional
Fishery Management Council to submit any Fishery Management Plan (FMP)
amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or
partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS,
upon receiving an FMP amendment, immediately publish notification in
the Federal Register that the amendment is available for public review
and comment. The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) and the
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) approved this Baseline
Amendment, which would simplify vessel baseline requirements, at their
November 18, 2014, and October 8, 2014, meetings, respectively.
Following these approvals and on behalf of the Councils, NMFS prepared
additional analyses for the amendment based on the preferred
alternatives and, once those were completed, declared a transmittal
date of May 12, 2015. Both Councils have reviewed the proposed Baseline
Amendment regulations as drafted by NMFS, and deemed them necessary and
appropriate, as specified in section 303(c) of the MSA. If approved by
NMFS, this amendment would simplify the specifications considered when
determining a vessel's baseline for replacement purposes.
Background
The MAFMC developed the first limited entry program in 1977 for the
surfclam/quahog fishery, which included restrictions on replacement
vessels. This program required that a replacement vessel be of
``substantially similar capacity'' in an effort to maintain but not
increase the harvest capacity of the fleet at that time. Over the
following two decades, the MAFMC and NEFMC implemented additional
limited entry programs. By 1998, there were four different sets of
vessel upgrade and replacement restrictions among the various FMPs. The
upgrade restrictions became confusing for fishing industry members with
more than one limited access permit, because different vessel upgrade
regulations could apply to each permit. In addition, some vessels added
limited access permits that originally qualified on another vessel that
was a different size and/or horsepower. This results in a vessel having
multiple baselines. Thus, in 1999, the MAFMC and NEFMC, in consultation
with NMFS, developed the Amendment to Achieve Regulatory Consistency on
Permit Related Provisions for Vessels Issued Limited Access Federal
Fishery Permits (64 FR 8263, February 19, 1999) (Consistency Amendment)
to streamline and make consistent baseline provisions and upgrade
restrictions across FMPs.
The Consistency Amendment standardized definitions and restrictions
for vessel baselines, upgrades, and replacements across all limited
access fisheries. It simplified regulations for vessel replacements,
permit transfers, and vessel upgrades, making them consistent and less
restrictive in order to facilitate business transactions. Although the
Consistency Amendment did standardize the vessel baseline requirements
for the fisheries of the northeast, some burdensome requirements
remain. Under current restrictions, a vessel baseline is defined by
vessel length overall, gross tonnage, net tonnage, and horsepower. We
determine the baseline for a limited access permit based on the size
(length, gross tonnage, and net tonnage) and horsepower of the first
vessel issued a limited access permit for that fishery or, for
fisheries that adopted baseline restrictions through the Consistency
Amendment, the permitted vessel at the time the final rule became
effective.
Current baseline regulations require that a replacement vessel or
an upgrade made to an existing vessel with a limited access permit be
within 10 percent of the size and 20 percent of the horsepower of the
permit's baseline vessel. To respect the NEFMC and the MAFMC's intended
baseline restrictions of individual fisheries, for vessels with
multiple baselines, we use the most restrictive of the baselines to
judge the approval of a replacement vessel or upgrade, unless the
permit holder chooses to relinquish the more restrictive permit. In
addition, current baseline regulations limit permit holders to a one-
time upgrade of the vessel size and horsepower specifications. For
example, we limit a vessel owner that has a 60-ft (18.3-m) baseline
length to upgrading to a vessel of up to 66 ft (20.1 m). However, if he
moves his permit to a 62-ft (18.9-m) vessel for any reason, it would
constitute his one-time size upgrade and he would lose the ability to
upgrade to a vessel of 66 ft (20.1 m). He would only be able to move
his permit to a vessel of 62 ft (18.9 m) or less. Because he used his
one-time size upgrade, he would not be able upgrade the vessel's
tonnages. He would still be able use his horsepower upgrade to upgrade
his horsepower by 20 percent, but only once.
The Baseline Amendment would:
1. Eliminate gross and net tonnage from the baseline specifications
considered when determining a vessel's baseline for replacement
purposes. Both the Councils and NMFS consider tonnages the most
variable of vessel baseline specifications and, therefore, they have
little effect on limiting vessel capacity when compared to length and
horsepower restrictions. There is more than one acceptable method of
determining tonnages, and the tonnages of a vessel can vary
significantly depending on whether an exact measurement or simplified
calculation is used. In addition, vessel owners can circumvent net
tonnage limits by modifying internal bulkheads. Eliminating tonnages
would simplify the vessel baseline verification and replacement
process. In addition, it could reduce the cost burden on the industry
if they only need horsepower verification because this would eliminate
the need for a marine survey prior to any permit transactions.
