Federal Register Vol. 83, No.145,

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0689; Product Identifier 2018-CE-016-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this NPRM.

We received reports of disbonding and accompanying surface cracking of the composite aft pressure bulkhead on Gulfstream Model G-IV airplanes. Gulfstream Model GIV-X airplanes have the same type design. During scheduled maintenance, areas with disbonding and accompanying surface cracks were found. Operational pressure loads by-passing the disbonded facesheet caused wrinkling or compression failure and led to the surface cracking. This condition, if not addressed, could result in structural failure of the bulkhead and loss of cabin pressure.

Airplanes maintained under Gulfstream's Maintenance Steering Group (MSG-3) maintenance program do not have a scheduled tap test inspection of the aft pressure bulkhead. Model G-IV airplanes with a serial number (S/N) 1400 through 1535, and Model GIV-X airplanes with a S/N 4001 through 4004 adopted the MSG-3 maintenance program in production. Airplanes produced earlier may change to the MSG-3 program by following the instructions in Aircraft Service Change (ASC) No. 416A, dated September 29, 2000.

We reviewed Gulfstream G300 Customer Bulletin Number 243; Gulfstream G350 Customer Bulletin Number 198; Gulfstream G400 Customer Bulletin Number 243; Gulfstream G450 Customer Bulletin Number 198; and Gulfstream IV Customer Bulletin Number 243; all dated January 25, 2018. For the applicable airplanes, the service information describes procedures for inspecting the composite panels of the forward and aft pressure bulkhead for damage and repairing any damage found. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We also reviewed ASC No. 416A, dated September 29, 2000, which contains instructions for changing the maintenance program for Model G-IV airplanes from the airplane's existing program to the MSG-3 maintenance program.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 709 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The extent of damage found during the proposed inspection may vary from airplane to airplane. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need repairs or the cost of such repairs for each airplane.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wayne County Airport, Wooster, OH, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0370/Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-11.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wayne County Airport, Wooster, OH, by removing the extension to the east associated with the Smith non-directional radio beacon. The geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Exclusionary language would be removed as it is no longer required. Also, the name of the city associated with the airport in the airspace description would be removed to comply with a change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Tiverton VOR as part of the VOR MON Program.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Purpose of This Regulatory Action: The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for CMO grants. The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for future competitions, following publication of a notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in the Federal Register. We take this action in order to support the effective and efficient use of CSP funds in the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools throughout the Nation, particularly those that serve Educationally Disadvantaged Students, such as students who are Individuals from Low-income Families, and students who traditionally have been underserved by charter schools, such as students who are Indians and students in Rural Communities.

Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement proposes this regulatory action to achieve two main goals.

First, we seek to continue to use funds under this program to support high-quality applications from highly qualified applicants. To that end, this document includes proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria that would encourage or require applicants to describe, for example: Past successes working with Academically Poor-performing Public Schools; experience operating or managing multiple charter schools; plans to expand their reach into new and diverse communities; logical connections between their proposed projects and intended outcomes for the students they propose to serve; and plans to evaluate the extent to which their proposed projects, if funded, yield intended outcomes.

Second, these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are designed to increase the likelihood that CMO grants support expanded high-quality educational opportunities for Educationally Disadvantaged Students, including students who are Individuals from Low-income Families, children with disabilities, and English learners, as well as students who traditionally have been underserved by charter schools, such as students who are Indians and students in Rural Communities. Specifically, we propose priorities for applicants that would: Replicate or expand high-quality charter schools with an intentional focus on recruiting students from racially and socioeconomically diverse backgrounds, and maintaining racially and socially diverse student bodies; demonstrate that a meaningful proportion of the students served by the applicant are Individuals from Low-income Families; and replicate or expand high-quality charter schools that serve high school students, students in Rural Communities, or students who are Indians. Further, we propose requirements for CMO applicants to describe how the schools they intend to replicate or expand would recruit and enroll Educationally Disadvantaged Students and support such students in mastering State academic standards.

In addition to the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we include in an Appendix the priorities, key requirements, definitions, and selection criteria from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA), and Federal regulations that are relevant to the CMO program and to the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. The priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in the Appendix are included for reference.

Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that the benefits of this regulatory action outweigh any associated costs, which we believe would be minimal. While this action would impose cost-bearing requirements on participating CMOs, we expect that CMO applicants would include requests for funds to cover such costs in their proposed project budgets. We believe this regulatory action would strengthen accountability for the use of Federal funds by helping to ensure that the Department awards CSP grants to CMOs that are most capable of expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available to our Nation's students. Please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis in this document for a more detailed discussion of costs and benefits.

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection criterion that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of this program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4W228, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Purpose of Program: The major purposes of the CSP are to: Expand opportunities for all students, particularly students facing educational disadvantages and students who traditionally have been underserved by charter schools, to attend high-quality charter schools and meet challenging State academic standards; provide financial assistance for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of public charter schools; increase the number of high-quality charter schools available to students across the United States; evaluate the impact of charter schools on student achievement, families, and communities; share best practices between charter schools and other public schools; encourage States to provide facilities support to charter schools; and support efforts to strengthen the charter school authorizing process. Through the CMO grant program, the Department provides funds to CMOs on a competitive basis to enable them to replicate or expand one or more high-quality charter schools. More specifically, grant funds may be used to expand the enrollment of one or more existing high-quality charter schools, or to open one or more high-quality charter schools by replicating an existing high-quality charter school model.

Proposed Priorities:

This document contains seven proposed priorities.

Proposed Priority 1—Promoting Diversity.

Background: The CSP authorizing statute includes a priority under the CMO grant program for eligible entities that plan to operate or manage high-quality charter schools with racially and socioeconomically diverse student bodies. The proposed priority is based on the statutory priority, but would specify that the schools must have an intentional focus on racial and socioeconomic diversity. Accordingly, the proposed priority would help ensure that the Department targets for funding those CMOs taking active steps to promote racial and economic diversity in their schools, which we believe is consistent with the intent of the statutory priority.

A similar priority was included as a competitive preference priority in the FY 2017 notice inviting applications for this program (82 FR 4322) (FY 2017 NIA).

Proposed Priority: Under this priority, applicants must propose to replicate or expand high-quality charter schools that have an intentional focus on recruiting students from racially and socioeconomically diverse backgrounds and maintaining racially and socioeconomically diverse student bodies.

Proposed Priority 2—School Improvement through Restart Efforts.

Background: The CSP authorizing statute includes a priority under the CMO grant program for eligible entities that demonstrate success in working with schools identified by the State for comprehensive support and improvement under section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i) of the ESEA. States must identify schools for comprehensive support and improvement at the beginning of the 2018-19 school year. This proposed priority incorporates the statutory priority but, in order to meet the priority, the applicant also would be required to use CMO grant funds to support school improvement efforts by restarting an Academically Poor-performing Public School. We believe that the restart model (i.e., reopening a low-performing traditional public school under the management of a charter school developer or CMO, or reopening a low-performing public charter school under the management of a different charter school developer or CMO) holds promise as a school improvement strategy, but data suggest that it has been under-utilized thus far.2 Accordingly, the proposed priority is intended to help increase the frequency of implementation of the restart model. The proposed priority also would allow applicants to demonstrate past success through work with persistently-lowest achieving schools or priority schools (i.e., schools identified for interventions under the former School Improvement Grant program or in States that exercised “ESEA flexibility,” respectively, under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001).

In future CMO competitions that include this priority, we would encourage applicants to review CSP technical assistance materials pertaining to how an applicant may design an admissions lottery for an Academically Poor-performing Public School that the applicant is proposing to restart. Under the most recent version of the CSP nonregulatory guidance, for example, a charter school receiving CSP funds could, if permissible under applicable State law, exempt from its lottery students who are enrolled in the Academically Poor-performing Public School at the time it is restarted.

A similar priority was included as a competitive preference priority in the FY 2017 NIA.

Proposed Priority: Under this priority, the Secretary considers the extent to which applications—

(a) Demonstrate past success working with one or more Academically Poor-performing Public Schools or schools that previously were designated as persistently lowest-achieving schools or priority schools under the former School Improvement Grant program or in States that exercised ESEA flexibility, respectively, under the ESEA, as amended by NCLB; and

(b) Propose to use grant funds under this program to restart one or more Academically Poor-performing Public Schools as charter schools during the project period by—

(i) Replicating one or more high-quality charter schools based on a successful charter school model for which the applicant has provided evidence of success; and

(ii) Targeting a demographically similar student population in the replicated charter schools as was served by the Academically Poor-performing Public Schools.

Proposed Priority 3—High School Students.

Background: Section 4305(b)(5)(C) of the ESEA authorizes the Secretary to give priority to applicants that propose to expand or replicate high-quality charter schools that serve high school students. In addition, section 4310(2)(M) of the ESEA authorizes charter schools that serve postsecondary students to receive CSP funds. The proposed priority incorporates the language of the statutory priority but, in order to meet the priority, applicants also would be required to replicate or expand charter high schools that offer programs and activities designed to prepare high school students for enrollment in a two- or four-year institution of higher education and, drawing from the authority provided in section 4310(2)(M), support such students after high school graduation in persisting in college and attaining degrees. The Department believes the proposed priority would complement broader efforts to promote a culture of lifelong learning and increase postsecondary participation, attendance, persistence, and degree attainment among our Nation's high school graduates.

Proposed Priority: Under this priority, applicants must propose to—

(i) Expand or replicate high-quality charter schools to serve high school students;

(ii) Prepare students in those schools for enrollment in a two- or four-year institution of higher education through programs and activities such as, but not limited to, accelerated learning programs (including Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses and programs, dual or concurrent enrollment programs, and early college high schools), college counseling, career counseling, internships, work-based learning programs (such as apprenticeships), assisting students in the college admissions and financial aid application processes, and preparing students to take standardized college admissions tests;

(iii) Provide support for students who graduate from those schools and enroll in a two- or four-year institution of higher education in persisting in, and attaining a degree from, such institutions, through programs and activities such as, but not limited to, mentorships, ongoing assistance with the financial aid application process, and establishing or strengthening peer support systems for such students attending the same institution; and

(iv) Propose one or more project-specific performance measures, including aligned leading indicators or other interim milestones, that will provide valid and reliable information about the applicant's progress in preparing students for enrolling in an institution of higher education and in supporting those students in persisting in and attaining a degree from such institutions. An applicant addressing this priority and receiving a grant under this program must provide data that are responsive to the measure(s), including performance targets, in its annual performance reports to the Department.

Proposed Priority 4—Low-Income Demographic.

Background: The proposed priority is for applicants with experience serving concentrations of students who are Individuals from Low-income Families and is intended to support efforts to increase the number of high-quality educational options available to such students, particularly in the Nation's high-poverty areas. We propose three subparts to this proposed priority, each of which would require that the schools the applicant operates or manages serve a specific minimum percentage of students who are Individuals from Low-income Families over the course of the CMO grant project period. The Secretary would have flexibility to choose one or more of the subparts of this priority in a given competition. We believe such flexibility is necessary to enable the Secretary to accommodate the range of eligible applicants and schools that may need support in a given year. The Department has included a similar priority in prior CMO competitions.

