Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules 42263 

1Service Rules for 698–746, 747–762, and 777– 

792 MHz Bands et al., Second Report and Order, 

22 FCC Rcd 15289 (2007) (700 MHz Second Report 

and Order). 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

781–238–7125. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

September 1, 2017. 

Robert J. Ganley, 

Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards 

Branch, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19018 Filed 9–6–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 27 

[WT Docket No. 06–150, DA 17–810] 

In the Matter of Service Rules for the 

698–746, 747–762, and 777–792 MHz 

Bands 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission explains 

the overall rules and policies for the 

relicensing of 700 MHz spectrum that is 

returned to the Commission’s inventory 

as a result of licensees’ failure to meet 

applicable construction requirements, as 

set forth by the Commission in the 700 

MHz Second Report and Order (WT 

Docket No. 06–150, FCC 07–132). The 

document seeks comment on the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s 

proposed approach for implementing 

the various rules and policies of the 

relicensing process. 

DATES: Interested parties may file 

comments on or before October 10, 

2017, and reply comments on or before 

November 6, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WT Docket No. 06–150, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS): http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. See Electronic 

Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 

Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. Generally if 

more than one docket or rulemaking 

number appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. 

Commenters are only required to file 

copies in GN Docket No. 13–111. 

• Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

Æ All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

Æ Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT: 

Anna Gentry, Anna.Gentry@fcc.gov, of 

the Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, Mobility Division, (202) 418– 

2887. For additional information 

concerning the PRA information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, contact Cathy Williams 

at (202) 418–2918 or send an email to 

PRA@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

document in WT Docket No. 06–150, 

DA 17–810, released on August 28, 

2017. The complete text of the Public 

Notice is available for viewing via the 

Commission’s ECFS Web site by 

entering the docket number, WT Docket 

No. 06–150. The complete text of the 

documents also available for public 

inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday 

through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 

11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC 

Reference Information Center, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202– 

488–5300, fax 202–488–5563. 

This proceeding shall continue to be 

treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules (47 CFR 

1.1200 et seq.). Persons making ex parte 

presentations must file a copy of any 

written presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

I. Synopsis 

In the 2007 700 MHz Second Report 

and Order,1 the Commission adopted 

rules for relicensing of 700 MHz Lower 

A, B, and E Block, and Upper C Block 

spectrum that is returned to the 

Commission’s inventory as a result of 

licensees’ failure to meet applicable 

construction requirements. The 

Commission set forth the overall rules 

and policies for the relicensing process 

and delegated authority to the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) to 

implement those rules and policies. To 

the extent the 700 MHz Second Report 

and Order and other Commission rules 

set forth elements of the relicensing 

process, the document cites to those 

rules, and otherwise seeks comment on 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
42264 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

the Bureau’s proposed approach to the 

remaining elements of the process, 

including the respective costs and 

benefits of the various proposals. 

A. Required Filing for Keep What You 

Serve 

Pursuant to the 700 MHz Second 

Report and Order, licensees that fail to 

meet the construction requirement and 

are subject to the Keep What You Serve 

(KWYS) KWYS rules will be required to 

file an electronic coverage map in order 

to demonstrate the geographic portion of 

the licensed area the licensee will 

retain, and the geographic area that will 

be returned to the Commission for 

reassignment. Licensees admitting 

failure must include the additional 

required filing for KWYS with their 

construction notification at the end-ofterm construction deadline. If a licensee 

claims to have met the construction 

benchmark, but the Bureau deems the 

licensee to have failed after review of 

the construction notification, the 

licensee will be asked to amend its 

initial construction notification filing to 

include the additional required filing for 

KWYS. 

