Fisheries Off West Coast States; Highly Migratory Fisheries; Amendment 4 to Fishery Management Plan for West Coast Highly Migratory Species Fisheries; Revisions to the Biennial Management Cycle, 8414-8416 [2018-03963]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
8414
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
present new genetic evidence to suggest
the spring-run Chinook salmon
populations in the UKTR Basin may
qualify as a separate ESU from the fallrun populations and request this new
ESU to be listed based on the threats
identified above. Based on biological,
genetic, and ecological information
compiled and reviewed as part of the
status review for Chinook salmon
(Myers et al., 1998), we included all
spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon
populations in the Klamath River Basin
upstream from the confluence of the
Klamath and Trinity rivers in the UKTR
Chinook salmon ESU (63 FR 11482;
March 9, 1998). In our 2012 not
warranted decision (77 FR 19597; April
2, 2012), we reconfirmed the
configuration of the UKTR Chinook
salmon ESU. In both cases, we found
that spring-run and fall-run Chinook
salmon populations in the UKTR Basin
were genetically very similar and not
reproductively isolated from each other.
The Petitioners contend the findings
from a recently published article on the
evolutionary basis of premature
migration in Pacific salmon (Prince et
al. 2017) indicate that spring-run
Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin
should be considered a separate ESU,
and therefore eligible to be listed as
threatened or endangered. Prince et al.
(2017) suggest that their results indicate
that premature migration (e.g. springrun Chinook salmon) arose from a single
evolutionary event within the species
and, if lost, are not likely to re-evolve
in time frames relevant to conservation
planning. Therefore, the Petitioners
contend that the new genetic
information indicates that spring-run
Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin
satisfy the criteria for a species to be
considered an ESU because: (1) They are
substantially reproductively isolated,
and (2) they represent an important
component in the evolutionary legacy of
the species. We have reviewed the new
genetic information and find that a
reasonable person may conclude that
spring-run Chinook salmon in the UKTR
Basin would qualify as an ESU pursuant
to our ESU Policy.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the information
contained in the petition, as well as
information readily available in our
files, we conclude the petition presents
substantial scientific information
indicating the petitioned actions to list
as threatened or endangered the UKTR
Chinook salmon ESU or, alternatively,
to create a new ESU to describe springrun Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin
and list the new ESU as threatened or
endangered may be warranted.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 Feb 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
Therefore, in accordance with section
4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA and NMFS’
implementing regulations (50 CFR
424.14(h)(2)), we will commence a
status review of the UKTR Chinook
salmon ESU. During our status review,
we will first consider the request to
designate a new ESU to describe springrun Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin
in light of our ESU Policy (56 FR 58612;
November 20, 1991). If we determine
that the spring-run component qualifies
as a separate ESU, then we will evaluate
its status to determine whether it is in
danger of extinction or likely to become
so within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Otherwise, we will evaluate
the status of the existing UKTR Chinook
salmon ESU to determine if it warrants
listing. As required by section 4(b)(3)(B)
of the ESA, we will publish a finding as
to whether listing an ESU as endangered
or threatened is warranted.
information concerning the impacts of
environmental variability and climate
change on survival, recruitment,
distribution, and/or extinction risk.
We are also requesting information on
areas that may qualify as critical habitat
for Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin.
Please identify: Physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species that may require special
management considerations; areas
occupied by the species containing
those physical and biological features;
and unoccupied areas essential for
conservation of the species (16 U.S.C.
1533(a)(3)(A); 50 CFR 424.12).
We request that all information be
accompanied by: (1) Supporting
documentation such as maps,
bibliographic references, or reprints of
pertinent publications; and (2) the
submitter’s name, address, and any
association, institution, or business that
the person represents.