The Department expects that the charter schools proposed to be replicated or expanded by an applicant meeting this proposed priority would serve, for the duration of the grant period, a percentage of students who are Individuals from Low-income Families that is comparable to the minimum percentage of such students established under the priority for a given year.

Proposed Priority: Under this priority, applicants must demonstrate one of the following—

(i) That at least 40 percent of the students across all of the charter schools the applicant operates or manages are Individuals from Low-income Families;

(ii) That at least 50 percent of the students across all of the charter schools the applicant operates or manages are Individuals from Low-income Families; or

(iii) That at least 60 percent of the students across all of the charter schools the applicant operates or manages are Individuals from Low-income Families.

Proposed Priority 5—Number of Charter Schools Operated or Managed by the Eligible Applicant.

Background: We propose this priority to enable the Department to distinguish applicants based on the number of charter schools they currently operate or manage. We propose three subparts for this priority, each of which would require that the applicant currently operate or manage a different number of schools. The Secretary would have the flexibility to choose one or more of the subparts of this priority in a given competition. This priority would give the Department flexibility to respond to changing funding needs in the charter school sector by, for example, targeting support toward smaller CMOs (i.e., CMOs that currently operate or manage no more than five charter schools) as they begin to expand, or toward larger, more established CMOs that seek to serve new communities. In addition, given that the CSP statute, as reauthorized under the ESEA, now also allows State entities to award subgrants for the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools, this priority would enable the Department to focus its grant-making, as appropriate, based on new and evolving support for the replication and expansion of charter schools at the State level.

Proposed Priority: Under this priority, applicants must demonstrate one of the following—

(i) That they currently operate or manage two to five charter schools;

(ii) That they currently operate or manage six to 20 charter schools; or

(iii) That they currently operate or manage 21 or more charter schools.

Proposed Priority 6—Geographic Location of Charter Schools Proposed to Be Replicated or Expanded.

Background: We propose this priority to enable the Department to provide incentives for applicants to propose to replicate or expand high-quality charter schools in Rural Communities. There is too often a relative dearth of high-quality educational options for students in Rural Communities, and our experience implementing this and other discretionary grant programs has taught us that these communities often face unique obstacles to educational success. This proposed priority would allow the Department flexibility to provide an incentive for applicants proposing to replicate or expand high-quality charter schools in Rural Communities, including by evaluating such applications separately from applications proposing to replicate or expand high-quality charter schools in non-rural communities, thereby allowing for an “apples-to-apples” comparison. Accordingly, this proposed priority would help ensure that students in Rural Communities have access to a range of educational options similar to that available to their peers in suburban and urban areas, and from which parents can select an option that best meets their child's needs.

Proposed Priority: Under this priority, applicants must propose to replicate or expand one or more high-quality charter schools in a:

(i) Rural Community; or

(ii) Community that is not a Rural Community.

Proposed Priority 7—Replicating or Expanding High-quality Charter Schools to Serve Students who are Indians.

Background: We propose this priority to enable the Department to provide an incentive for applicants that propose to replicate or expand high-quality charter schools by conducting targeted outreach and recruitment in order to serve a High Proportion of students who are Indians. We propose to define “High Proportion” in a way that would enable the Department to determine whether a replicated or expanded charter school serves a High Proportion of students who are Indians on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the unique factual circumstances of that school.

In order to meet the priority, an applicant would be required to provide a letter of support from one or more Indian Tribes or Indian Organizations located within the area to be served by the replicated or expanded charter school, and to demonstrate a commitment to meaningfully collaborate with the Indian Tribes or Indian Organizations in a timely, active, and ongoing manner. In addition, the applicant would have to demonstrate that the replicated or expanded charter school's mission and educational program will address the unique educational needs of students who are Indians, and that such school's governing board will have a substantial percentage of members who are members of Indian Tribes or Indian Organizations located within the area to be served by the charter school.

Priority: Under this priority, applicants must—

(i) Propose to replicate or expand one or more high-quality charter schools that—

(I) Utilize targeted outreach and recruitment in order to serve a High Proportion of students who are Indians;

(II) Have a mission and academic program that will address the unique educational needs of students who are Indians, including through the use of instructional programs and teaching methods that reflect and preserve Indian language, culture, and history; and

(III) Have a governing board with a substantial percentage of members who are members of Indian Tribes or Indian Organizations located within the area to be served by the replicated or expanded charter school;

(ii) Submit a letter of support, from at least one Indian Tribe or Indian Organization located within the area to be served by the replicated or expanded charter school; and

(iii) Demonstrate a commitment to meaningfully collaborate with the Indian Tribe(s) or Indian Organization(s) from which the applicant has received a letter of support in a timely, active, and ongoing manner with respect to the development and implementation of the educational program at the charter school.

Types of Priorities:

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Proposed Requirements:

Background: The ESEA includes several requirements for applications submitted under this program. We have listed the statutory application requirements in the Appendix for reference. In addition to the specific statutory requirements, section 4305(c) of the ESEA requires grants awarded to CMOs to have the “same terms and conditions as grants awarded to State entities under section 4303.” We propose some requirements for this program that apply to State entity grants under section 4303(f). We have included in the Appendix to this document other requirements in section 4303(f) that we intend to apply to CMO grants but that do not require rulemaking. In applying the latter requirements to CMO grants, references to “State entity” and “State entity program” must be read as references to “charter management organization” and “grant award,” respectively.

In general, the Department believes, based on past experience administering this program, that these proposed requirements are necessary for the proper consideration of applications for CMO grants and would increase the likelihood of success of applicants' proposed projects, thereby contributing to the efficient use of taxpayer dollars in expanding the high-quality educational options available to our Nation's students. In accordance with section 4305(c), these proposed requirements would not preclude the Department from applying other terms and conditions applicable to State entity grants to CMO grants in FY 2019 or future years.

Proposed Requirements: The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement proposes the following requirements for this program. We would apply one or more of these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.

Applicants for funds under this program must meet one or more of the following requirements—

(a) Demonstrate that the applicant currently operates or manages more than one charter school. For purposes of this program, multiple charter schools are considered to be separate schools if each school—

(i) Meets each element of the definition of “charter school” under section 4310(2) of the ESEA; and

(ii) Is treated as a separate school by its authorized public chartering agency and the State in which the charter school is located, including for purposes of accountability and reporting under title I, part A of the ESEA.

(b) Provide information regarding any compliance issues and how they were resolved, for any charter schools operated or managed by the applicant that have—

(i) Closed;

(ii) Had their charter(s) revoked due to problems with statutory or regulatory compliance, including compliance with sections 4310(2)(G) and (J) of the ESEA; or

(iii) Had their affiliation with the applicant revoked or terminated, including through voluntary disaffiliation.

(c) Provide a complete logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) for the grant project. The logic model must include the applicant's objectives for replicating or expanding one or more high-quality charter schools with funding under this program, including the number of high-quality charter schools the applicant proposes to replicate or expand.

(d) If the applicant currently operates, or is proposing to replicate or expand, a single-sex charter school or coeducational charter school that provides a single-sex class or extracurricular activity (collectively referred to as a “single-sex educational program”), demonstrate that the existing or proposed single-sex educational program is in compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681, et seq.) (Title IX) and its implementing regulations, including 34 CFR 106.34.

(e) Describe how the applicant currently operates or manages the high-quality charter schools for which it has presented evidence of success and how the proposed replicated or expanded charter schools will be operated or managed, including the legal relationship between the applicant and its schools. If a legal entity other than the applicant has entered or will enter into a performance contract with an authorized public chartering agency to operate one or more of the applicant's schools, the applicant must also describe its relationship with that entity.

(f) Describe how the applicant will solicit and consider input from parents and other members of the community on the implementation and operation of each replicated or expanded charter school, including in the area of school governance.

(g) Describe the lottery and enrollment procedures that will be used for each replicated or expanded charter school if more students apply for admission than can be accommodated, including how any proposed weighted lottery complies with section 4303(c)(3)(A) of the ESEA.

(h) Describe how the applicant will ensure that all eligible students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education in accordance with part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

(i) Describe how the proposed project will assist Educationally Disadvantaged Students in mastering challenging State academic standards.

(j) Provide a budget narrative, aligned with the activities, target grant project outputs, and outcomes described in the logic model, that outlines how Federal grant funds will be expended to carry out planned activities.

(k) Provide the applicant's most recent independently audited financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

(l) Describe the applicant's policies and procedures to assist students enrolled in a charter school that closes or loses its charter to attend other high-quality schools.

(m) Provide—

(A) A request and justification for waivers of any Federal statutory or regulatory provisions that the eligible entity believes are necessary for the successful operation of the charter schools to be replicated or expanded; and

(B) A description of any State or local rules, generally applicable to public schools, that will be waived, or otherwise not apply to such schools.

Proposed Definitions:

The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement proposes the following definitions for this program. We may apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.

Background: In order to ensure common understanding of the proposed priorities, requirements, and selection criteria, we propose nine definitions of terms that are critical to the policy and statutory purposes of the CMO grant program. We propose these definitions in order to clarify expectations for eligible entities applying for CMO grants and to ensure that the review process for applications for CMO grants remains as transparent as possible. The proposed definition for Educationally Disadvantaged Students is based on section 1115(c)(2) of the ESEA, the proposed definition for Indian is taken from section 6151(3) of the ESEA, the proposed definition for Indian Organization is from 34 CFR 263.3, and the proposed definition for Indian Tribe is from section 6132(b)(2) of the ESEA.

Academically poor-performing public school means:

(a) A school identified by the State for comprehensive support and improvement under section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i) of the ESEA; or

(b) A public school otherwise identified by the State, or in the case of a charter school, its authorized public chartering agency, as similarly academically poor-performing.

Educationally disadvantaged student means a student in one or more of the categories described in section 1115(c)(2) of the ESEA, which include children who are economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, migrant students, English learners, neglected or delinquent students, homeless students, and students who are in foster care.

High proportion, when used to refer to students who are Indians, is a fact-specific, case-by-case determination based upon the unique circumstances of a particular charter school or proposed charter school. The Secretary considers “high proportion” to include a majority of students who are Indians. In addition, the Secretary may determine that less than a majority of students who are Indians constitutes a “high proportion” based on the unique circumstances of a particular charter school or proposed charter school, as described in the application for funds.

Indian means an individual who is—

(A) A member of an Indian tribe or band, as membership is defined by the tribe or band, including—

(i) Any tribe or band terminated since 1940; and

(ii) Any tribe or band recognized by the State in which the tribe or band resides;

(B) A descendant, in the first or second degree, of an individual described in subparagraph (A);

(C) Considered by the Secretary of the Interior to be an Indian for any purpose;

(D) An Eskimo, Aleut, or other Alaska Native; or

(E) A member of an organized Indian group that received a grant under the Indian Education Act of 1988 as in effect the day preceding the date of enactment of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994.