In order to implement the KWYS 

rules, the document proposes and seeks 

comment on a process whereby 

licensees would demonstrate the 

‘‘served’’ area of the license by filing a 

shapefile showing a smooth enclosed 40 

dBmV/m field strength contour (Smooth 

Contour) of existing facilities as of the 

end-of-term deadline. The portion of the 

license market covered by the Smooth 

Contour would be deemed ‘‘served’’ for 

the purposes of the KWYS rule and 

become the reduced licensed area that 

the licensee ‘‘keeps.’’ Recognizing that 

some licensees might provide service at 

significantly lower field strength such 

that the 40 dBmV/m Smooth Contour 

would result in a reduced licensed area 

that is substantially smaller than the 

licensee’s actual service area, the 

document also proposes that, if the 40 

dBmV/m Smooth Contour would result 

in a reduced licensed area that is at least 

25 percent smaller than the licensee’s 

actual service area, the licensee could 

demonstrate the service area using a 

lower dBmV/m field strength smooth 

contour (Alternative Smooth Contour). 

Under this proposed approach, in order 

to be acceptable for filing, a submission 

using an Alternative Smooth Contour 

would be required to demonstrate that: 

(1) The licensee is operating a viable 

service at the lower field strength; and 

(2) the service area using the lower 

dBmV/m field strength Alternative 

Smooth Contour is at least 25 percent 

larger than it would be using the 40 

dBmV/m field strength Smooth Contour. 

The Bureau would update the license in 

the Commission’s Universal Licensing 

System (ULS) using either the Smooth 

Contour or Alternative Smooth Contour 

shapefile to reflect the reduced license 

boundary. The remaining portion of the 

original license market would be 

deemed unserved area and would return 

to the Commission’s inventory for 

relicensing. 

The document seeks comment on this 

proposed methodology for determining 

licensees’ service area and what, if any, 

alternatives to this approach might 

achieve the Commission’s goals of 

accurately reflecting licensees’ service 

areas and making spectrum available for 

relicensing in an efficient manner. 

B. Identifying Unserved Area 

Pursuant to the 700 MHz Second 

Report and Order, information about the 

available unserved areas will be 

publicly available. Under the approach 

proposed in this document, the Bureau 

would use the Smooth Contour or 

Alternative Smooth Contour shapefiles 

submitted by failing licensees to 

determine the unserved areas of each 

market. The Bureau would compile 

these unserved portions together as 

areas that would be available for 

relicensing and would provide 

instructions on how to access that 

information by public notice. The 

public notice announcing the unserved 

areas available for relicensing would 

also provide further instructions and 

specific dates for the commencement of 

the relicensing process. In setting these 

dates, the Bureau intends to provide 

potential applicants with at least 60 

days prior to the commencement of 

relicensing to enable them to make 

necessary inquiries about available area, 

e.g. site leases, existing infrastructure, 

neighboring operations, and network 

and backhaul needs. 

C. Phased Relicensing Process 

The document also describes the twophased application process for the 

relicensing of unserved areas, as set 

forth in Section 27.14 of the 

Commission’s rules. The document 

explains that applications for available 

unserved areas will be filed via ULS and 

the applicant will select the available 

unserved area that they wish to serve by 

filing a shapefile covering that area. 

In order to implement the relicensing 

process, this document proposes to 

provide applicants with access to a 

publicly available map displaying the 

areas available for relicensing, from 

which they could determine the areas 

they are interested in licensing. In the 

interest of administrative clarity and 

functionality, this document proposes 

limiting a single application to include 

one shapefile of a contiguous shape, or, 

if non-contiguous, requiring that the 

shapes be within a single market 

boundary. If an applicant files for noncontiguous shapes in a single 

application, grant of the application 

would result in a single license and a 

single buildout requirement would be 

applied to all shapes as a whole. 

Consequently, failure to meet the 

buildout requirement with respect to 

one non-contiguous shape would result 

in application of the penalty for failure 

to all shapes as a whole. This document 

seeks comment on this proposed 

treatment of applications for available 

unserved areas and what, if any, further 

restrictions or methods might be 

necessary to ensure efficient processing 

and review of applications filed during 

the relicensing process. 