2. Remove the one-time limit on vessel upgrades. Eliminating the
one-time upgrade limit would provide more flexibility for vessel owners
in the selection of replacement vessels and upgrades to existing
vessels. Some vessel owners have been constrained by the one-time limit
because they or a previous owner did not maximize the
[[Page 31345]]
one-time upgrade with a previous vessel replacement, due to cost or
availability or for other reasons, and have since been unable to
further upgrade the vessel. Eliminating the one-time limit would also
simplify the baseline verification and vessel replacement process for
vessel owners and NMFS by eliminating the need to research and document
whether a vessel owner used the one-time upgrade during the vessel's
entire limited access history.
This rule proposes to remove the requirement for vessels to send in
negative fishing reports (i.e., ``did not fish'' reports) during months
or weeks when fishing did not occur. This was not part of the Baseline
Amendment, but is the result of an internal review of the trip-level
reporting requirements conducted by the joint Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office-Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fishery Dependent
Data Committee (FDDC) during the past year. The division of the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) responsible for the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA), in the interest of reducing compliance costs for small
businesses, noted a potential cost savings for fishermen if we remove
the DNF report and asked that we investigate the possibility of
removing it. As a result of that review, the FDDC has recommended that
the negative fishing reports are no longer necessary because the
ability to determine if a vessel has engaged in fishing activity and
submitted required trip reports has increased in recent years due to
improved trip-level data matching and the expansion of other monitoring
systems (e.g., Vessel Monitoring Systems). Therefore, in order to
simplify the regulations and reduce reporting burdens for the industry,
we are proposing to eliminate the negative fishing reports requirement
in this action under the Secretary's authority at section 305(d) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Vessel owners would still be required to report
all fishing trip activity on a monthly or weekly basis, depending on
the requirements associated with their vessel permits.
Classification
Pursuant to section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the MAFMC
and the NEFMC have deemed the proposed regulations, with the exception
of those noted above as proposed under the Secretary's authority at
Sec. 305(d), to be necessary and appropriate for the purpose of
implementing the Baseline Amendment.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is
consistent with the Baseline Amendment, other provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further
consideration after public comment.
A notice of availability of the Draft EA/RIR, which analyzed the
impacts of all the measures under consideration in the Baseline
Amendment, was published at 80 FR 28217, May 18, 2014.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed action would apply to all federally permitted fishing
vessels operating in the Northeast Region subject to one or more of the
affected FMPs (Black Sea Bass, Summer Flounder, Scup, Atlantic Herring,
Illex Squid, Longfin Squid, Atlantic Mackerel, Mahogany Quahog,
Monkfish, Northeast Multispecies, Atlantic Sea Scallop, and Red Crab).
The proposed rule, if finalized, would eliminate the one-time limit on
vessel upgrades and remove gross and net tonnages from vessel baseline
specifications considered when determining a vessel's baseline for
replacement purposes. It would also remove the requirement for vessels
to send in negative fishing reports (i.e., ``did not fish'' reports)
during months or weeks when fishing did not occur. Implementing these
measures would reduce the administrative burden to permit holders,
leading to increased profits for the regulated community.
Removing tonnages from vessel baselines may also simplify or
eliminate the need for a permit holder to hire a naval architect to
determine and document tonnage if it was not previously established.
NMFS estimates the resulting average cost savings of as much as $375
per survey. Removing tonnages and upgrades may negate the need for a
permit holder to hire a third party to research the permit's history
and prepare the replacement application. Estimates of the costs for
these third party services were not available, but NMFS estimates that
permit holders spend an average of 3 hours, or $270 in labor costs,
preparing vessel replacement applications.
Removing the one-time upgrade limit would also simplify
administration of vessel baselines by eliminating the need for permit
holders and NMFS to determine whether a permit already used its one-
time upgrade or an upgrade to tonnage at some point in its history.
This research can be a substantial time and cost burden for a permit
holder, especially if the permit has changed hands several times.
In addition, removing the requirement to send in negative fishing
reports would relieve a substantial time and cost burden for permit
holders. The relief of burden estimates for removing this requirement
applies to all federally permitted vessels. In 2014, NMFS received
approximately 78,000 did not fish reports. We estimated public
reporting burden for submitting these reports to average 2 min per
response with an associated cost of $0.45. Therefore, 78,000 did not
fish reports would reduce total compliance costs by $35,100, and reduce
reporting burden by 2,600 hours annually.
Because there are cost savings resulting from this proposed rule,
the impact on small entities would be a positive one. Therefore, this
rule would not impose significant costs or burdens on any small
entities. No small entities would be placed at a competitive
disadvantage to large entities, and the regulations would not reduce
the profit for any small entities. Because this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and none has
been prepared.
The proposed action contains collection-of-information requirements
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The request to remove
the collection burden for vessel gross and net tonnages, vessel
upgrades, and did not fish report requirements will be submitted to OMB
for approval under the NMFS Northeast Region Scallop Report Family of
Forms (OMB Control No. 0648-0202 and 0648-0212).
Vessels would no longer be required to send in negative fishing
reports (i.e., ``did not fish'' reports) during months or weeks when
fishing did not occur. Vessel owners would still be required to report
all fishing trip activity on a monthly or weekly basis, depending on
the requirements associated with their vessel permits. The collection
of negative fishing reports is no longer needed to determine if a
vessel has engaged in fishing activity and submitted required trip
reports due to improved trip-level data matching and the expansion of
other monitoring systems (e.g., Vessel Monitoring Systems).
[[Page 31346]]
The relief of burden estimates for removing this requirement
applies to all federally permitted vessels. In 2014, NMFS received
approximately 78,000 did not fish reports. We estimated public
reporting burden for submitting these reports to average 2 min per
response with an associated cost of $0.45.
Therefore, 78,000 did not fish reports would reduce total
compliance costs by $35,100, and reduce reporting burden by 2,600 hr
annually.
Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed reduction
in collection of information is appropriate for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including whether the forgone
information would still have practical utility; the accuracy of the
reduction in burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information, including through the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the
collection of information to the Regional Administrator (See ADDRESSES
above), and email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-
5806.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number. All currently approved NOAA
collections of information may be viewed at: https://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.
This action contains no other compliance costs. It does not
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal law.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Incorporation by reference.
Dated: May 27, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
0
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Sec. 648.2 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 648.2, remove the definition of ``Substantially similar
harvesting capacity.''
0
3. In Sec. 648.4, revise paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(E)(1), (a)(1)(i)(E)(2),
(a)(1)(i)(F)(1), (a)(1)(i)(F)(2), (a)(1)(i)(H), (a)(3)(i)(H),
(a)(13)(i)(E)(1), (a)(13)(i)(F), and (a)(13)(i)(H) to read as follows:
Sec. 648.4 Vessel permits.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) * * *
(1) The replacement vessel's horsepower may not exceed the
horsepower of the vessel's baseline specifications by more than 20
percent, as applicable.
(2) The replacement vessel's length overall may not exceed the
length overall of the vessel's baseline specifications by more than 10
percent, as applicable.
(F) * * *
(1) The upgraded vessel's horsepower may not exceed the horsepower
of the vessel's baseline specifications by more than 20 percent, as
applicable.
(2) The upgraded vessel's length overall may not exceed the
vessel's baseline length overall by more than 10 percent, as
applicable.
* * * * *
(H) Vessel baseline specifications. The vessel baseline
specifications in this section are the respective specifications
(length, horsepower) of the vessel that was initially issued a limited
access permit as of the date the initial vessel applied for such
permit.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(H) Vessel baseline specifications. The vessel baseline
specifications in this section are the respective specifications
(length, horsepower) of the vessel as of March 22, 1999, unless the
vessel is in the process of construction or rerigging or under
agreement or written contract for construction or rerigging, as of the
effective baseline specification date in which case the baseline
specifications will be established no later than February 19, 2000.
* * * * *
(13) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) * * *
(1) To be eligible for a limited access permit under this section,
the replacement vessel's length overall may not exceed the vessel's
baseline length overall by more than 10 percent. The replacement vessel
must also meet any other applicable criteria under paragraph
(a)(13)(i)(F) of this section.
* * * * *
(F) Upgraded vessel. A vessel may be upgraded, whether through
refitting or replacement, and be eligible to retain or renew a limited
access permit, provided that the new length overall of the upgraded
vessel does exceed the vessel's baseline length overall by more than 10
percent, as applicable.
* * * * *
(H) Vessel baseline length. The vessel baseline length in this
section is the overall length of the vessel indicated on the vessel's
initial limited access permit as of the date the initial vessel applies
for such permit.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 648.7, revise paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (f)(2)(i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 648.7 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The owner or operator of any vessel issued a valid permit or
eligible to renew a limited access permit under this part must maintain
on board the vessel, and submit, an accurate fishing log report for
each fishing trip, regardless of species fished for or taken, on forms
supplied by or approved by the Regional Administrator. If authorized in
writing by the Regional Administrator, a vessel owner or operator may
submit reports electronically, for example by using a VMS or other
media. With the exception of those vessel owners or operators fishing
under a surfclam or ocean quahog permit, at least the following
information and any other information required by the Regional
Administrator must be provided: Vessel name; USCG documentation number
(or state registration number, if undocumented); permit number; date/
time sailed; date/time landed; trip type; number of crew; number of
anglers (if a charter or party boat); gear fished; quantity and size of
gear; mesh/ring size; chart area fished; average depth; latitude/
longitude (or loran station and bearings); total hauls per area fished;
average tow time duration; hail weight, in pounds (or count of
individual fish, if a party or charter vessel), by species, of all
species, or parts of species, such as monkfish livers, landed or
discarded; and, in the case of skate discards, ``small'' (i.e., less
than 23 inches (58.42 cm), total length) or ``large'' (i.e., 23 inches
(58.42 cm) or greater, total length) skates; dealer permit number;
dealer name; date sold, port and state landed; and vessel
[[Page 31347]]
operator's name, signature, and operator's permit number (if
applicable).
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) For any vessel not issued a NE multispecies; Atlantic herring
permit; or any Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid, Illex squid, or
butterfish permit; fishing vessel log reports, required by paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section, must be postmarked or received by NMFS
within 15 days after the end of the reporting month. For any vessel
issued a NE multispecies permit; Atlantic herring permit; or any
Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid, Illex squid, or butterfish permit;
fishing vessel log reports must be postmarked or received by midnight
of the first Tuesday following the end of the reporting week. For the
purposes of this paragraph (f)(2)(i), the date when fish are offloaded
will establish the reporting week or month the VTR must be submitted to
NMFS, as appropriate.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec. 648.14, revise paragraphs (b)(4) and (k)(2)(i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 648.14 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Fish for, possess, or land species regulated under this part
with or from a vessel that is issued a limited access or moratorium
permit under Sec. 648.4(a) and that has had the horsepower or length
overall of such vessel or its replacement upgraded or increased in
excess of the limitations specified in Sec. 648.4(a)(1)(i)(E) and (F).
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Fish for, possess, or land NE multispecies with or from a
vessel that has had the length overall of such vessel, or its
replacement, increased or upgraded in excess of limitations specified
in Sec. 648.4(a)(1)(i)(E) and (F).
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec. 648.82, revise paragraphs (l)(1)(ii) and (l)(1)(iii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 648. 82 Effort-control program for NE multispecies limited
access vessels.
(l) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) NE multispecies DAS may be transferred only to a vessel with a
baseline main engine horsepower rating that is no more than 20 percent
greater than the baseline engine horsepower of the transferor vessel.
NE multispecies DAS may be transferred only to a vessel with a baseline
length overall that is no more than 10 percent greater than the
baseline length overall of the transferor vessel. For the purposes of
this program, the baseline horsepower and length overall are those
associated with the permit as of January 29, 2004. Upon approval of the
transfer, the baseline of the transferee vessel would be the smaller
baseline of the two vessels or the vessel owner could choose to adopt
the larger baseline of the two vessels provided such an upgrade is
consistent with provisions of this paragraph (l)(1)(ii). A vessel that
has executed a one-time downgrade of a DAS Leasing Program baseline in
accordance with paragraph (k)(4)(xi) is subject to the restrictions of
paragraph (k)(4)(xi)(C) of this section.
(iii) The transferor vessel must transfer all of its Federal
limited access permits for which it is eligible to the transferee
vessel in accordance with the vessel replacement restrictions under
Sec. 648.4, or permanently cancel such permits. When duplicate permits
exist, i.e., those permits for which both the transferor and transferee
vessel are eligible, one of the duplicate permits must be permanently
cancelled.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-13349 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