Indian organization means an organization that—

(1) Is legally established—

(i) By tribal or inter-tribal charter or in accordance with State or tribal law; and

(ii) With appropriate constitution, by-laws, or articles of incorporation;

(2) Includes in its purposes the promotion of the education of Indians;

(3) Is controlled by a governing board, the majority of which is Indian;

(4) If located on an Indian reservation, operates with the sanction or by charter of the governing body of that reservation;

(5) Is neither an organization or subdivision of, nor under the direct control of, any institution of higher education; and

(6) Is not an agency of State or local government.

Indian tribe means a federally-recognized or a State-recognized tribe.

Individual from a low-income family means an individual who is determined by a State educational agency or local educational agency to be a child from a low-income family on the basis of (a) data used by the Secretary to determine allocations under section 1124 of the ESEA, (b) data on children eligible for free or reduced-price lunches under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, (c) data on children in families receiving assistance under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act, (d) data on children eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, or (e) an alternate method that combines or extrapolates from the data in items (a) through (d) of this definition.

Rural community means a community that is served by a local educational agency that is eligible to apply for funds under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under title V, part B of the ESEA. Applicants may determine whether a particular local educational agency is eligible for these programs by referring to information on the following Department websites. For the SRSA program: www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible16/index.html. For the RLIS program: www2.ed.gov/programs/reaprlisp/eligibility.html.

Proposed Selection Criteria:

Background: The ESEA includes three selection criteria for the CMO grant program, which are included in the Appendix for reference. We propose a criterion that would expand upon those included in the authorizing statute, as well as three other criteria. Based on past experience implementing the CMO grant program, we believe that these additional criteria will be valuable tools for peer reviewers to evaluate the quality of CMO applications in future years.

Specifically, proposed selection criterion (a) “Quality of the Eligible Applicant” derives from the ESEA selection criteria for this program, under which the Department considers the degree to which an applicant has demonstrated success in increasing student academic achievement and whether charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have been closed or have encountered statutory or regulatory compliance issues. The proposed criterion would expand on the statutory criteria by examining the extent to which academic achievement results for Educationally Disadvantaged Students attending an applicant's schools have exceeded State averages for such students in the State. Further, we propose to incorporate into this criterion language from the ESEA definition of “high-quality charter school” that would enable reviewers also to consider any significant issues that an applicant's charter schools have encountered in the areas of financial or operational management and student safety. The Department believes that these proposed selection factors would align with the intent of the authorizing statute and would bolster our ability to select high-quality CMO applicants.

Proposed selection criterion (b) “Contribution in assisting Educationally Disadvantaged Students” would focus on the contribution the proposed project would make in expanding educational opportunities for Educationally Disadvantaged Students and enabling those students to meet challenging State academic standards. This proposed criterion would allow the Department to assess the extent to which each proposed project aligns with a major statutory purpose of the CSP: To expand opportunities for Educationally Disadvantaged Students. This criterion would encourage applicants to discuss (1) their current capacity to serve Educationally Disadvantaged Students, including students with disabilities and English learners, and to compare that capacity to that of surrounding public schools, and (2) their plans for replicating or expanding high-quality charter schools that will recruit and enroll Educationally Disadvantaged Students.

Proposed selection criterion (c) “Quality of the evaluation plan for the proposed project” would examine how applicants would evaluate their proposed projects. It is crucial that the Department invest its limited discretionary funding in projects that are based on a reasoned theory and that are likely to yield information that can be used to continue to expand high-quality educational options for students. This criterion would allow the Department to assess the extent to which each CMO applicant: Has based its proposed project on a logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) that links the planned inputs and outputs to clearly defined intended outcomes of the project; will use objective performance measures to ensure that the project remains on track to meet stated objectives; and will be able to produce qualitative and quantitative data by the end of the grant period.

Finally, proposed selection criterion (d) “Quality of the management plan and personnel” would allow applicants to highlight the management plan for their proposed project, the qualifications of key project personnel, and the potential for sustaining the charter schools included in the proposed project after the grant has expired. While similar selection factors exist in the general selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210, our intent for this proposed selection criterion is to focus on the extent to which the applicant could demonstrate its specific experience with, and proposed management plan for, replicating or expanding high-quality charter schools. We believe, based on past experience implementing this program, that the proposed criterion is appropriate to ascertain the likelihood of an applicant's success.

Proposed Selection Criteria: The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement proposes the following selection criteria for evaluating an application under this program. We may apply one or more of these criteria in any year in which this program is in effect. In the NIA, we will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each criterion.

The Secretary will select eligible entities to receive grants under this program on the basis of the quality of such applications, after taking into consideration one or more of the following selection criteria:

(a) Quality of the eligible applicant. In determining the quality of the eligible applicant, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the academic achievement results (including annual student performance on statewide assessments and annual student attendance and retention rates, and where applicable and available, student academic growth, high school graduation rates, college attendance rates, and college persistence rates) for Educationally Disadvantaged Students served by the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have exceeded the average academic achievement results for such students in the State.

(ii) The extent to which one or more charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have closed; have had a charter revoked due to noncompliance with statutory or regulatory requirements; or have had their affiliation with the applicant revoked or terminated, including through voluntary disaffiliation.

(iii) The extent to which one or more charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have had any significant issues in the area of financial or operational management or student safety or have otherwise experienced significant problems with statutory or regulatory compliance that could lead to revocation of the school's charter.

(b) Contribution in assisting Educationally Disadvantaged Students.

The significance of the contribution the proposed project will make in expanding educational opportunities for Educationally Disadvantaged Students and enabling those students to meet challenging State academic standards. In determining the significance of the contribution the proposed project will make, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

(i) The extent to which charter schools currently operated or managed by the applicant serve Educationally Disadvantaged Students, including students with disabilities and English learners, at rates comparable to surrounding public schools or, in the case of virtual charter schools, at rates comparable to public schools in the State.

(ii) The quality of the plan to ensure that the charter schools the applicant proposes to replicate or expand will recruit and enroll Educationally Disadvantaged Students.

(c) Quality of the evaluation plan for the proposed project.

In determining the quality of the evaluation plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the proposed project, as articulated in the applicant's logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), and that will produce quantitative and qualitative data by the end of the grant period.

(d) Quality of the management plan.

In determining the quality of the applicant's management plan, the Secretary considers the ability of the applicant to sustain the operation of the replicated or expanded charter schools after the grant has ended, as demonstrated by the multi-year financial and operating model required under section 4305(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the ESEA.

Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria:

We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in a document in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria after considering public comments and other information available to the Department. This document does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

The Department believes that this regulatory action would not impose significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in this program is voluntary. While this action would impose some requirements on participating CMOs that are cost-bearing, the Department expects that applicants for this program would include in their proposed budgets a request for funds to support compliance with such cost-bearing requirements. Therefore, costs associated with meeting these requirements are, in the Department's estimation, minimal.

This regulatory action would strengthen accountability for the use of Federal funds by helping to ensure that the Department selects for CSP grants the CMOs that are most capable of expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available to our Nation's students, consistent with a major purpose of the CSP as described in section 4301(3) of the ESEA. The Department believes that these benefits to the Federal government and to SEAs outweigh the costs associated with this action.

The Department believes that the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are needed to administer the program effectively. As an alternative to promulgating the proposed selection criteria, the Department could choose from among the selection criteria authorized for CSP grants to CMOs in section 4305(b) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221c) and the general selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210. We do not believe that these criteria provide a sufficient basis on which to evaluate the quality of applications. In particular, the criteria would not sufficiently enable the Department to assess an applicant's past performance with respect to the operation of high-quality charter schools or with respect to compliance issues that the applicant has encountered.

We note that several of the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are based on priorities, requirements, definitions, selection criteria, and other provisions in the authorizing statute for this program.

As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of this regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the changes in annual monetized transfers as a result of this regulatory action. Expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal Government to SEAs.

Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two deregulatory actions. For Fiscal Year 2018, any new incremental costs associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. However, Executive Order 13771 does not apply to “transfer rules” that cause only income transfers between taxpayers and program beneficiaries, such as those regarding discretionary grant programs. These proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria would be utilized in connection with a discretionary grant program and, therefore, Executive Order 13771 is not applicable.

The proposed priorities, requirements, and selection criteria contain information collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1894-0006; the proposed priorities, requirements, and selection criteria do not affect the currently approved data collection.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of Old Esco Manufacturing Superfund Site without prior Notice of Intent to Delete because we view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this deletion action, we will not take further action on this Notice of Intent to Delete. If we receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final Notice of Deletion, and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final Notice of Deletion based on this Notice of Intent to Delete. We will not institute a second comment period on this Notice of Intent to Delete. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion which is located in the Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.

In the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of Partial Deletion for the FPA of the Peters Cartridge Site simultaneously with this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion because EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this partial deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this partial deletion action, we will not take further action on this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion. If we receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final Notice of Partial Deletion and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final Notice of Partial Deletion based on this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion. We will not institute a second comment period on this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Partial Deletion which is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register.

The North Atlantic shortfin mako stock is managed primarily under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and also under ATCA. The 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. A brief summary of the background of this proposed rule is provided below. Additional information regarding Atlantic shark management can be found in the DEIS accompanying this proposed rule for Amendment 11, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the annual HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Reports, and online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species.

The North Atlantic shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) is a highly migratory species that ranges across the entire North Atlantic Ocean and is caught by numerous countries. The stock is predominantly caught offshore in association with fisheries that primarily target tunas and tuna-like species. While these sharks are a valued component of U.S. recreational and commercial fisheries, U.S. catch represents only approximately 11 percent of the species' total catch in the North Atlantic by all reporting countries. International measures are, therefore, critical to the species' effective conservation and management.

In August 2017, ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) conducted a new benchmark stock assessment on the North Atlantic shortfin mako stock. At its November 2017 annual meeting, ICCAT accepted this stock assessment and determined the stock to be overfished, with overfishing occurring. On December 13, 2017, based on this assessment, NMFS issued a status determination finding the stock to be overfished and experiencing overfishing applying domestic criteria. The assessment specifically indicated that biomass (B2015) is substantially less than the biomass at maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) for eight of the nine models used for the assessment (B2015/BMSY = 0.57−0.85). In the ninth model, spawning stock fecundity (SSF) was less than SSFMSY (SSF2015/SSFMSY = 0.95). Additionally, the assessment indicated that fishing mortality (F2015) was greater than FMSY (1.93-4.38), with a combined 90 percent probability from all models that the population is overfished, with overfishing occurring. This was a change from the 2012 stock assessment that indicated that both the North and South Atlantic stocks of shortfin mako sharks were healthy and the probability of overfishing was low. However, the high uncertainty in past catch estimates and deficiency of some important biological parameters, particularly for the Southern stock, were still obstacles for obtaining reliable estimates of current status of the stocks.

The 2017 assessment estimated that total North Atlantic shortfin mako catches across all ICCAT parties are currently between 3,600 and 4,750 metric ton (mt) per year. The assessment further indicated that such total catches would have to be at or below 1,000 mt (72-79 percent reductions) to prevent further population declines, and total catches of 500 mt or less would be expected to stop overfishing and begin rebuilding the stock. The stock assessment projections indicated that a total allowable catch of 0 mt would produce a greater than 50 percent probability of rebuilding the stock by the year 2040, which is approximately equal to one mean generation time. The stock assessment report stated that while research indicates that post-release survival rates of Atlantic shortfin mako sharks are high (70 percent), the assessment could not determine if requiring live releases alone would reduce landings sufficiently to end overfishing and rebuild the stock. The stock assessment did not evaluate rebuilding times greater than one mean generation time, although shark stocks generally take longer than one mean generation time to rebuild given their slow reproductive biology and other factors.

Based on this information and given that the stock is primarily caught in association with ICCAT fisheries, ICCAT at its November 2017 meeting adopted new management measures for Atlantic shortfin mako in Recommendation 17-08. The measures largely focus on maximizing live releases of Atlantic shortfin mako sharks, allowing retention only in certain limited circumstances, increasing minimum size limits for retention, and improving data collection in ICCAT fisheries. ICCAT stated that the measures in the Recommendation “are expected to prevent the population from decreasing further, stop overfishing and begin to rebuild the stock” and provided for a six-month review. The Recommendation requires ICCAT parties that authorize retention to provide to ICCAT “the amount of North Atlantic shortfin mako caught and retained on board as well as dead discards during the first six months in 2018 by one month prior to the 2018 Commission annual meeting.” The Recommendation specifies that at its annual meeting in November 2018, ICCAT will review the catches from the first six months of 2018 and decide whether these measures should be modified. In 2019, the SCRS will evaluate the effectiveness of these measures in ending overfishing and beginning to rebuild the stock. The SCRS will also provide rebuilding information that reflects rebuilding timeframes of at least two mean generation times, taking into consideration the slow reproductive biology of sharks and other factors. The Recommendation provides that in 2019, ICCAT will establish a rebuilding plan that will have a high probability of avoiding overfishing and rebuilding the stock to BMSY within a timeframe that takes into account the biology of the stock.

On March 2, 2018, NMFS implemented an interim final rule using emergency authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1855(c), to quickly implement measures in the HMS recreational and commercial fisheries consistent with Recommendation 17-08. NMFS solicited public comment on that rule through May 7, 2018. See id. (allowing extension of rule for not more than 186 days if public has opportunity for comment). The purpose of the emergency interim final rule was to address overfishing and to ensure that the U.S. can provide meaningful information reflective of the new measures to ICCAT for the six-month reporting requirement in the Recommendation (83 FR 8946). Management measures adopted through the interim final rule, and which remain in effect, are as follows:

The emergency measures are initially effective for 180 days (ending on August 29, 2018), and may be extended to March 3, 2019. Once finalized, this rule is intended to replace these emergency measures with long-term measures. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for Amendment 11 of the Consolidated HMS FMP was published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2018 (83 FR 9255).

The objectives of Draft Amendment 11 and this proposed rule are to address overfishing and establish a foundation for rebuilding the North Atlantic shortfin mako shark stock, which ICCAT will adopt in 2019 after obtaining additional scientific information, as set out in Recommendation 17-08. In a DEIS, NMFS considered alternatives to meet the objectives of the Amendment. Given the various objectives, NMFS divided alternatives into the following four broad categories for organizational clarity and to facilitate effective review: Commercial fishery, recreational fishery, monitoring, and rebuilding. As summarized below, NMFS fully considered 29 alternatives within these categories and is preferring five measures, one in the commercial fishery, two in the recreational fishery (each regarding a different regulation type), one regarding monitoring, and one regarding rebuilding the stock, to meet the objectives of the rule and achieve at least a 75 percent reduction in U.S. shortfin mako shark landings consistent with the suggested level of reduction recommended in the stock assessment. The stock assessment recommends this level of reduction throughout the stock's range, and all ICCAT parties are committed to take the specified measures to achieve the needed reductions. NMFS' detailed analysis of the alternatives is provided in the DEIS for Draft Amendment 11 (see ADDRESSES for how to get a copy of the DEIS) and a summary is provided in the IRFA below. In developing the alternatives, NMFS considered commercial retention restrictions and the 83 inch FL recreational minimum size limit now temporarily in place through the emergency interim final rule, public comments received on that rule, other conservation and management measures that have been implemented in the HMS fisheries since 2008 that have affected shark fisheries or shark bycatch in other fisheries, and public comments received on the Amendment 11 Issues and Options paper, including comments provided at the March 2018 HMS Advisory Panel meeting. In response to public comment on this proposed rule and the DEIS, NMFS may make changes in the final rule by modifying the proposed measures or adopting different or additional measures that were not preferred in this proposed rule.

This proposed rule also includes a minor change to the regulations specific to sharks to provide clarity and consistency throughout the regulations. Specifically, this rule proposes minor changes to § 635.30 (c)(4) to update the regulatory language to reference shark endorsements on permits and to clarify when non-commercial fishermen must retain the head, fins, and tails on a shark carcass.

Under this proposed rule, a commercial fisherman on a vessel with a directed or incidental shark limited access permit (LAP) could only retain shortfin mako sharks if the shark is dead at haulback, the vessel is deploying pelagic longline gear, and there is a functional electronic monitoring system on board the vessel (Alternative A2). This proposed measure is the same commercial measure instituted under the emergency interim final rule (83 FR 8946; March 2, 2018). Pelagic longline vessels would be required to promptly release in a manner that causes the least harm any shortfin mako shark that is alive at the time of haulback. Commercial fishermen using gear other than pelagic longline commercial gear (e.g., bottom longline, gillnet, handgear, etc.) would be required to release or discard all shortfin mako sharks, whether they are alive or dead at haulback.

Pelagic longline fishermen rarely target shortfin mako sharks. Instead, fishermen usually catch shortfin mako sharks incidentally while fishing for valuable target species such as tunas and swordfish. Based on observer data, over 70 percent of the shortfin mako sharks interacted with in the pelagic longline fishery were alive at the vessel. Commercial fishermen using other gear types rarely, if ever, catch shortfin mako sharks. Since 2012, only four shortfin mako shark were observed in the bottom longline shark fishery and none were observed in the gillnet shark fishery. Combining live releases in the pelagic longline fishery and prohibiting the minimal landings from other commercial gears, NMFS expects this alternative to result in reductions in U.S. commercial landings of shortfin mako sharks by approximately 75 percent. Therefore, implementing this measure is anticipated to have direct short- and long-term minor, beneficial ecological impacts.

In addition to this preferred commercial alternative, NMFS also considered a No Action (Alternative A1) which would maintain the regulations before the emergency rule went into place (given that the emergency rule is an interim rule that will expire), along with alternatives that would modify the commercial retention restrictions (Alternative A3); use electronic monitoring and/or observers to verify the status of boarded sharks and compliance with the size limit (Alternatives A4 and A5); and prohibit commercial retention (Alternative A6). These alternatives are not preferred at this time. The No Action alternative (Alternative A1) would not implement any new management measures and thus would not reduce shortfin mako shark mortality as needed to end overfishing and begin rebuilding the stock. The alternative that allows commercial fishermen to opt in or out of an electronic monitoring program (Alternative A3) for shortfin mako sharks would be an additional burden on the fishermen that would not have any measurable conservation or management benefits. The program would also be complicated to administer and would create two separate data streams from within the fleet, as some vessels and catch would be compared and analyzed differently due to different regulatory restrictions. The alternative that would use electronic monitoring and/or observers to verify the status of boarded sharks (live or dead) or compliance with any size limit (Alternatives A4 and A5) would place more restrictive limits on fishermen, particularly pelagic longline fishermen, than allowing retention of shortfin mako sharks that are dead at haulback under the preferred alternative, which would achieve the suggested mortality reduction without such restrictions. The alternative prohibiting commercial retention (Alternative A6) could disadvantage U.S. fishermen compared to fishermen in other ICCAT nations that implement the ICCAT recommendation verbatim. This alternative also would cause more negative economic impacts when compared to the preferred alternative, which would achieve the suggested mortality reduction.

NMFS is proposing two measures for the recreational fishery for sharks. Under the first proposed measure (Alternative B3), HMS recreational fishermen could only land shortfin mako sharks, male or female, that are at least 83 inches fork length (210 cm FL). As with the commercial alternative, this alternative matches the management measure implemented in the emergency interim final rule (83 FR 8946; March 2, 2018). According to length composition information from the Large Pelagics Survey, this recreational minimum size would reduce the number of shortfin mako sharks landed by approximately 83 percent in the HMS recreational fishery and would reduce the weight of landings by at least 68 percent. It is likely that the reductions in landings under this alternative would be significantly greater than what is estimated in this proposed rule and the DEIS, as the number of recreational trips targeting shortfin mako sharks would likely decrease substantially given the large increase in the overall size limit and the smaller minimum size limit (54 inches FL for other shark species). Therefore, implementing this measure is anticipated to have direct short- and long-term minor, beneficial ecological impacts.

The second proposed measure (Alternative B9) would require the use of non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hooks when fishing recreationally for sharks in federal waters. The current regulatory requirement for such hooks applies to shark fishing in federal waters south of 41°43′ N latitude (near Chatham, Massachusetts), as implemented in Amendment 5b to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. As mentioned in in more detail in the DEIS, circle hooks are a bycatch mortality mitigation tool that have shown promise in a number of fisheries for various species including sharks. Most evidence suggests that circle hooks reduce shark mortality rates at-vessel and post-release without reducing catchability of target species compared to J-hooks, although the reduction in mortality rate varies by species, gear configuration, bait, and other factors. By design, circle hooks tend to hook sharks in the jaw rather than in the throat or gut (deep-hooking), thereby reducing injury and associated mortality.

For shortfin mako sharks specifically, research shows that the use of circle hooks reduces gut-hooking and increases post-release survival. French et al. (2015) examined the effects of recreational fishing techniques, including hook type, on shortfin mako sharks and found that circle hooks were more likely to hook shortfin mako sharks in the jaw compared to J-hooks. In the study, circle hooks were most likely to hook in the jaw (83 percent of the time) while J-hooks hooked in the jaw only 20 percent of the time but in the throat or gut 60 percent of the time. Jaw-hooking is correlated with increased odds of post release survival. Therefore, implementing this measure is anticipated to have direct short- and long-term minor, beneficial ecological impacts.

In addition to the proposed measure, NMFS also considered No Action (Alternative B1) which would maintain the regulations before the emergency rule went into place, along with alternatives that would prohibit recreational retention of shortfin mako sharks (Alternative B10); modify the recreational size limit by sex and seasonal retention or slot limits (Alternatives B2, B4, B5, B6, and B7); and establish a recreational tagging program (Alternative B8). A number of alternatives that were considered and/or commented on during the development of this action are not preferred at this time because they would complicate the regulations for fishermen and not meet the scientific advice for shortfin mako mortality reduction as well as the preferred alternatives. The no action alternative (Alternative B1) would not implement any new management measures and not reduce the shortfin mako shark mortality as needed to end overfishing and begin rebuilding the stock. The alternatives that would modify the recreational size limit by sex and seasonal retention or slot limits (Alternatives B2, B4, B5, B6, and B7) would not meet the objectives of this action as well as the preferred alternatives, and they would add unnecessary complexity to the recreational regulations. The alternative that would establish a landings tag program (Alternative B8) could increase the potential landings of shortfin mako sharks and cause unnecessary administrative burden in managing such a program. The alternative that considered prohibiting recreational retention entirely would be unnecessarily restrictive, have little effect on ending overfishing, and disadvantage U.S. fishermen compared to fishermen in other ICCAT nations that implement the ICCAT recommendation verbatim, which requires less restrictive measures.

NMFS considered alternatives that would require mandatory reporting on vessel monitoring systems and mandatory reporting of recreational catches. However, after considering these alternatives, NMFS is proposing the No Action alternative (Alternative C1) in relation to monitoring measures. This preferred alternative would make no changes to the current reporting requirements applicable to shortfin mako sharks in HMS fisheries, likely resulting in direct, short- and long-term, neutral ecological impacts. HMS commercial fishermen would continue to report shortfin mako catches through vessel logbooks along with dealer reporting of landings and electronic monitoring systems would be used to verify that the shortfin mako sharks were dead at haulback. HMS recreational anglers fishing from Maine to Virginia would continue to be required to report shortfin mako shark landings and releases if intercepted by the Large Pelagic Survey, and data would continue to be collected on shortfin mako shark catches by the Access Point Angler Intercept Survey, which is part of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Thus, no additional reporting requirements would be placed on HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders who land shortfin mako sharks on non-tournament trips. Tournament operators would continue to be required to report landings associated with shark tournaments if their tournaments are selected for reporting.

ICCAT's SCRS recommended that member nations strengthen their monitoring and data collection efforts to monitor the future status of this stock. Consistent with the SCRS recommendation, NMFS plans to select shark tournaments for reporting using existing regulations and authorities. The regulations at 50 CFR 635.5(d) require Atlantic HMS tournament operators to register their tournaments with NMFS, and authorize NMFS to select any HMS tournaments for reporting. Currently, NMFS only selects billfish and swordfish tournaments for reporting; however in their reports, those tournaments report catches of all HMS including sharks. Thus some, but not all, shark catch information from selected billfish and swordfish tournaments are already being collected. The tournament registration category of “pelagic shark” (which includes shortfin mako shark) makes up 95 percent of all shark tournaments and because information from the remaining 5 percent of shark tournaments will be useful for management of non-pelagic sharks, NMFS intends to select all shark tournaments for reporting. Therefore, Alternative C1, the No Action alternative, in combination with selecting all shark tournaments for reporting (which does not require any new regulations) is anticipated to have neutral ecological impacts.

In addition to the No Action (Alternative C1), NMFS also considered alternatives that would require mandatory reporting on vessel monitoring systems (Alternative C2) and mandatory reporting of recreational catches (Alternative C3). A number of alternatives that were considered and/or commented on during the development of this action are not preferred at this time because the current reporting requirements for all HMS commercial vessels are sufficient to meet the purpose and need of this action and additional potential measures would place undue burden on recreational fishermen and potentially create enforcement issues. The alternative that would implement mandatory reporting on the vessel monitoring systems (Alternative C2) would unnecessarily increase burden to HMS commercial vessels that already report in other ways (vessel logbooks, dealer reports of landings and electronic monitoring system) that are sufficient vehicles for improving data collection for shortfin mako sharks. The alternative that would implement mandatory reporting of recreational catches (Alternative C3) would unnecessarily increase the burden on recreational fishermen and monitoring of catches and compliance by NMFS because NMFS estimates of shortfin mako sharks in the recreational fishery currently have relatively high precision, as evidenced by the low percent standard error rates in the Large Pelagic Survey.

Under the proposed measure (Alternative D3), NMFS would take action at the international level through ICCAT to develop a rebuilding plan for shortfin mako shark stock. As part of this, NMFS would promote Magnuson-Stevens Act's rebuilding provisions and approaches and other relevant provisions of the Act. See 16 U.S.C. 1812(c). This rebuilding plan would encompass the objectives set forth by ICCAT based on new scientific advice from the SCRS, which is currently scheduled to be available in 2019. Under this alternative, NMFS would continue to implement the new management measures adopted through this rulemaking for North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks in United States fisheries based on ICCAT Recommendation 17-08. Any future international management recommendations adopted by ICCAT for shortfin mako sharks would be implemented domestically. Currently, the United States contributes only 11 percent of the mortality for North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks and domestic reductions of shortfin mako shark mortality alone could not end overfishing of the entire North Atlantic stock or effectively rebuild the stock. Therefore, NMFS will continue to take action at the international level through ICCAT, the relevant international fishery management organizations. Through this process, all ICCAT members fishing on the stock participate in the establishment of effective conservation and management measures to end overfishing of and rebuild shortfin mako sharks. In the long-term, any management recommendations adopted at the international level to end overfishing of shortfin mako sharks and rebuild the stock could have direct, moderate beneficial ecological impacts on the North Atlantic shortfin mako shark population by reducing overall mortality of shortfin mako sharks and rebuilding the stock. As an active member of ICCAT, the United States will participate and advocate for an effective rebuilding plan and continue to work through ICCAT on implementation and enforcement of effective conservation and management measures to end overfishing.

In addition to Alternative D3, NMFS also considered No Action (Alternative D1) and alternatives that would establish a domestic rebuilding plan without ICCAT (Alternative D2); establish a species-specific quota if established by ICCAT (Alternative D4); implement area management if established by ICCAT (Alternative D5); and bycatch caps (Alternative D6). The no action alternative would cause no rebuilding plan to be established. Alternative D2 (domestic rebuilding plan without ICCAT) would not be effective given the stock's range and the fact that the United States catches are only a small part of catches Atlantic-wide. Thus, this alternative would allow the stock to continue to be overfished, with overfishing continuing to occur. Given that U.S. catches of shortfin mako are small, Alternative D4 considers potential impacts of a shortfin mako shark quota if established by ICCAT as opposed to a unilateral U.S. quota. Alternative D4 is not preferred at this time, because ICCAT does not have a total allowable catch for shortfin mako shark, but instead, has measures aimed at reducing mortality and a six-month review to determine if further measures are needed. Alternative D5 (area management) is also not preferred at this time, because ICCAT has not adopted, and does not have scientific information yet to support, such a measure. The current ICCAT Recommendation calls on SCRS to provide additional scientific advice in 2019 that takes into account a spatial/temporal analysis of North Atlantic shortfin mako shark catches in order to identify areas with high interactions. Alternative D6 (bycatch caps) is not preferred, because U.S. catches of shortfin mako are small thus unilateral U.S. bycatch caps will not address overfishing and rebuilding. This alternative would thus have more economic impacts than the preferred alternative without achieving the purpose and need of the action and would unfairly disadvantage U.S. fishermen, as ICCAT currently does not require bycatch caps.

NMFS is requesting comments on the alternatives and analyses described in this proposed rule and contained in the DEIS, IRFA, and RIR for Draft Amendment 11. Comments may be submitted via hhtp://www.regulations.gov or mail. Comments may also be submitted at a public hearing (see Public Hearings and Special Accommodations below). We solicit comments on this proposed rule by October 1, 2018 (see DATES and ADDRESSES).

Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted via http://www.regulations.gov or mail and comments may also be submitted at a public hearing. NMFS solicits comments on this proposed rule by October 1, 2018. During the comment period, NMFS will hold six public hearings and one operator-assisted public hearing via conference call and webinar for this proposed rule and draft Amendment 11. The hearing locations will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Guý DuBeck at 301-427-8503, at least 7 days prior to the meeting. NMFS has also asked to present information on the proposed rule and draft Amendment 11 to the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and New England Fishery Management Councils, and the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico States Marine Fisheries Commissions at their meetings during the public comment period. Please see their meeting notices for dates, times, and locations. In addition, NMFS will present at the HMS Advisory Panel meeting in September, to discuss this rulemaking. NMFS will announce the location and times of HMS Advisory Panel meeting in a future Federal Register notice.

The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public hearings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each public hearing, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the hearing room; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and attendees should not interrupt one another). At the beginning of the conference call, the moderator will explain how the conference call will be conducted and how and when attendees can provide comments. The NMFS representative will attempt to structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and, if they do not, they may be asked to leave the hearing or may not be allowed to speak during the conference call.

Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

NMFS prepared a DEIS for this proposed rule that discusses the impact on the environment that would result from this rule. A copy of the DEIS is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The Notice of Availability of the DEIS is publishing in the Federal Register on the same day as this proposed rule. A summary of the impacts of the alternatives considered is described above.

An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Section 603(b)(1) requires Agencies to describe the reasons why the action is being considered. The purpose of Amendment 11 is to develop and implement management measures to address overfishing and take steps towards rebuilding the North Atlantic shortfin mako shark stock. Consistent with the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, NMFS proposes to modify the 2006 Atlantic HMS FMP in response to the stock status determination for shortfin mako sharks and the subsequent ICCAT Recommendation (17-08).

Section 603(b)(2) of the RFA requires Agencies to state the objective of, and legal basis for the proposed action. (See Chapter 1 of the DEIS for a full description of the objectives of this action.) Consistent with the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, NMFS proposes to amend the 2006 Atlantic HMS FMP in response to the stock status determination for shortfin mako sharks and the subsequent ICCAT Recommendation (17-08). NMFS has identified the following objectives with regard to this proposed action:

• Address overfishing of shortfin mako sharks;

• Develop and implement management measures consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 17-08; and

• Take steps towards rebuilding the shortfin mako shark stock pending planned development of the ICCAT rebuilding plan, which is necessarily to effectively address stock rebuilding across its range

Section 603(b)(3) of the RFA requires Agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesters. Provision is made under the SBA's regulations for an agency to develop its own industry-specific size standards after consultation with SBA Office of Advocacy and an opportunity for public comment (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)). Under this provision, NMFS may establish size standards that differ from those established by the SBA Office of Size Standards, but only for use by NMFS and only for the purpose of conducting an analysis of economic effects in fulfillment of the agency's obligations under the RFA. To utilize this provision, NMFS must publish such size standards in the Federal Register, which NMFS did on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015). In this final rule effective on July 1, 2016, NMFS established a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for RFA compliance purposes. NMFS considers all HMS permit holders to be small entities because they had average annual receipts of less than $11 million for commercial fishing. The SBA has established size standards for all other major industry sectors in the U.S., including the scenic and sightseeing transportation (water) sector (NAICS code 487210, for-hire), which includes charter/party boat entities. The SBA has defined a small charter/party boat entity as one with average annual receipts (revenue) of less than $7.5 million.

Regarding those entities that would be directly affected by the recreational management measures, HMS Angling (Recreational) category permits are typically obtained by individuals who are not considered businesses or small entities for purposes of the RFA because they are not engaged in commercial business activity. Vessels with the HMS Charter/Headboat category permit can operate as for-hire vessels. These permit holders can be regarded as small entities for RFA purposes (i.e., they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, are independently owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have average annual revenues of less than $7.5 million). Overall, the recreational alternatives would have impacts on the portion of the 3,618 HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders who fish for or retain sharks. There were also 282 registered HMS tournaments in 2017, which could be impacted by this rule. Of those registered HMS tournaments, 72 had awards or prizes for pelagic sharks.

Regarding those entities that would be directly affected by the preferred commercial alternatives, the average annual revenue per active pelagic longline vessel is estimated to be $187,000 based on the 170 active vessels between 2006 and 2012 that produced an estimated $31.8 million in revenue annually. The maximum annual revenue for any pelagic longline vessel between 2006 and 2016 was less than $1.9 million, well below the NMFS small business size standard for commercial fishing businesses of $11 million. Other non-longline HMS commercial fishing vessels typically generally earn less revenue than pelagic longline vessels. Therefore, NMFS considers all Atlantic HMS commercial permit holders to be small entities (i.e., they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, are independently owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide). The preferred commercial alternatives would apply to the 280 Atlantic tunas Longline category permit holders, 221 directed shark permit holders, and 269 incidental shark permit holders. Of these 280 permit holders, 85 pelagic longline vessels were actively fishing in 2016 based on logbook records. Based on HMS logbook data, an average of 10 vessels that used gear other than pelagic longline gear interacted with shortfin mako sharks between 2012 and 2016, which is also equal to the 2016 number of vessels reporting shortfin mako sharks on non-pelagic longline gear.

NMFS has determined that the preferred alternatives would not likely directly affect any small organizations or small government jurisdictions defined under RFA, nor would there be disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Furthermore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of vessels based on gear, home port, or vessel length. More information regarding the description of the fisheries affected, and the categories and number of permit holders, can be found in Chapter 3 of the DEIS.

Section 603(b)(4) of the RFA requires Agencies to describe any new reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. The action does not contain any new collection of information, reporting, or record-keeping requirements.

Under section 603(b)(5) of the RFA, Agencies must identify, to the extent practicable, relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action. Fishermen, dealers, and managers in these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, domestic laws, and other fishery management measures. These include, but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. This proposed action has been determined not to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any Federal rules.

One of the requirements of an IRFA is to describe any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The analysis shall discuss significant alternatives such as:

1. Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;

2. Clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;

3. Use of performance rather than design standards; and

4. Exemptions from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

These categories of alternatives are described at 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4)). NMFS examined each of these categories of alternatives. Regarding the first, second, and fourth categories, NMFS cannot establish differing compliance or reporting requirements for small entities or exempt small entities from coverage of the rule or parts of it because all of the businesses impacted by this rule are considered small entities and thus the requirements are already designed for small entities. NMFS does not know of any performance or design standards that would satisfy the aforementioned objectives of this rulemaking while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As described below, NMFS analyzed several different alternatives from different categories in this proposed rulemaking and provides rationales for identifying the preferred alternatives to achieve the desired objectives.

The alternatives considered and analyzed are described below. The IRFA assumes that each vessel will have similar catch and gross revenues to show the relative impact of the proposed action on vessels.

Alternative A1, the No Action alternative, would keep the non-emergency rule regulations for shortfin mako sharks. Once the emergency rule for shortfin mako sharks expires, management measures would revert back to those effective before March 2018 (e.g., no requirement to release shortfin mako sharks that are alive at haulback). Directed and incidental shark LAP holders would continue to be allowed to land and sell shortfin mako sharks to an authorized dealer, subject to current limits, including the pelagic shark commercial quota. Short-term direct economic impacts on small entities would likely be neutral since commercial fishermen could continue to catch and retain shortfin mako sharks at a similar level and rate as the status quo.

In recent years, about 180,000 lb dressed weight (dw) of shortfin mako sharks have been landed and the commercial revenues from shortfin mako sharks have averaged approximately $375,000 per year, which equates to approximately 1 percent of overall HMS ex-vessel revenues. Approximately 97.26 percent of shortfin mako commercial landings, based on dealer reports, were made by pelagic longline vessels. There were 85 pelagic longline vessels that were active in 2016 based on logbook reports. Therefore, the average revenue from shortfin mako shark landings per pelagic longline vessel is $4,291 per year.

Even though pelagic longline gear is the primary commercial gear used to land shortfin mako sharks, other gear types also occasionally interact with this species. Based on HMS logbook data, an average of 10 vessels that used gear other than pelagic longline gear interacted with shortfin mako sharks between 2012 and 2016, which is also equal to the 2016 number of vessels reporting shortfin mako sharks on non-pelagic longline gear. Therefore, these vessels that used gear other than pelagic longline gear landed an average of only $1,028 worth of shortfin mako sharks per year.

Under Alternative A2, the preferred alternative, retention of shortfin mako sharks would only be allowed if the following three criteria are met: (1) The vessel has been issued a Directed or Incidental shark LAP, (2) the shark is dead at haulback, and (3) there is a functional electronic monitoring system on board the vessel. This alternative is designed to be consistent with one of the limited provisions allowing retention of shortfin mako sharks under ICCAT Recommendation 17-08. Under the current HMS regulations, all HMS permitted vessels that fish with pelagic longline gear are already required to have a functional electronic monitoring system (79 FR 71510; December 2, 2014) and either a Directed or an Incidental shark LAP. Vessels utilizing other gear types (i.e., gillnet or bottom longline) are not required to have an electronic monitoring system under current regulations but could choose to install one if the operator wishes to retain shortfin mako sharks that are dead at haulback and if the vessel holds a commercial shark LAP. Under this alternative, the electronic monitoring system would be used to verify the disposition of shortfin mako sharks at haulback to ensure that only sharks dead at haulback were retained.

This alternative would be consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 17-08 and would reduce the number of landings by pelagic longline vessels on average by 74 percent based on observer data from 2013-2016. A 74 percent reduction in shortfin mako landings would reduce revenues by an average of $3,175 per vessel for the 85 activate pelagic longline vessels and would eliminate all of the $1,028 in landing per vessel by the 10 non-pelagic longline vessels that landing shortfin mako sharks since those vessels are unlikely to have electronic monitoring systems currently installed. Those non-pelagic longline vessels would need to pay to install electronic monitoring systems if they wish to retain shortfin mako sharks, introducing an additional expense for those vessels if it there were an economic incentive for those vessels to try to retain shortfin mako sharks under this alternative. Overall, this alternative would have minor economic costs on small entities because these measures would reduce the number of shortfin mako sharks landed and sold by these fishing vessels. However, shortfin mako sharks are rarely a target species and are worth less than other more valuable target species.

Alternative A3 is similar to Alternative A2 except that the ability to retain dead shortfin mako sharks would be limited to permit holders that opt in to a program that would use the existing electronic monitoring systems, which are currently used in relation to the bluefin tuna IBQ program, also to verify the disposition of shortfin mako sharks at haulback. In other words, this alternative would allow for retention of shortfin mako sharks that are dead at haulback by persons with a Directed or Incidental shark LAP only if permit holders opt in to enhanced electronic monitoring coverage. If the permit holder does not opt in to the enhanced electronic monitoring coverage, they could not retain any shortfin mako sharks.

The economic impacts to small entities under this alternative are expected to be similar to those under Alternative A2. Under this alternative, a portion of the pelagic longline fleet could opt out of any retention of shortfin mako sharks, resulting in a greater reduction in overall shark ex-vessel revenue for those vessels. Overall, the socioeconomic impacts associated with these reductions in revenue are not expected be substantial, as shortfin mako sharks comprise less than one percent of total HMS ex-vessel revenues on average. Non-pelagic longline vessels would need to pay to install electronic monitoring systems if they wish to retain shortfin mako sharks, introducing an additional expense for those vessels. Due to the low commercial value of shortfin mako sharks and the high cost of electronic monitoring it is reasonable to expect that these fisheries will not install cameras and therefore will not retain shortfin mako sharks. Overall, this alternative would have minor economic costs on small entities, because these measures would reduce the number of shortfin mako sharks landed and sold by these fishing vessels, however, shortfin mako sharks are rarely a target species and are worth less than other more valuable target species.

Alternative A4 would establish a commercial minimum size of 83 inches FL (210 cm FL) for retention of shortfin mako sharks caught incidentally during fishing for other species, whether the shark is dead or alive at haulback. Based on observer data, only six percent of shortfin mako sharks caught with pelagic longline gear greater than 83 inches FL. Thus, restricting fishermen to retaining six percent of shortfin mako sharks would represent a considerable reduction in number of shortfin mako sharks landed and in the resulting ex-vessel revenue. A 94 percent reduction in shortfin mako landings would reduce annual revenues by an average of $4,034 per vessel for the 85 active pelagic longline vessels and would reduce annual revenues by an average of $966 per vessel for the 10 non-pelagic longline vessels that land shortfin mako sharks. However, the overall economic impacts associated with these reductions in revenue are not expected be substantial, as shortfin mako sharks comprise less than one percent of total HMS ex-vessel revenues on average. Additionally, the magnitude of shortfin mako landings by other gear types (e.g., bottom longline, gillnet, handgear) is very small. Overall, this alternative would have minor economic costs on small entities because these measures would reduce the number of shortfin mako sharks landed and sold by these fishing vessels, however, shortfin mako sharks are rarely a target species and are worth less than other more valuable target species.

Alternative A5 would allow fishermen to retain shortfin mako sharks caught on any commercial gear (e.g., pelagic longline, bottom longline, gillnet, handgear) provided that an observer is on board that can verify that the shark was dead at haulback. Under this alternative, electronic monitoring would not be used to verify the disposition of shortfin mako sharks caught on pelagic longline gear, but instead pelagic longline vessels could only retain shortfin mako sharks when the sharks are dead at haulback and an observer is on board.

Since only 5 percent of pelagic longline gear trips are observed, this alternative would result in a 95 percent reduction in the number of shortfin mako sharks retained on pelagic longline gear. A 95 percent reduction in shortfin mako landings would reduce annual revenues by an average of $4,076 per vessel for the 85 active pelagic longline vessels and would reduce annual revenues by an average of $977 per vessel for the 10 non-pelagic longline vessels that land shortfin mako sharks. However, the overall economic impacts associated with these reductions in revenue are not expected be substantial, as shortfin mako sharks comprise less than one percent of total HMS ex-vessel revenues on average. Additionally, the magnitude of shortfin mako landings by other gear types (e.g., bottom longline, gillnet, handgear) is very small. Overall, this alternative would have minor economic costs on small entities because these measures would reduce the number of shortfin mako sharks landed and sold by these fishing vessels, however, shortfin mako sharks are rarely a target species and are worth less than other more valuable target species.

Alternative A6 would place shortfin mako sharks on the prohibited sharks list to prohibit any catch or retention of shortfin mako sharks in commercial HMS fisheries. In recent years, about 180,000 lb dw of shortfin mako sharks have been landed and the commercial revenues from shortfin mako sharks have averaged approximately $375,000 per year, which equates to approximately one percent of overall HMS ex-vessel revenues. That revenue would be eliminated under this alternative. Approximately 97.26 percent of shortfin mako commercial landings, based on dealer reports, were made by pelagic longline vessels. There were 85 pelagic longline vessels that were active in 2016 based on logbook reports. Therefore, the average loss in annual revenue from shortfin mako shark landings per pelagic longline vessel would be $4,291 per year. The average loss in annual revenue from shortfin mako shark landings for vessel using other gear types would be $1,028 per year. However, the overall economic impacts associated with these reductions in revenue are not expected be substantial, as shortfin mako sharks comprise less than one percent of total HMS ex-vessel revenues on average. Additionally, the magnitude of shortfin mako landings by other gear types (e.g., bottom longline, gillnet, handgear) is very small. Overall, this alternative would have minor economic costs on small entities because these measures would reduce the number of shortfin mako sharks landed and sold by these fishing vessels, however, shortfin mako sharks are rarely a target species and are worth less than other more valuable target species.

While HMS Angling permit holders are not considered small entities by NMFS for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Charter/Headboat permit holders and tournament operators are considered to be small entities and could be potentially impacted by the various recreational alternatives, as described below.

Alternative B1, the no action alternative, would not implement any management measures in the recreational shark fishery to decrease mortality of shortfin mako sharks. This would result in no additional economic impacts on small entities associated with this fishery in the short-term.

Under Alternative B2, the minimum size limit for the retention of shortfin mako sharks would be increased from 54 inches FL to 71 inches FL for male and 83 inches FL for female shortfin mako sharks. This increase in the size limit is projected to reduce recreational landings by at least 64 percent in numbers of sharks landed, and 49 percent in the weight of sharks landed. While this alternative would not establish a shortfin mako fishing season, such a significant increase in the minimum size limit would likely result in some reduction in directed fishing effort for shortfin mako sharks.

Under Alternative B3, the preferred alternative, the minimum size limit for retention of shortfin mako sharks would be increased to 83 inches FL for both males and female sharks consistent with the measure implemented in the emergency rule. Assuming no reduction in directed fishing effort, this increase in the minimum size limit would result in an 83 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 68 percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. Such a large increase in the minimum size limit and associated reduction in landings is unlikely to have no effect on directed fishing effort. An 83 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting them to 6 percent. At least one tournament directed at shortfin mako sharks in the Northeast has chosen to cancel its 2018 event due to the more stringent current 83 inches FL minimum size limit. Tournaments account for over half of directed recreational trips for shortfin mako sharks, and 77 percent of them in the month of June when effort is at its highest. This could result in a significant reduction in directed fishing trips for shortfin mako sharks, thus leading to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.

Under Alternative B4, recreational HMS permit holders would only be allowed to retain male shortfin mako sharks that measure at least 71 inches FL and female shortfin mako sharks that measure at least 108 inches FL. Assuming no reduction in directed fishing effort, this increase in the minimum size limit would result in a 76 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 72 percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. A 76 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting them to approximately 9 percent. This could result in a significant reduction in directed fishing trips for shortfin mako sharks, thus leading to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.

Under Alternative B5, recreational HMS permit holders would only be allowed to retain male shortfin mako sharks that measure at least 71 inches FL and female shortfin mako sharks that measure at least 120 inches FL. Assuming no reduction in directed fishing effort, this increase in the size limit would result in a 76 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 73 percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. A 76 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting them to 8.6 percent. This could result in a significant reduction in directed fishing trips for shortfin mako sharks, thus leading to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.

Under Alternative B6a, the minimum size limit for the retention of shortfin mako sharks would be increased from 54 inches FL to 71 inches FL for male and 83 inches FL for female shortfin mako sharks, and a shortfin mako fishing season would be established from May through October. The fishing season established under this alternative would have little to no effect on shortfin mako fishing activity in the Northeast, but may reduce fishing effort in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions; however, a lack of data on targeted trips for shortfin mako sharks in this region makes any assessment of potential socioeconomic impacts difficult. However, this combination of increase in the size limit and fishing season is projected to reduce recreational landings by at least 64 percent in numbers of sharks landed, and 49 percent in the weight of sharks landed in the Northeast. A 64 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting them to 13 percent. This reduction on directed trips could lead to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.

Under Alternative B6b, NMFS would establish a three-month fishing season for shortfin mako sharks spanning the summer months of June through August. This season would be combined with a 71 inches FL minimum size limit for males and 100 inches FL for females. Based on estimates from the Large Pelagics Survey, on average 475 directed trips are taken for shortfin mako sharks each September and October, representing approximately 10 percent of all annual directed trips. No registered HMS tournaments held in September and October target sharks exclusively, so it is highly unlikely this alternative would result in the rescheduling of any tournaments due to the fishing season. It is much more likely that directed fishing effort would be affected by the increases in the minimum size limits. Assuming this increase in the size limit has minimal effect on fishing effort directly towards shortfin mako sharks within the season, this combination of season and increase in the size limit should result in a 78 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 76 percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. This reduction could result in a significant reduction in directed fishing trips for shortfin mako sharks, thus leading to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboat operators.

Under Alternative B6c, NMFS would establish a two-month fishing season for shortfin mako sharks for the months of June and July. This season would be combined with a 71 inches FL minimum size limit for males and 90 inches FL for females. Based on estimates from the Large Pelagics Survey, on average 1,264 directed trips are taken for shortfin mako sharks each August through October, representing approximately 26 percent of all annual directed trips. Only two registered HMS tournaments held in August through October target sharks exclusively, one out of New York that primarily targets thresher sharks and one out of Florida where participants fish exclusively from shore. Thus, it is highly unlikely this alternative would result in the rescheduling of any tournaments due to the fishing season. It is likely that directed fishing effort would also be affected by the increases in the minimum size limits. Assuming this increase in the size limit has minimal effect on fishing effort directly towards shortfin mako sharks within the season, this combination of season and increase in the size limit should result in a 78 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 76 percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. Such a large increase in the size limit and associated reduction in landings is unlikely to have no effect on directed fishing effort. A 78 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting them to 8 percent. This reduction in directed trips could lead to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.

Under Alternative B6d, NMFS would establish a one-month fishing season for shortfin mako sharks for the month of June only. This season would be combined with a 71 inches FL minimum size limit for males and 83 inches FL for females. Based on estimates from the Large Pelagics Survey, on average 2,435 directed trips are taken for shortfin mako sharks each July through October, representing approximately 51 percent of all annual directed trips. Additionally, there are seven registered HMS tournaments held in July through October that target sharks exclusively, including three of four tournaments held in the state of Rhode Island, and the only tournament in Massachusetts to target sharks exclusively. It is likely that directed fishing effort would also be affected by the increases in the minimum size limits. Assuming this increase in the size limit has minimal effect on fishing effort directly towards shortfin mako sharks within the season, this combination of season and increase in the size limit should result in a 79 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 78 percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. Such a large increase in the size limit and associated reduction in landings is unlikely to have no effect on directed fishing effort. A 79 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting them to 8 percent. This reduction in directed trips could lead to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.

Under Alternative B6e, NMFS would establish a process and criteria for determining season dates and minimum size limits for shortfin mako sharks on an annual basis through inseason actions. This process would be similar to how the agency sets season opens and retention limits for the shark commercial fisheries and the Atlantic Tunas General category fishery. NMFS would review data on recreational landings, catch rates, and effort levels for shortfin mako sharks in the previous years, and establish season dates and minimum size limits that would be expected to achieve the reduction targets established by ICCAT, and the objectives of the HMS fisheries management plan. This alternative would also allow NMFS to minimize adverse economic impacts to the HMS recreational fishery by allowing for adjustments to the season and size limits based on observed reductions and redistribution of fishing effort resulting from measures implemented in previous years.

Under Alternative B7, NMFS would implement a “slot limit” for shortfin mako sharks in the recreational fishery. Under a slot limit, recreational fishermen would only be allowed to retain shortfin mako sharks within a narrow size range (e.g., between 71 and 83 inches FL) with no retention above or below that slot. Assuming no reduction in directed fishing effort, this alternative would be expected to result in similar reductions in landings as other alternatives analyzed here. While this alternative would not establish a shortfin mako fishing season, as described above in earlier alternatives, such a significant increase in the size limit would likely result in some reduction in directed fishing effort for shortfin mako sharks. This reduction in effort may be further exacerbated by the complicated nature of slot limits regulations. Similar to Alternative B2, there are two factors that might minimize reductions in fishing effort (harvested shortfin mako sharks peaks between 71 and 77 inches FL and shifting focus to other HMS species). The amount of effort reduction by recreational fishermen would depend on how much HMS anglers and tournaments are satisfied to practice catch-and-release fishing for sub-legal shortfin mako sharks or shift their fishing effort to other species.

Under Alternative B8, NMFS would establish a landings tag requirement and a yearly limit on the number of landings tags assigned to a vessel, for shortfin mako sharks over the minimum size limit. This requirement would be expected to negatively affect fishing effort. An increase in the minimum size limit and a yearly cap on landings for vessels would reduce effort drastically, while maintaining some opportunity for the recreational fleet. This effort reduction would adversely affect the charter fleet the most by limiting the number of trips that they could land shortfin mako sharks each year. This effort reduction may also affect their ability to book trips. At least one tournament directed at shortfin mako sharks in the Northeast has chosen to cancel its 2018 event due to the more stringent current 83 inches FL minimum size limit. By excluding tournaments from a landings tag requirement there may be a direct beneficial economic impact for tournaments, as this would be an additional opportunity, beyond their tags, to land shortfin mako sharks for permit holders.

Alternative B9, a preferred alternative, would expand the requirement to use non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hook by all HMS permit holders with a shark endorsement when fishing for sharks recreationally, except when fishing with flies or artificial lures, to all waters managed within HMS management division. Currently, this requirement is in place for all Federally managed waters south of 41°43′ N latitude (near Chatham, Massachusetts), but this alternative would remove the boundary line, requiring fishermen in all areas to use circle hooks. Recreational shark fishermen north of Chatham, Massachusetts would need to purchase circle hooks to comply with this requirement, although the cost in modest. Additionally, it is possible that once the circle hook requirement in expanded, fishermen in the newly impacted area could find reduced catch rates of sharks including shortfin mako sharks. If reduced catch rates are realized, effort in the recreational shark fishery, including the for-hire fleet, could be impacted by reduced number of trips or reduced demand for chartered trips.

Alternative B10 would place shortfin mako sharks on the prohibited sharks list to prohibit the retention of shortfin mako sharks in recreational HMS fisheries. HMS permit holders would be prohibited from retaining or landing shortfin mako sharks recreationally. In recreational fisheries, recreational fishermen would only be authorized to catch and release shortfin mako sharks. A prohibition on the retention of shortfin mako sharks is likely to disincentives some portion of the recreational shark fishery, particularly those individuals that plan to target shortfin mako sharks. Businesses that rely of recreational shark fishing such as tournament operators and charter/headboats may experience a decline in demand resulting in adverse economic impacts.

Alternative C1, the preferred alternative, would make no changes to the current reporting requirements applicable to shortfin mako sharks in HMS fisheries. Since there would be no changes to the reporting requirements under this alternative, NMFS would expect fishing practices to remain the same and direct economic impacts in small entities to be neutral in the short-term.

Under Alternative C2, NMFS would require vessels with a directed or incidental shark LAP to report daily the number of shortfin mako sharks retained and discarded dead, as well as fishing effort (number of sets and number of hooks) on a vessel monitoring system (VMS). A requirement to report shortfin mako shark catches on VMS for vessels with a shark LAP would be an additional reporting requirement for those vessels on their existing systems. For other commercial vessels that are currently only required to report in the HMS logbook, the requirement would mean installing VMS to report dead discards of shortfin mako and fishing effort.

If a vessel has already installed a type-approved enhanced mobile transmitting unit (E-MTU) VMS unit, the only expense would be monthly communication service fees, which they may already be paying if the vessel is participating in a Council-managed fishery. Existing regulations require all vessel operators with E-MTU VMS units to provide hail out/in declarations and provide location reports on an hourly basis at all times while they are away from port. In order to comply with these regulations, vessel owners must subscribe to a communication service plan that includes an allowance for sending similar declarations (hail out/in) describing target species, fishing gear possessed, and estimated time/location of landing using their E-MTU VMS. Given that most shortfin mako sharks are incidentally caught by pelagic longline vessels that are already required to have an E-MTU VMS system onboard, adverse economic impacts are not expected. If vessels with a shark LAP do not have an E-MTU VMS unit, direct, economic costs are expected as a result of having to pay for the E-MTU VMS unit (approximately $4,000) and a qualified marine electrician to install the unit ($400). VMS reporting requirements under this alternative could potentially provide undue burden to HMS commercial vessels that already report on catches, landings, and discards through vessel logbooks, dealer reports, and observer reports.

Alternative C3 would implement mandatory reporting of all recreational interactions (landed and discarded) of shortfin mako sharks in HMS fisheries. Recreational HMS permit holders would have a variety of options for reporting shortfin mako shark landings including a phone-in system, internet website, and/or a smartphone app. HMS Angling and Charter/Headboat permit holders currently use this method for required reporting of each individual landing of bluefin tuna, billfish, and swordfish within 24 hours. NMFS has also maintained a shortfin mako shark reporting app as an educational tool to encourage the practice of catch-and-release. Additionally, the potential burden associated with mandatory landings reports for shortfin mako sharks would be significantly reduced under the increased minimum size limits being considered in this rulemaking, although it would still represent an increased burden over current reporting requirements. While HMS Angling permit holders are not considered small entities by NMFS for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Charter/Headboat permit holders are considered to be small entities and would be potentially impacted by this alternative.

Under Alternative D1, NMFS would not establish a rebuilding plan for shortfin mako sharks and would maintain the current recreational and commercial shark fishing regulations that pertain to shortfin mako sharks in U.S. fisheries. There would likely be no direct short-term impact on small entities from this alternative as there would be no change in fishing effort or landings of shortfin mako sharks that would impact revenues generated from the commercial and recreational fisheries.

Under Alternative D2, NMFS would establish a domestic rebuilding plan for shortfin mako sharks unilaterally (i.e., without ICCAT). While such an alternative could avoid overfishing shortfin mako sharks in the United States by changing the way that the U.S. recreational and commercial fisheries operate, such a plan could not effectively rebuild the stock, since U.S. catches are only 11 percent of the reported catch Atlantic-wide. Such an alternative would be expected to cause short- and long-term direct economic impacts.

Under Alternative D3, the preferred alternative, NMFS would take preliminary action toward rebuilding by adopting measures to end overfishing to establish a foundation for a rebuilding plan. NMFS would then take action at the international level through ICCAT to develop a rebuilding plan for shortfin mako sharks. ICCAT is planning to establish a rebuilding plan for shortfin mako sharks in 2019, and this rebuilding plan would encompass the objectives set forth by ICCAT based on scientific advice from the SCRS. This alternative would not result in any changes to the current recreational and commercial domestic regulations for shortfin mako sharks in the short-term. There would likely be no direct short-term impact on small entities from this alternative as there would be no change in fishing effort or landings of shortfin mako sharks that would impact revenues generated from the commercial and recreational fisheries. Management measures to address overfishing of shortfin mako sharks could be adopted in 2019. These measures could change the way that the U.S. recreational and commercial shortfin mako shark fishery operates, which could cause long-term direct economic impacts. Any future action to implement international measures would be analyzed in a separate rulemaking.

Under Alternative D4, NMFS would remove shortfin mako sharks from the commercial pelagic shark management group and would implement a species-specific quota for shortfin mako sharks as established by ICCAT, which would include both commercial and recreational catches as well as dead discards. In addition, NMFS would establish a new commercial pelagic shark species quota for common thresher and oceanic whitetip sharks based on recent landings. The 2017 ICCAT stock assessment indicated that the North Atlantic population of shortfin mako sharks is overfished and experiencing overfishing. In November 2017, ICCAT adopted management measures (Recommendation 17-08) to address the overfishing determination, but did not recommend a total allowable catch (TAC) necessary to stop overfishing of shortfin mako sharks. Therefore, it is difficult at this time to determine how setting a species-specific quota for shortfin mako sharks would affect commercial and recreational fishing operations. However, this species-specific quota may provide long-term direct, minor adverse economic impacts if ICCAT established a TAC for the United States that is well below the total average harvest by the United States (i.e., 379 mt whole weight (ww) or 195 mt dw) or below the current annual commercial quota for common thresher, oceanic whitetip, and shortfin mako (488 mt dw) as it could potentially limit the amount of harvest for fishermen. Short-term direct socioeconomic impacts would be neutral for Alternative D4 because initially there would be no reduction in fishing effort and practices.

Under Alternative D5, NMFS would take steps to implement area-based management measures domestically if such measures are established by ICCAT. Recommendation 17-08 calls on the SCRS to provide additional scientific advice in 2019 that takes into account a spatial/temporal analysis of North Atlantic shortfin mako shark catches in order to identify areas with high interactions. Without a specific area to analyze at this time, the precise impacts with regard to impacts on commercial and recreational fishery operations cannot be determined. Implementing area management for shortfin mako sharks, if recommended by the scientific advice, could lead to a reduction in localized fishing effort, which would likely have adverse economic impacts for small entities that land shortfin mako sharks.

Under Alternative D6, NMFS would establish bycatch caps for fisheries that interact with shortfin mako sharks. This alternative would impact the HMS pelagic longline and shark recreational fisheries similar to Alternative D4. However, this alternative could also impact non-HMS fisheries by closing those fisheries if the bycatch cap were reached. This alternative could lead to short-term adverse impacts since the bycatch caps could close fisheries if they are reached until those fishermen could modify fishing behavior to avoid shortfin mako sharks (even in fisheries where shortfin mako sharks are rarely, if ever, seen) and reduce interactions. In the long-term, this alternative would have neutral impacts as the vessels would avoid shortfin mako sharks. The impacts to small businesses are expected to be neutral in the short and long-term as their businesses would not change.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is proposed to be amended as follows:

In 1995, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) adopted a limited access permit system for longfin squid and butterfish as part of Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP (April 2, 1996; 61 FR 14465). Under Amendment 5, NMFS issued longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits to vessels that landed a minimum amount of either species during a specified qualification period. Since then, the number of vessels landing longfin squid has decreased, with a relatively small portion of vessels issued longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits landing the majority of longfin squid in recent years. The Council is concerned that unused longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits could be activated, which could lead to excessive fishing effort and bycatch of both longfin squid and non-target species. This could cause negative biological impacts to these species. In addition, this increased effort could increase the race to fish and reduce access to available longfin squid quota by vessels with a continuous history of landings in recent years. Therefore, the Council developed Amendment 20 to consider the appropriate number of vessels in the directed and incidental longfin squid fishery and design appropriate measures to prevent unanticipated increases in fishing effort. The proposed measures described below could help prevent a race to fish, frequent and disruptive fishery closures, and reduced fishing opportunities for vessels that are more recently dependent upon longfin squid.

Longfin squid spawning occurs year round, but is most frequently observed inshore during the late spring through early fall. Spawning aggregations and associated egg masses (mops) that are attached to the bottom are vulnerable to bottom fishing activities during the summer months when longfin squid are easily accessible to the fishery in large concentrations. In 2007, the Council implemented reduced quotas during summer months (May through August, or Trimester II) as part of the trimester quota system (January 30, 2007; 71 FR 4211). The Council developed the trimester quota system to improve the monitoring and management of the longfin squid fishery and prevent allowable quotas from being exceeded. Once a trimester quota has been caught, possession limits are reduced to incidental levels for all longfin squid permits. The FMP currently includes a possession limit of 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) per trip for incidental permits and when the directed fishery has closed. However, this incidental limit has allowed vessels to continue to land large amounts of longfin squid even after the directed fishery is closed, which contributed to the Trimester II quota being exceeded by large amounts in several years. The Council is concerned that excessive fishing effort inshore during Trimester II could negatively impact the stock, interrupting spawning activity, increasing the mortality of squid eggs, and reducing future recruitment. Measures developed by the Council under this action are intended to reevaluate the management of longfin squid during Trimester II primarily to reduce impacts to spawning squid and egg mops.

The purpose of Amendment 20 is to optimize management measures in the squid fisheries by reducing latent (unused) effort in the longfin squid fishery and adjusting the management of the longfin squid fishery during Trimester II (May through August) to avoid overharvesting the longfin squid resource. Although the Council considered reducing the number of Illex squid moratorium permits in the fishery, the Council decided a reduction in the number of Illex moratorium permits was not appropriate at this time given low Illex landings and limited vessel participation in the fishery in recent years. Measures proposed under this action would promote the sustainable utilization and conservation of the longfin squid and butterfish resources, while promoting the sustained participation of fishing communities and minimizing adverse economic impacts on such communities. If approved, Amendment 20 would:

1. Separate butterfish from the current longfin/butterfish moratorium permit to create a new butterfish moratorium permit and a separate longfin squid moratorium permit;

2. Reissue longfin squid moratorium permits to vessels that landed at least 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of longfin squid in any year from 1997-2013;

3. Create a new longfin squid moratorium permit with a 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) possession limit for vessels that have not landed at least 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of longfin squid in any year from 1997-2013;

4. Create a new longfin squid incidental moratorium permit to enable vessels to continue to land 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of longfin squid per trip;

5. Allow individual entities issued multiple longfin squid moratorium permits a one-time opportunity to swap such permits among their vessels; and

6. Reduce the longfin squid possession limit from 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) to 250 lb (113 kg) for squid/butterfish incidental catch permits and for all longfin squid permits after the Trimester II longfin squid quota is landed.

NMFS seeks public comments on Amendment 20 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period specified in the DATES section of this notice of availability (NOA). Concurrent with NMFS's review of the amendment under the Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures, NMFS may publish a rule proposing to implement measures outlined in this amendment in the Federal Register for public comment. All comments received by the end of the comment period on the NOA, whether specifically directed to the NOA or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. NMFS will not consider comments received after the end of the comment period for the NOA in the approval/disapproval decision of this action.