D. Phase 1 of Relicensing 

As set forth in the Commission’s 

rules, relicensing will begin with a 30- 

day Phase 1 filing window. Pursuant to 

section 27.14, the original licensee of 

available unserved areas, whose 

authorization to serve that area 

terminated due to failure to meet the 

end-of-term construction benchmark, is 

barred during Phase 1 from applying to 

relicense that area. This Phase 1 bar is 

specific to each unserved area, and 

therefore an applicant that is barred 

from one unserved area during Phase 1 

is not barred from applying for other 

available areas for which it was not the 

original licensee. 

In order to implement the Phase 1 bar, 

this document proposes to apply the bar 

to any applicant that has any interest or 

ownership in, or any control of, the 

original licensee and to any applicant in 

which the original licensee has any 

interest, ownership, or control. This 

document seeks comment on requiring 

applicants to certify in the application 

that: (1) The applicant is not the original 

licensee of the unserved area; (2) the 

applicant does not have any interest in 

or own or control any part of the 

original licensee of the unserved area; 

and (3) the original licensee of the 

unserved area does not have any interest 

in or own or control any part of the 

applicant. This document seeks 

comment on this approach and potential 

alternatives for applying the bar, 

including application of the 

Commission’s pro forma standard for 

determining ownership, which looks to 

both de jure and de facto control of the 

licensee. 

Pursuant to the Commission’s Part 1 

rules, at the end of the 30-day Phase 1 

filing window, the Bureau will issue a 

public notice listing applications found 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules 42265 

acceptable for filing during Phase 1. The 

public notice will identify which 

acceptable applications, if any, are 

mutually exclusive with each other. All 

applications received during the Phase 

1 filing window for a particular 

available unserved area are treated as 

contemporaneous for the purposes of 

mutual exclusivity. Pursuant to section 

27.14(j)(1), applications will be deemed 

mutually exclusive if they propose areas 

overlapping with other applications. 

Consistent with the 700 MHz Second 

Report and Order, no further mutually 

exclusive applications may be filed after 

the 30-day filing window has ended, but 

licensees and third parties may file 

petitions to deny any pending 

applications within 30 days of the 

release of the public notice listing Phase 

1 applications found acceptable for 

filing. This document explains that, 

subject to the Greenmail Rule, 

applicants may resolve mutual 

exclusivity by withdrawing or filing a 

minor amendment to one or both of the 

mutually exclusive applications, and 

describes the types of amendments that 

qualify as a minor amendment, rather 

than a major amendment, which 

requires a new public notice period. 

In order to implement these policies 

concerning mutually exclusive 

applications, this document proposes 

that applicants would be permitted to 

resolve their mutually exclusive 

applications or attempt to reach a 

settlement during the public notice 

period that follows the Phase 1 filing 

window. Similar to the Commission’s 

approach in other licensing and 

competitive bidding contexts, this 

document proposes that the definition 

of mutually exclusive applications 

would include ‘‘daisy chains’’ of mutual 

exclusivity, which occur when two or 

more applications contain proposed 

areas that do not directly overlap, but 

are linked together into a chain by the 

overlapping proposal(s) of other(s). 

E. Phase 2 of Relicensing 

As set forth in the rules establishing 

the relicensing process, during Phase 2 

interested applicants, including those 

that were barred during Phase 1, may 

file applications for available unserved 

areas that were not licensed during 

Phase 1 or for which there are no 

pending applications. 