Information Solicited
To ensure that our status review is
informed by the best available scientific
and commercial information, we are
opening a 60-day public comment
period to solicit information on Chinook
salmon in the UKTR Basin. We also
solicited information on Chinook
salmon in the UKTR Basin with our 90day finding on the previous petition (76
FR 20302; April 12, 2011). Therefore,
please do not re-submit information
submitted in response to that previous
finding. We request information from
the public, concerned governmental
agencies, Native American tribes, the
scientific community, agricultural and
forestry groups, conservation groups,
fishing groups, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning the current
and/or historical status of Chinook
salmon in the UKTR Basin. Specifically,
we request information regarding: (1)
Species abundance; (2) species
productivity; (3) species distribution or
population spatial structure; (4) patterns
of phenotypic, genotypic, and life
history diversity; (5) habitat conditions
and associated limiting factors and
threats; (6) ongoing or planned efforts to
protect and restore the species and their
habitats; (7) information on the
adequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms, whether protections are
being implemented, and whether they
are proving effective in conserving the
species; (8) data concerning the status
and trends of identified limiting factors
or threats; (9) information on targeted
harvest (commercial and recreational)
and bycatch of the species; (10) other
new information, data, or corrections
including, but not limited to, taxonomic
or nomenclatural changes; and (11)
References Cited
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The complete citations for the
references used in this document can be
obtained by contacting NMFS (See FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or on
our web page at: www.westcoast.
fisheries.noaa.gov.
Authority: The authority for this action is
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: February 21, 2018.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–03906 Filed 2–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 300
[Docket No. 171026999–8049–01]
RIN 0648–BH36
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Highly Migratory Fisheries;
Amendment 4 to Fishery Management
Plan for West Coast Highly Migratory
Species Fisheries; Revisions to the
Biennial Management Cycle
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Based on a recommendation
from the Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council) NMFS is proposing to
revise regulations under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA) to implement
Amendment 4 to the Fishery
Management Plan for U.S. West Coast
Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP).
The intent of Amendment 4 is to bring
descriptions of the management context
for HMS fisheries up to date, to better
describe the Council’s role in the
process of making stock status
determinations for highly migratory
species (HMS), including the Council’s
evaluations of the best scientific
information available (BSIA), and to
change the schedule of the Council’s
three-meeting biennial management
cycle for HMS stocks. Consistent with
Amendment 4, this proposed rule
would update and amend the
descriptions of biennial management
cycle activities in the regulations for the
HMS FMP to allow the Council to shift
the schedule of Council meetings for the
consideration of HMS management
actions from June, September, and
November to September, November, and
March. The changes proposed to
biennial management cycle activities
and the schedule are intended to better
streamline international and domestic
management processes for HMS.
Amendment 4 and this proposed rule
are administrative in nature and are not
expected to affect activities authorized
under the FMP or harvest levels of
HMS.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule
and supporting documents must be
submitted in writing by April 13, 2018.
However, please note that comments
regarding the decision to approve,
disapprove, or partially approve
Amendment 4 to the HMS FMP must be
submitted by the end of the comment
period for the Notice of Availability
(NOA) for Amendment 4, which was
published separately in the Federal
Register on January 23, 2018 (see the
NOA at 83 FR 3108).
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2017–0138, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docket
Detail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0138, click
the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete
the required fields, and enter or attach
your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Amber.Rhodes@noaa.gov, NMFS West
Coast Region Long Beach Office, 501 W.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 Feb 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach,
CA 90802. Include the identifier
‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2017–0138’’ in the
comments.
Instructions: Comments must be
submitted by one of the above methods
to ensure they are received,
documented, and considered by NMFS.
Comments sent by any other method, to
any other address or individual, or
received after the end of the comment
period, may not be considered. 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. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
Copies of the proposed Amendment 4,
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and
other supporting documents are
available via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov,
docket NOAA–NMFS–2017–0138, or
contact Amber Rhodes, NMFS West
Coast Region, 562–980–3231,
Amber.Rhodes@noaa.gov or Heidi
Taylor, NMFS West Coast Region, 562–
980–4039, Heidi.Taylor@noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amber Rhodes, NMFS, 562–980–3231,
Amber.Rhodes@noaa.gov or Heidi
Taylor, NMFS, 562–980–4039,
Heidi.Taylor@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
During the Council’s 2016 biennial
management cycle meetings for HMS
and considerations for recent revisions
to agency guidelines for National
Standard 1 (81 FR 71858, October 18,
2016), key differences became evident
regarding the management of HMS
stocks versus other Council-managed
stocks for which management activities
are largely or fully within the scope of
Council jurisdiction. In contrast to
assessments for other Council-managed
stocks, which are conducted by NMFS,
most HMS assessments are conducted
by teams of regional fishery
management organization (RFMO)
scientific committees, which may
include scientists from the United States
and other participating nations in
Pacific HMS fisheries or international
scientists who work at RFMOs.
Additionally, NMFS employs peer
review processes to determine whether
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8415
the output of international HMS
assessments meet the BSIA standard.
(See the August 16, 2016, notice of
regional peer review processes, 81 FR
54561.) These peer review processes are
consistent with BSIA determinations for
most U.S.-targeted stocks subject to
international agreements. Following
these steps, NMFS uses assessment
outputs that meet the BSIA standard to
determine stock status by applying the
status determination criteria (i.e.,
maximum fishing mortality thresholds
and minimum stock size thresholds) in
the HMS FMP.
During its September 2017 meeting,
the Council decided to submit
Amendment 4 to the HMS FMP to
NMFS for review. In a January 23, 2018,
Notice of Availability (83 FR 3108),
NMFS announced that the Council
submitted Amendment 4 to the
Secretary of Commerce for approval,
and requested comments on
Amendment 4. Amendment 4 intends to
bring descriptions of the management
context for HMS fisheries up to date and
to shift the schedule for the Council’s
biennial management cycle. Finalization
of this proposed rule to revise
regulations at 50 CFR 660.709 is
contingent upon approval of
Amendment 4 and NMFS responses to
comments received on this proposed
rule.
Amendment 4 is intended to better
align the Council’s biennial
management cycle for HMS with the
timing of international stock
assessments and stock status
determinations. Most HMS are
internationally assessed, and stock
assessments for HMS, unlike
assessments for domestically-managed
stocks, are not routinely subject to the
review of the Council’s Scientific and
Statistical Committee for purposes of
determining BSIA. Therefore, the results
from updated international assessments
that have been determined to be BSIA
may not be readily available to the
Council during their June and
September meetings for scoping,
determining alternatives, and selecting
preferred management
recommendations to address the status
of stocks deemed overfished or subject
to overfishing. Thus, these decisions
currently must occur on an ad hoc basis,
sometimes resulting in inefficiencies
and in difficulties in interpreting and
applying outdated information. The
changes to the current biennial
management cycle included in
Amendment 4 and implemented by this
proposed rule would allow the Council
to streamline domestic and international
management activities, such as stock
assessment and biological reference
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
8416
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
point reviews, and to better align
schedules to meet statutory timelines in
section 304(e) and (i) of the MSA (16
U.S.C. 1854(e) and (i)) for making
recommendations for domestic
regulations and international measures
when stocks are determined to be
overfished or subject to overfishing.
Additionally, this rule’s proposed
revisions to 50 CFR 660.709 would
ensure that the meeting schedule is not
codified in regulations, thus allowing
the Council to make changes to the
schedule for its meetings in the biennial
management cycle, consistent with the
HMS FMP, without needing to seek a
change in the regulatory language.
Allowing the Council to make this type
of adjustment without seeking a
regulatory change improves the
efficiency with which future changes to
the biennial management cycle can be
implemented.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Proposed Regulations
This proposed rule would amend 50
CFR 660.709 to update the descriptions
of biennial management cycle activities
under the HMS FMP and shift the
schedule of Council meetings from June,
September, and November to
September, November, and March by
referring to the schedule specified in the
HMS FMP. Thus, the proposed
regulations remove the need to make
future schedule changes to the Council’s
biennial management cycle through a
rulemaking.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of
the MSA (16 U.S.C. 1854(b)(1)(A)), the
NMFS Assistant Administrator has
determined that this proposed rule is
consistent with Amendment 4 to the
HMS FMP, other provisions of the MSA,
and other applicable laws, subject to
further consideration after public
comment.
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.
For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
purposes only, NMFS has established a
size standard for businesses, including
their affiliates, whose primary industry
is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR
200.2). A business primarily engaged in
commercial fishing (NAICS 11411) is
classified as a small business if it is
independently owned and operated, is
not dominant in its field of operation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 Feb 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
(including its affiliates), and has
combined annual receipts not in excess
of $11 million for all its affiliated
operations worldwide. However, this
proposed rule to revise regulations at 50
CFR 660.709, consistent with
Amendment 4 to the HMS FMP, is
administrative in nature and will not
directly affect the operations of any
businesses, small or large, that are
authorized to catch finfish under the
HMS FMP. Because the proposed action
does not include revisions to stock
status determination criteria (i.e.,
minimum stock size thresholds or
maximum fishing mortality thresholds)
used to determine whether management
unit species of the HMS FMP are subject
to overfishing or are overfished, the
proposed action will not directly affect
fishing activities authorized under the
HMS FMP or the harvest levels of these
fisheries. Therefore, there are no
significant economic impacts on a
substantial number of small entities. As
a result, an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required, and none has
been prepared.
There are no new collection-ofinformation requirements associated
with this action that are subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act; however,
existing collection-of-information
requirements associated with the HMS
FMP still apply. These requirements
have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB control
numbers 0648–0204, 0648–0223, 0648–
0361, 0648–0498). Notwithstanding any
other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, and no person
shall be subject to penalty for failure to
comply with, a collection-ofinformation subject to the requirements
of the PRA, unless that collection-ofinformation displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 22, 2018.
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 660 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST
COAST STATES
Subpart K—Highly Migratory Fisheries
1. The authority citation for part 660,
subpart K, continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2. In § 660.709, remove paragraphs
(a)(2) and (a)(3), redesignate paragraph
(a)(4) as (a)(2), and revise paragraphs
(a)(1) and (d) to read as follows:
■
§ 660.709
Annual specifications.
(a) Procedure. (1) Each year, the
HMSMT will deliver a stock assessment
and fishery evaluation report to the
Council for all HMS with any necessary
recommendations for harvest
guidelines, quotas or other management
measures to protect HMS, including
updated maximum sustainable yield
(MSY) and optimum yield (OY)
estimates based on the best available
science. The Council’s Scientific and
Statistical Committee may review the
estimates and make a recommendation
on their suitability for management. As
described in the fishery management
plan, the Council will periodically
review these recommendations and
decide whether to adopt updated
numerical estimates of MSY and OY,
which are then submitted as
recommendations for NMFS to review
as part of the management measures
review process.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Irrespective of the normal review
process, the Council may propose
management action to protect HMS at
any time. The Council may adopt a
management cycle different from the
one described in the fishery
management plan provided that such
change is made by a majority vote of the
Council and a 6-month notice of the
change is given.
[FR Doc. 2018–03963 Filed 2–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 600
[Docket No. 160908833–7999–01]
RIN 0648–BG34
Requirements of the Vessel Monitoring
System Type-Approval; Reopening of
Public Comment Period
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
public comment period.
AGENCY:
The National Marine
Fisheries Service is reopening the
public comment period on the proposed
rule on requirements of the Vessel
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8414-8416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03963]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 300
[Docket No. 171026999-8049-01]
RIN 0648-BH36
Fisheries Off West Coast States; Highly Migratory Fisheries;
Amendment 4 to Fishery Management Plan for West Coast Highly Migratory
Species Fisheries; Revisions to the Biennial Management Cycle
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 8415]]
SUMMARY: Based on a recommendation from the Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council) NMFS is proposing to revise regulations under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) to
implement Amendment 4 to the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West
Coast Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP). The intent of Amendment 4 is
to bring descriptions of the management context for HMS fisheries up to
date, to better describe the Council's role in the process of making
stock status determinations for highly migratory species (HMS),
including the Council's evaluations of the best scientific information
available (BSIA), and to change the schedule of the Council's three-
meeting biennial management cycle for HMS stocks. Consistent with
Amendment 4, this proposed rule would update and amend the descriptions
of biennial management cycle activities in the regulations for the HMS
FMP to allow the Council to shift the schedule of Council meetings for
the consideration of HMS management actions from June, September, and
November to September, November, and March. The changes proposed to
biennial management cycle activities and the schedule are intended to
better streamline international and domestic management processes for
HMS. Amendment 4 and this proposed rule are administrative in nature
and are not expected to affect activities authorized under the FMP or
harvest levels of HMS.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents must be
submitted in writing by April 13, 2018. However, please note that
comments regarding the decision to approve, disapprove, or partially
approve Amendment 4 to the HMS FMP must be submitted by the end of the
comment period for the Notice of Availability (NOA) for Amendment 4,
which was published separately in the Federal Register on January 23,
2018 (see the NOA at 83 FR 3108).
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2017-0138, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0138, click the
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or
attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to [email protected],
NMFS West Coast Region Long Beach Office, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite
4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Include the identifier ``NOAA-NMFS-2017-
0138'' in the comments.
Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above
methods to ensure they are received, documented, and considered by
NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be
considered. 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. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous).
Copies of the proposed Amendment 4, Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)
and other supporting documents are available via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA-NMFS-2017-
0138, or contact Amber Rhodes, NMFS West Coast Region, 562-980-3231,
[email protected] or Heidi Taylor, NMFS West Coast Region, 562-980-
4039, [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Rhodes, NMFS, 562-980-3231,
[email protected] or Heidi Taylor, NMFS, 562-980-4039,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
During the Council's 2016 biennial management cycle meetings for
HMS and considerations for recent revisions to agency guidelines for
National Standard 1 (81 FR 71858, October 18, 2016), key differences
became evident regarding the management of HMS stocks versus other
Council-managed stocks for which management activities are largely or
fully within the scope of Council jurisdiction. In contrast to
assessments for other Council-managed stocks, which are conducted by
NMFS, most HMS assessments are conducted by teams of regional fishery
management organization (RFMO) scientific committees, which may include
scientists from the United States and other participating nations in
Pacific HMS fisheries or international scientists who work at RFMOs.
Additionally, NMFS employs peer review processes to determine whether
the output of international HMS assessments meet the BSIA standard.
(See the August 16, 2016, notice of regional peer review processes, 81
FR 54561.) These peer review processes are consistent with BSIA
determinations for most U.S.-targeted stocks subject to international
agreements. Following these steps, NMFS uses assessment outputs that
meet the BSIA standard to determine stock status by applying the status
determination criteria (i.e., maximum fishing mortality thresholds and
minimum stock size thresholds) in the HMS FMP.
During its September 2017 meeting, the Council decided to submit
Amendment 4 to the HMS FMP to NMFS for review. In a January 23, 2018,
Notice of Availability (83 FR 3108), NMFS announced that the Council
submitted Amendment 4 to the Secretary of Commerce for approval, and
requested comments on Amendment 4. Amendment 4 intends to bring
descriptions of the management context for HMS fisheries up to date and
to shift the schedule for the Council's biennial management cycle.
Finalization of this proposed rule to revise regulations at 50 CFR
660.709 is contingent upon approval of Amendment 4 and NMFS responses
to comments received on this proposed rule.
Amendment 4 is intended to better align the Council's biennial
management cycle for HMS with the timing of international stock
assessments and stock status determinations. Most HMS are
internationally assessed, and stock assessments for HMS, unlike
assessments for domestically-managed stocks, are not routinely subject
to the review of the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee for
purposes of determining BSIA. Therefore, the results from updated
international assessments that have been determined to be BSIA may not
be readily available to the Council during their June and September
meetings for scoping, determining alternatives, and selecting preferred
management recommendations to address the status of stocks deemed
overfished or subject to overfishing. Thus, these decisions currently
must occur on an ad hoc basis, sometimes resulting in inefficiencies
and in difficulties in interpreting and applying outdated information.
The changes to the current biennial management cycle included in
Amendment 4 and implemented by this proposed rule would allow the
Council to streamline domestic and international management activities,
such as stock assessment and biological reference
[[Page 8416]]
point reviews, and to better align schedules to meet statutory
timelines in section 304(e) and (i) of the MSA (16 U.S.C. 1854(e) and
(i)) for making recommendations for domestic regulations and
international measures when stocks are determined to be overfished or
subject to overfishing. Additionally, this rule's proposed revisions to
50 CFR 660.709 would ensure that the meeting schedule is not codified
in regulations, thus allowing the Council to make changes to the
schedule for its meetings in the biennial management cycle, consistent
with the HMS FMP, without needing to seek a change in the regulatory
language. Allowing the Council to make this type of adjustment without
seeking a regulatory change improves the efficiency with which future
changes to the biennial management cycle can be implemented.
Proposed Regulations
This proposed rule would amend 50 CFR 660.709 to update the
descriptions of biennial management cycle activities under the HMS FMP
and shift the schedule of Council meetings from June, September, and
November to September, November, and March by referring to the schedule
specified in the HMS FMP. Thus, the proposed regulations remove the
need to make future schedule changes to the Council's biennial
management cycle through a rulemaking.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the MSA (16 U.S.C.
1854(b)(1)(A)), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that
this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 4 to the HMS FMP, other
provisions of the MSA, and other applicable laws, subject to further
consideration after public comment.
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.
For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has
established a size standard for businesses, including their affiliates,
whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A
business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS 11411) is
classified as a small business if it is independently owned and
operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its
affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11
million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. However, this
proposed rule to revise regulations at 50 CFR 660.709, consistent with
Amendment 4 to the HMS FMP, is administrative in nature and will not
directly affect the operations of any businesses, small or large, that
are authorized to catch finfish under the HMS FMP. Because the proposed
action does not include revisions to stock status determination
criteria (i.e., minimum stock size thresholds or maximum fishing
mortality thresholds) used to determine whether management unit species
of the HMS FMP are subject to overfishing or are overfished, the
proposed action will not directly affect fishing activities authorized
under the HMS FMP or the harvest levels of these fisheries. Therefore,
there are no significant economic impacts on a substantial number of
small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
is not required, and none has been prepared.
There are no new collection-of-information requirements associated
with this action that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act;
however, existing collection-of-information requirements associated
with the HMS FMP still apply. These requirements have been approved by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB control numbers 0648-0204,
0648-0223, 0648-0361, 0648-0498). Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be
subject to 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.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 22, 2018.
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 660 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES
Subpart K--Highly Migratory Fisheries
0
1. The authority citation for part 660, subpart K, continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 660.709, remove paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3), redesignate
paragraph (a)(4) as (a)(2), and revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 660.709 Annual specifications.
(a) Procedure. (1) Each year, the HMSMT will deliver a stock
assessment and fishery evaluation report to the Council for all HMS
with any necessary recommendations for harvest guidelines, quotas or
other management measures to protect HMS, including updated maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) and optimum yield (OY) estimates based on the
best available science. The Council's Scientific and Statistical
Committee may review the estimates and make a recommendation on their
suitability for management. As described in the fishery management
plan, the Council will periodically review these recommendations and
decide whether to adopt updated numerical estimates of MSY and OY,
which are then submitted as recommendations for NMFS to review as part
of the management measures review process.
* * * * *
(d) Irrespective of the normal review process, the Council may
propose management action to protect HMS at any time. The Council may
adopt a management cycle different from the one described in the
fishery management plan provided that such change is made by a majority
vote of the Council and a 6-month notice of the change is given.
[FR Doc. 2018-03963 Filed 2-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