In order to implement the Phase 2 

process, this document proposes and 

seeks comment on a process whereby 

the Bureau would update the publicly 

available relicensing map following 

Phase 1 to reflect pending applications, 

licenses that were issued, and area that 

remains available for relicensing. As 

with Phase 1, this document proposes 

that the definition of mutual exclusivity 

for Phase 2 applications would include 

applications that, though not mutually 

exclusive of the first-filed application, 

are mutually exclusive of another 

application that overlaps the first-filed 

application—i.e., a ‘‘daisy chain’’ as 

described above. This document 

proposes that the public notice for the 

first-filed application would determine 

the applicable filing period for all 

subsequent mutually exclusive or 

‘‘daisy chain’’ applications. Following a 

Phase 2 application’s 30-day public 

notice, this document proposes and 

seeks comment on a process whereby, if 

the Bureau determines there are existing 

applications that are mutually exclusive 

of the initial application, it would notify 

the parties of the conflicting 

applications and provide 60 days to 

resolve the mutual exclusivity. Any 

mutually exclusive applications that are 

not resolved by the end of the 60-day 

period would be subject to auction. This 

document seeks comment on this 

proposed approach to mutual 

exclusivity during Phase 2. 

F. Relicensed Area Construction 

Requirement and Showing 

As set forth in section 27.14(j)(3), 

licensees of 700 MHz licenses acquired 

through the relicensing process will 

have one year from the date the new 

license is issued to complete 

construction, provide signal coverage, 

and offer service over 100 percent of the 

geographic area of the new license area. 

Pursuant to the Commission’s rules, if 

the licensee fails to meet this 

construction requirement, its license 

will automatically terminate without 

Commission action and it will not be 

eligible to apply to provide service to 

this area at any future date. 

In order to implement the 

Commission’s goals of facilitating rapid 

deployment of service on relicensed 

spectrum and to prevent potential 

gaming of the relicensing process, this 

document proposes to treat any 

modification, cancellation, or 

assignment of a license as failure to 

provide signal coverage and offer 

service to the entire relicensed area, 

such that the penalty for failure would 

apply. Specifically, under the proposal, 

licensees would not be permitted to 

modify the licensed area prior to 

meeting the one-year construction 

benchmark in order to reduce the area 

they must cover. Cancellation of the 

license prior to meeting the one-year 

construction benchmark would also 

constitute failure, and the former 

licensee would not be eligible to apply 

to serve any portion of this area at any 

future date. Finally, licensees would be 

permitted to file applications to assign 

licenses acquired through relicensing 

(including requests to partition and 

disaggregate) only after they have 

demonstrated that they have met the 

construction benchmark. This document 

seeks comment on this approach to the 

construction requirement and what, if 

any, further restrictions might be 

necessary to promote the Commission’s 

goals in establishing the requirements. 

In order to implement the 

construction requirement for relicensed 

area, this document proposes that, at the 

one-year construction deadline, 

licensees would be required to 

demonstrate that they provide signal 

coverage and offer service over 100 

percent of the geographic area by filing 

either a Smooth Contour or an 

Alternative Smooth Contour, consistent 

with the proposed required filings for 

KWYS. This document seek comment 

on what, if any, alternative filings might 

be appropriate methods for licensees to 

demonstrate that they satisfy the 

construction requirement. 

Given the proposed requirements and 

penalties for failing to meet the 

construction requirement, this 

document notes that it is particularly 

important that potential participants in 

the relicensing process only apply for 

portions of available unserved areas if 

they, through due diligence, have 

determined they can provide signal 

coverage and offer service over 100 

percent of the area within one year from 

the date of license issuance. Under 

approach proposed in this document, it 

would be particularly important that 

potential licensees conduct due 

diligence prior to applying for available 

unserved areas during the relicensing 

process and ensure the shapefile used in 

their application is an accurate 

reflection of the Smooth Contour or 

Alternative Smooth Contour they would 

be required to file at the one-year 

construction deadline. Additionally, the 

Bureau recommends that potential 

licensees review the technical narratives 

and specifications of construction 

notifications that the Bureau has 

previously accepted for the 700 MHz 

band. 

II. Procedural Matters 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the 

Commission prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

in connection with the 700 MHz Further 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
42266 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

2Service Rules for 698–746, 747–762, and 777– 

792 MHz Bands et al., Report and Order and 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC 

Rcd 8064, 8212 (2007) (700 MHz Further Notice). 

3 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 

at 15542. 

Notice 2 and a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in 

connection with the 700 MHz Second 

Report and Order.3 While no 

commenter directly responded to the 

IRFA, the FRFA addressed concerns 

about the impact on small business of 

the KWYS rules. The IRFA and FRFA 

set forth the need for and objectives of 

the Commission’s rules for the KWYS 

rules; the legal basis for those rules, a 

description and estimate of the number 

of small entities to which the rules 

apply; a description of projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements for small 

entities; steps taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities and significant alternatives 

considered; and a statement that there 

are no federal rules that may duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with the rules. The 

proposals in this document do not 

change any of those descriptions. 

This document does, however, detail 

proposed procedures for implementing 

those rules. Therefore, this document 

seeks comment on how the proposals in 

this document could affect either the 

IRFA or the FRFA. Such comments 

must be filed in accordance with the 

same filing deadlines for responses to 

this document and have a separate and 

distinct heading designating them as 

responses to the IRFA and FRFA. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act 

Analysis 

The document contains proposed new 

information collection requirements. 

The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, invites the general public and 

OMB to comment on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, as required by PRA. In 

addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks 

specific comment on how it might 

‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Nese Guendelsberger, 

Senior Deputy Bureau Chief, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18987 Filed 9–6–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 170717675–7675–01] 

RIN 0648–XF571 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Golden Tilefish Fishery; 2018 

and Projected 2019–2020 

Specifications 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes specifications 

for the 2018 commercial golden tilefish 

fishery and projected specifications for 

2019 and 2020. The proposed action is 

intended to establish allowable harvest 

levels and other management measures 

to prevent overfishing while allowing 

optimum yield, consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act and 

the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan. 

It is also intended to inform the public 

of these proposed specifications for the 

2018 fishing year and projected 

specifications for 2019–2020. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

5 p.m. local time, on September 22, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2017–0091, by either of the 

following methods: 

ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION: Submit 

all electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. 

1. Go to www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017- 

0091, 

2. Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields. 

3. Enter or attach your comments. 

- OR - 

MAIL: Submit written comments to 

John Bullard, Regional Administrator, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 

Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 

01930. Mark the outside of the 

envelope: ‘‘Comments on the Proposed 

Rule for Golden Tilefish 

Specifications.’’ 

INSTRUCTIONS: Comments sent by 

any other method, to any other address 

or individual, or received after the end 

of the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

A draft environmental assessment 

(EA) has been prepared for this action 

that describes the proposed measures 

and other considered alternatives, as 

well as provides an analysis of the 

impacts of the proposed measures and 

alternatives. Copies of the specifications 

document, including the EA and the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA), are available on request from Dr. 

Christopher M. Moore, Executive 

Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, Suite 201, 800 

North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. 

These documents are also accessible via 

the Internet at http://www.mafmc.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Hanson, Fishery Management 

Specialist, (978) 281–9180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The golden tilefish fishery is managed 

by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council under the Tilefish 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which 

outlines the Council’s process for 

establishing annual specifications. The 

FMP requires the Council to recommend 

acceptable biological catch (ABC), 

annual catch limit (ACL), annual catch 

target (ACT), total allowable landings 

(TAL), and other management measures, 

for up to three years at a time. The 

directed fishery is managed under an 

individual fishing quota (IFQ) program, 

with small amounts of non-IFQ catch 

allowed under an incidental permit. The 

Council’s Scientific and Statistical 

Committee (SSC) provides an ABC 

recommendation to the Council to 

derive these catch limits. The Council 

makes recommendations to NMFS that 

cannot exceed the recommendation of 

its SSC. The Council’s 

recommendations must include 

supporting documentation concerning 

the environmental, economic, and social 

impacts of the recommendations. We 

are responsible for reviewing these 

recommendations to ensure that they 

achieve the FMP objectives and are 

consistent with all applicable laws, and 

may modify them if they do not. 

Following review, NMFS publishes the 

final specifications in the Federal 

Register. 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS