        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        Defense Acquisition Regulations System
        48 CFR Parts 215, 219, and 235
        [Docket DARS-2016-0030]
        RIN 0750-AJ03
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Pilot Program for Streamlining Awards for Innovative Technology Projects (DFARS Case 2016-D016)

          AGENCY:
          Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 that provides exceptions from the certified cost and pricing data requirements and from the records examination requirement for certain awards to small businesses or nontraditional defense contractors.

          DATES:

          Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before October 31, 2016, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2016-D016, using any of the following methods:
          ○ Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “DFARS Case 2016-D016” under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “DFARS Case 2016-D016.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “DFARS Case 2016-D016” on your attached document.
          ○ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include DFARS Case 2016-D016 in the subject line of the message.
          ○ Fax: 571-372-6094.
          ○ Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Jennifer D. Johnson, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

          Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Jennifer D. Johnson, telephone 571-372-6100.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background

        This rule proposes to revise the DFARS to implement section 873 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92). Section 873 provides an exception from certified cost and pricing data requirements for contracts, subcontracts, or modifications of contracts or subcontracts valued at less than $7.5 million awarded to a small business or nontraditional defense contractor pursuant to a technical, merit-based selection procedure (e.g., broad agency announcement) or the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program. Section 873 provides authority to determine that submission of cost and pricing data should be required based on past performance of the specific small business or nontraditional defense contractor or analysis of other information specific to the award. Section 873 also provides an exception from the records examination requirement at 10 U.S.C. 2313 for contracts valued at less than $7.5 million awarded to a small business or nontraditional defense contractor pursuant to a technical, merit-based selection procedure (e.g., broad agency announcement) or the SBIR Program. Section 873 provides authority to determine that auditing of records should be required based on past performance of the specific small business or nontraditional defense contractor or analysis of other information specific to the award. These exceptions end on October 1, 2020.
        II. Discussion and Analysis
        This rule proposes amendments to DFARS subpart 215.4, subpart 219.2, and part 235 as summarized in the following paragraphs:

          A. Subpart 215.4, Contract Pricing.

        • 215.401, Definitions. This section is added to provide a definition of “nontraditional defense contractor,” consistent with section 873 of the NDAA for FY 2016.
        • 215.403-1, Prohibition on Obtaining Certified cost or Pricing Data. This section is amended to add text implementing the exception in section 873 from certified cost or pricing data requirements.
        • 215.404-2, Data to Support Proposal Analysis. This section is amended to add text implementing the exception in section 873 from the records examination requirement.

          B. Subpart 219.2, Policies. At section 219.202, Specific Policies, introductory text is added to provide a cross reference to refer contracting officers to the new text in DFARS 215.403-1 and 215.404-2.

          C. Part 235, Research and Development Contracting. Section 235.016, Broad Agency Announcement, is added to refer contracting officers to the new text in subpart 215.4.
        III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:

        This rule proposes to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement section 873 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92). Section 873 provides an exception from certified cost and pricing data requirements for contracts, subcontracts, or modifications of contracts or subcontracts valued at less than $7.5 million awarded to a small business or nontraditional defense contractor pursuant to a technical, merit-based selection procedure (e.g., broad agency announcement) or the Small Business Innovation Research Program. Section 873 provides authority to determine that submission of cost and pricing data should be required based on past performance of the specific small business or nontraditional defense contractor or analysis of other information specific to the award. Section 873 also provides an exception from the records examination requirement at 10 U.S.C. 2313 for contracts valued at less than $7.5 million awarded to a small business or nontraditional defense contractor pursuant to a technical, merit-based selection procedure (e.g., broad agency announcement) or the Small Business Innovation Research Program. Section 873 provides authority to determine that auditing of records should be required based on past performance of the specific small business or nontraditional defense contractor or analysis of other information specific to the award. These exceptions end on October 1, 2020.
        The objectives of this rule are to implement statutory exceptions from certified cost and pricing data requirements and from the records examination requirement, thereby streamlining awards for innovative technology projects to small businesses and nontraditional defense contractors. The legal basis for the rule is section 873 of the NDAA for FY 2016.

        The rule will apply to small entities who receive awards pursuant to a broad agency announcement or the Small Business Innovation Research Program. DoD has awarded such contracts valued at less than $7.5 million to approximately 1,120 unique small entities per year during the last three years.
        This proposed rule does not include any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small businesses. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
        DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
        DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2016-D016), in correspondence.
        V. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 215, 219, and 235
          Government procurement.

          Jennifer L. Hawes,
          Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

        Therefore, 48 CFR parts 215, 219, and 235 are proposed to be amended as follows:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 215, 219, and 235 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

          PART 215—CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

        2. Add section 215.401 to read as follows:

          215.401
          Definitions.

            Nontraditional defense contractor, as used in this subpart, means an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed any contract or subcontract for DoD that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1502 and the regulations implementing such section, for at least the 1-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by DoD for the procurement (10 U.S.C. 2302(9)).

        3. Revise section 215.403-1(b) to read as follows:

          215.403-1
          Prohibition on obtaining certified cost or pricing data (10 U.S.C. 2306a and 41 U.S.C. chapter 35).
          (b) Exceptions to certified cost or pricing data requirements. (i) Follow the procedures at PGI 215.403-1(b).
          (ii)(A) Until October 1, 2020, except as provided in paragraph (b)(ii)(B) of this section, the requirement to submit certified cost or pricing data shall not apply to contracts, subcontracts, or modifications of contracts or subcontracts valued at less than $7.5 million awarded to a small business concern or nontraditional defense contractor pursuant to—
          (1) A broad agency announcement containing technical, merit-based selection criteria (see FAR 35.016(b)(2)); or
          (2) The Small Business Innovation Research Program.
          (B) Notwithstanding the exception in paragraph (b)(ii)(A) of this section, the head of the contracting activity may determine that submission of certified cost or pricing data should be required based on past performance of the specific small business or nontraditional defense contractor, or based on analysis of other information specific to the award.

        4. Revise section 215.404-2 to read as follows:

          215.404-2
          Data to support proposal analysis.
          (a)(i) Until October 1, 2020, except as provided in paragraph (a)(ii) of this section, the requirement for records examination under 10 U.S.C. 2313(b) shall not apply to a contract valued at less than $7.5 million awarded to a small business concern or nontraditional defense contractor pursuant to—
          (A) A broad agency announcement containing technical, merit-based selection criteria (see FAR 35.016(b)(2)); or
          (B) The Small Business Innovation Research Program.
          (ii) Notwithstanding the exception in paragraph (a)(i) of this section, the head of the contracting activity may determine that auditing of records should be required based on past performance of the specific small business or nontraditional defense contractor, or based on analysis of other information specific to the award.
          (b) See PGI 215.404-2 for guidance on obtaining field pricing or audit assistance.

          PART 219—SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS

        5. Revise section 219.202 to read as follows:

          219.202
          Specific policies.
          See 215.403-1 and 215.404-2 when contemplating award of a contract, subcontract, or modification to a small business or nontraditional defense contractor, as defined in subpart 215.4.

          PART 235—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING

        6. Add section 235.016 to read as follows:

          235.016
          Broad agency announcement.
          See 215.403-1 and 215.404-2 when contemplating award of a contract, subcontract, or modification to a small business or nontraditional defense contractor, as defined in subpart 215.4.

      [FR Doc. 2016-20477 Filed 8-29-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        41 CFR Part 102-36
        [FMR Case 2009-102-2; Docket 2009-0002, Sequence 2]
        RIN 3090-AI87
        Federal Management Regulation; FMR Case 2009-102-2; Disposition of Excess Personal Property

          AGENCY:
          Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The General Services Administration is proposing to amend the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) by making a change to its personal property policy. The proposed change will update and clarify language that has caused some confusion with our customers and resulted in unnecessarily prolonged periods to remove property.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For clarification of content, contact Mr. Robert Holcombe, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Office of Travel, Transportation, and Asset Management (MT), (202) 501-3828 or e-mail at robert.holcombe@gsa.gov. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules contact the Regulatory Secretariat, 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4041, Washington, DC, 20405, (202) 501-4755. Please cite FMR case 2009-102-2.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit comments in writing on or before June 1, 2009 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by FMR case 2009-102-2 by any of the following methods:
          • Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov.

          Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting “FMR Case 2009-102-2” under the heading “Comment or Submission”. Select the link “Send a Comment or Submission” that corresponds with FMR Case 2009-102-2. Follow the instructions provided to complete the “Public Comment and Submission Form”. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FMR Case 2009-102-2” on your attached document.
          • Fax: 202-501-4067.
          • Mail: General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4041, ATTN: Hada Flowers, Washington, DC 20405.

            Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FMR Case 2009-102-2 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background
        The purpose of the proposed rule is to update and clarify FMR 102-36.135. The current language has caused confusion with our customers and resulted in unnecessarily prolonged removal periods. This revision makes it clear that the acquiring agency is responsible for scheduling and coordinating the property removal once the acquiring agency receives notification from GSA that they have been allocated the property.
        B. Executive Order 12866
        This proposed rule is excepted from the definition of “regulation” or “rule” under Section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993 and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of that Executive Order.
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        This proposed rule is not required to be published in the Federal Register for notice and comment as per the exemption specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 (a)(2); therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., does not apply.
        D. Paperwork Reduction Act

        The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the FMR do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et
          seq.
        E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
        This proposed rule is exempt from Congressional review under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to agency management and personnel.

          List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 102-36
          Government property, Property disposal.

          Dated: February 23, 2009.
          Stan Kaczmarczyk,
          Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Governmentwide Policy.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, GSA proposes to amend 41 CFR part 102-36 as set forth below:

          PART 102-36—DISPOSITION OF EXCESS PERSONAL PROPERTY
          1. The authority citation for 41 CFR part 102-36 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            40 U.S.C. 121(c).

          2. Revise § 102-36.135 to read as follows:

            § 102-36.135
            How much time do we have to pick up excess personal property that has been approved for transfer?
            Normally, you have 15 calendar days from the date of GSA allocation to pick up the excess personal property for transfer and you are responsible for scheduling and coordinating the property removal with the holding agency. If additional removal time is required, you are responsible for requesting such additional removal time.

      [FR Doc. E9-7152 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-14-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        RIN 0648-AW72
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery; Amendment 16

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of a fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amdnement 16 to the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its associated draft Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Secretarial review and is requesting comments from the public. Amendment 16 was developed by the Council as part of the biennial adjustment process in the FMP to update status determination criteria for all regulated NE multispecies or ocean pout stocks; to adopt rebuilding programs for NE multispecies stocks newly classified as being overfished and subject to overfishing; and to revise management measures, including significant revisions to the Sector management and allocation measures, necessary to end overfishing, rebuild overfished regulated NE multispecies or ocean pout stocks, and mitigate the adverse economic impacts of increased effort controls. Amendment 16 would also implement new requirements for establishing allowable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limits (ACLs), and accountability measures (AMs) for each stock managed by the FMP, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Finally, this action would add Atlantic wolffish to the list of species managed by the FMP. This action is necessary to address the results of the most recent stock assessment, which indicate that several additional NE multispecies regulated species are overfished and subject to overfishing and that some stocks currently classified as overfished require additional reductions in fishing mortality to rebuild by the end of their rebuilding periods.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before December 22, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AW72, by any of the following methods:
          • Email: MultsA16FEIS@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line RIN or text that identifies the subject Federal Register document open for comment.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Douglas Christel.
          • Mail or hand-delivery: Paper, disk, or CD-ROM comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on the NE Multispecies Amendment 16 FEIS.”

          Instructions: All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments (either N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of Amendment 16, its Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the draft of the FEIS are available from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. Copies of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) are available from the Regional Administrator at the address above. The EIS/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nefmc.org/nemulti/index.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone: 978-281-9141, fax: 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Amendment 13 to the FMP, which became effective May 1, 2004 (April 27, 2004; 69 FR 22906), established two different strategies for rebuilding (an adaptive strategy and a phased rebuilding strategy), and a rebuilding plan for each overfished stock was developed in accordance with one of the two strategies. Under the “adaptive” rebuilding strategy, the fishing mortality rate (F) is held at a level that would produce maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) from 2004 through 2008, and then is subsequently reduced to the level required to rebuild by the selected end-date of the rebuilding period. In contrast, under the “phased” rebuilding strategy, F was allowed to remain above FMSY at the start of the rebuilding period in 2004, and then was reduced sequentially in 2006 and 2009. Eight stocks (Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod, Georges Bank (GB) haddock, GOM haddock, Southern New England (SNE)/Mid-Atlantic (MA) winter flounder, GB yellowtail flounder, redfish, windowpane flounder (southern stock), and ocean pout) are managed under the adaptive rebuilding strategy, while five stocks (GB cod, Cape Cod (CC)/GOM yellowtail flounder, SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, American plaice, and white hake) are managed under the phased rebuilding strategy.
        Amendment 13 also established a biennial adjustment process whereby the Council reviews the FMP and makes any changes to management measures necessary to achieve the goals and objectives of the FMP. This adjustment process provides an update of the scientific information regarding the status of the stocks and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the regulations. The biennial review scheduled to occur in 2008, with necessary changes to the FMP implemented in 2009, included a peer-reviewed benchmark assessment and a review of the biological reference points (stock status determination criteria) for each stock. This planned assessment of the biological reference points (Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting, (GARM III)) was also part of the adaptive rebuilding strategy described above, which sought to evaluate the more fundamental scientific information mid-way through the rebuilding period for most stocks. GARM III, completed in August 2008, included a series of meetings over the course of one year. GARM III evaluated the underlying data and models utilized for assessment of the groundfish stocks, evaluated the biological reference points, established new reference points, assessed the biomass and fishing mortality status of the groundfish stocks in 2007, and provided examples of the Fs that would be expected to rebuild overfished stocks.

        GARM III concluded that 11 stocks were still subject to overfishing (i.e., fishing above the FMSY) and that 12 stocks were overfished (i.e., biomass levels were less than one half of the biomass at MSY (BMSY)), with 10 stocks classified as both overfished and subject to overfishing. A final determination on the status of pollock could not be made until the fall 2008 survey data made available, as the status of this species is based on the 3-year centered average of the fall biomass indices. Such data became available in January 2009, and indicated that pollock is overfished.

        The Council began development of Amendment 16 in 2006, with the intent of implementing any necessary revisions to management measures by the start of fishing year (FY) 2009 on May 1, 2009. On November 6, 2006, a notice of intent to prepare a supplemental EIS and hold scoping meetings designed to solicit public input on any revisions to management measures necessary to continue rebuilding overfished groundfish stocks was published in the Federal Register (71 FR 64941). The Council continued to develop Amendment 16 for implementation in FY 2009 until a presentation by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center NMFS (NEFSC) regarding preliminary estimates of 2006 stock size and F at the June 2008 Council meeting indicated that draft effort control measures under development for Amendment 16 were not targeting the correct stocks. Based on this information, the Council decided to wait until the receipt of the final GARM III assessment results in September 2008 to continue the development of appropriate management measures under Amendment 16. The Council subsequently developed a revised schedule of development for Amendment 16, which postponed implementation of Amendment 16 until the start of FY 2010 on May 1, 2010. In addition, the Council voted on September 4, 2008, to request that NMFS implement an interim action for the duration of FY 2009 (May 1, 2009-April 30, 2010), and recommended a specific suite of management measures for the interim action. A proposed rule to implement interim management measures published on January 16, 2009 (74 FR 2959), with final interim measures published on April 13, 2009 (74 FR 17030) and effective on May 1, 2009.

        Based upon the final results of GARM III, the Council adopted draft management measures and an associated draft EIS (DEIS) at its February 2009 meeting. A notice of availability for the DEIS, which analyzed the impacts of all of the measures under consideration in Amendment 16, was published on April 24, 2009 (74 FR 18705), with public comments accepted through June 8, 2009. Final measures under Amendment 16 were adopted by the Council at its June 2009 meeting. In addition to the implementing management measures to reduce F for overfished stocks, Amendment 16 contains changes to status determination criteria and other aspects of the management program, such as an ABC control rule and potential sector contributions, that are not reflected in regulations. The proposed measures include: Revisions to biological reference points for most stocks; incorporation of Atlantic wolffish into the list of NE multispecies managed by the FMP; new reporting measures to increase timeliness and accuracy of catch data; changes in the allocation of days-at-sea (DAS) between Category A DAS and Category B DAS; changes to the way NE multispecies DAS are allocated and counted; gear restricted areas; modifications to the DAS Leasing and Transfer Programs; changes in minimum fish size for two stocks; revisions to special access programs (SAPs); modifications to existing trip limits, including increased trip limits for some stocks and landings prohibitions for other stocks; changes to Sector allocation procedures; modifications to Sector eligibility requirements; revisions to Sector operation plan requirements, including new and revised monitoring and reporting requirements and allowable exemptions; approval of 17 new Sectors; revisions to recreational gear, seasonal, and possession restrictions; establishment of a process to set and distribute ABCs and ACLs for all managed stocks among fishery subcomponents; and AMs for both commercial and recreational fisheries.

        A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 16, if approved, will be published in the Federal Register for public comment, following NMFS's evaluation of the proposed rule under the procedures of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 16 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by December 22, 2009, whether specifically directed to Amendment 16 or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. Any comments on the proposed rule received after that date will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove Amendment 16. To be considered, comments must be received by the close of business on the last day of the comment period; that does not mean postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: October 19, 2009.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service

      [FR Doc. E9-25546 Filed 10-22-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        RIN 0648-BC39
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Amendment 95 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notification of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council has submitted Amendment 95 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) for review by the Secretary of Commerce. If approved, Amendment 95 would modify the FMP to: establish halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) limits for the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) in Federal regulation; reduce the GOA halibut PSC limits for trawl and hook-and-line gear; reduce trawl halibut PSC sideboard limits for American Fisheries Act, Amendment 80, and Central GOA Rockfish Program vessels; and provide two additional management measures associated with halibut PSC accounting for Amendment 80 vessels subject to halibut PSC sideboards and for halibut PSC made by trawl vessels from May 15 through June 30, which would maintain groundfish harvest while achieving the halibut PSC limit reductions intended by this action. This action is necessary to reduce halibut bycatch in the GOA, and is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMP, and other applicable law.

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 95 must be received on or before October 28, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2012-0151, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2012-0151 click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.
          • Fax: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Fax comments to 907-586-7557.

            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 a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), 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). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Electronic copies of Amendment 95 to the FMP, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the Environmental Assessment (EA), prepared for this action are available from http://www.regulations.gov or from the Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rachel Baker or Obren Davis, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register
          announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. This document announces that proposed Amendment 95 to the FMP is available for public review and comment.
        The groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of Alaska are managed under the GOA FMP and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area. These fishery management plans were prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Proposed Amendment 95 would improve management of halibut bycatch, commonly known as halibut PSC, in the GOA. Amendment 95 would (1) Establish halibut PSC limits for the GOA in Federal regulation; (2) reduce the GOA halibut PSC limits for trawl and hook-and-line gear; (3) proportionately reduce trawl halibut PSC sideboard limits for American Fisheries Act (AFA), Amendment 80, and Central GOA Rockfish Program vessels; and (4) modify management measures for halibut PSC sideboard limits for Amendment 80 vessels and for halibut PSC used by trawl vessels from May 15 through June 30. This proposed action is necessary to reduce halibut PSC limits in the GOA groundfish fisheries and to ensure long-term conservation and abundance of halibut for all users.
        Recent declines in halibut exploitable biomass, particularly in the GOA, have exacerbated concerns about the amount of halibut PSC taken by the groundfish fisheries because of the potential effect it has on directed commercial, charter, unguided, and subsistence halibut fisheries. Amendment 95 recognizes that the dynamics of the directed and non-directed halibut fisheries have changed significantly since halibut PSC limits were first established. The halibut PSC limit for the GOA trawl has been maintained at, or very near, 2,000 mt since 1989. The 300 mt halibut PSC limit for the non-trawl fisheries has remained unchanged since 1995.
        Since the existing GOA halibut PSC limits were established, there have been changes in groundfish and halibut management programs and fishing patterns, environmental conditions, fishing technology, and knowledge of halibut and groundfish stocks. The total biomass and abundance of halibut has varied, and in recent years the stock is experiencing an ongoing decline in size for all ages in all areas. This proposed action is meant to reduce halibut PSC limits to the extent practicable, while at the same time allowing for optimum yield in the GOA groundfish fishery.
        Amendment 95 would provide for the establishment of GOA halibut PSC limits in Federal regulation. These limits would be reduced from the current halibut PSC levels for trawl and hook-and-line gear as follows:
        • 7 percent reduction for hook-and-line catcher/processors;
        • 15 percent reduction phased-in over 3 years for hook-and-line catcher vessels (7 percent the first year, an additional 5 percent the second year, and the final 3 percent the third year);
        • 1 metric ton reduction for the hook-and-line demersal shelf rockfish southeast outside district; and
        • 15 percent reduction phased-in over 3 years for trawl (7 percent the first year, an additional 5 percent the second year, and the final 3 percent the third year).
        Seasonal and gear apportionments of halibut PSC limits would continue to be set through the annual GOA groundfish harvest specifications process. Section 679.21(d)(5) authorizes NMFS to seasonally apportion the halibut PSC limits after consultation with the Council. The GOA FMP and regulations require that the Council and NMFS consider the following information in seasonally apportioning halibut PSC limits: (1) Seasonal distribution of halibut, (2) seasonal distribution of target groundfish species relative to halibut distribution, (3) expected halibut bycatch needs on a seasonal basis relative to changes in halibut biomass and expected catch of target groundfish species, (4) expected bycatch rates on a seasonal basis, (5) expected changes in directed groundfish fishing seasons, (6) expected actual start of fishing effort, and (7) economic effects of establishing seasonal halibut allocations on segments of the target groundfish industry.
        Amendment 95 would provide the trawl and hook-and-line catcher vessel groundfish fleets additional time to individually and collectively adapt to the reduced halibut PSC limits of this proposed action by phasing-in the halibut PSC limits for the trawl and hook-and-line catcher vessel gears with the largest reductions.
        Amendment 95 would also maintain the process used to establish annual halibut PSC limits that are applicable to three trawl catch share programs. A variety of halibut PSC use limits, commonly known as sideboard limits, have been implemented to limit the amount of halibut PSC available to specific participants in GOA groundfish fisheries. Sideboard limits serve as fishery-specific limits that require participants subject to the sideboard limit to stop fishing for specific groundfish once that sideboard limit is reached. Sideboard limits were adopted as part of the AFA, Amendment 80, and Central GOA Rockfish catch share programs to prevent program participants from using the flexibility provided by catch share allocations to increase their harvests in fisheries not subject to exclusive allocations. Additional detail on the rationale and calculation for specific sideboard limits in these catch share programs is available in the final rules implementing these catch share programs and is not repeated here (for the AFA see 67 FR 79692, December 30, 2002; for the Amendment 80 Program see 72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007; and for the Central GOA Rockfish Program, see 76 FR 81248, December 27, 2011). This action proposes to reduce the annual trawl PSC limit, which would result in a proportional decrease the halibut PSC sideboard limit apportioned to each of the above three programs.
        Finally, Amendment 95 would implement two management measures to current halibut PSC management to mitigate the effects of the proposed halibut PSC reductions. These options would (1) allow the Amendment 80 sector to roll-over unused halibut PSC limits from one season to the subsequent season, and (2) combine management of available trawl halibut PSC limits in the second season deep-water and shallow-water fisheries to be made available for use in either of these fisheries from May 15 through June 30.
        Proposed Amendment 95 also replaces all occurrences of the word “bycatch” in the GOA FMP with “PSC” where bycatch actually refers to halibut PSC. This recommended change would clarify the type of bycatch that is referred to in the GOA FMP.

        The EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action describes the cost and benefits of the halibut PSC reductions, which would be published in Federal regulation as a result of proposed Amendment 95 (see ADDRESSES for availability). Groundfish harvesters may or may not be constrained by this proposed action, depending on the amount of halibut PSC limit that remains available throughout the year. A reduction in harvest by those directly regulated entities constrained by this action would impact revenue generated from the GOA groundfish fisheries.

        Public comments are being solicited on proposed Amendment 95 to the GOA FMP through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish this action in the Federal Register and seek public comment on a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 95, following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period for Amendment 95 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 95. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 95, whether specifically directed to the GOA FMP amendment or the proposed rule will be considered in the FMP approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. To be considered, comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the close of business on the last day of the comment period.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., 3631 et seq.; and Pub. L. 108-447.

          Dated: August 23, 2013.
           Kelly Denit,
          Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-21068 Filed 8-28-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 81
        [OAR-2005-0150b; FRL-7995-2]
        Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Arizona; Correction of Boundary of Phoenix Metropolitan 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to correct the boundary of the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area to exclude the Gila River Indian Reservation. EPA is proposing this action under the authority of section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act and in light of the Federal trust responsibility to the Tribes. This action is intended to facilitate and support the Gila River Indian Community's efforts to develop, adopt and implement a comprehensive Tribal Implementation Plan by removing unnecessary obligations that flow from the erroneous inclusion of a portion of the Reservation in the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area.

          DATES:
          Any comments on this proposal must arrive by December 12, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments, identified by docket number R09-OAR-2005-150, by one of the following methods:
          1. Agency Web site: http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. EPA prefers receiving comments through this electronic public docket and comment system. Follow the on-line instructions to submit comments.
          2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
          3. E-mail: tax.wienke@epa.gov.

          4. Mail or deliver: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

            Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through the agency Web site, eRulemaking portal, or e-mail. The agency Web site and eRulemaking portal are “anonymous access” systems, and EPA will not know your identify or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

            Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (520) 622-1622, e-mail: tax.wienke@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This proposal addresses the correction of the boundary of the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area under section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act to exclude the Gila River Indian Reservation. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are taking direct final action to correct the boundary without prior proposal because we believe this correction action is not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive comments, no further activity is planned. For all the reasons explained in the parallel direct final notice, we propose to correct the boundary of the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area to exclude the Gila River Indian Reservation. For further information on this proposal and the rationale underlying our proposed action, please see the direct final action.

          Dated: November 3, 2005.
          Stephen L. Johnson,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 05-22372 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 229
        [Docket No. 001128334-2048-07; I.D. 021202A]
        RIN 0648-AN88
        Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS is proposing to amend the regulations that implement the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP), specifically with regard to the straight set of gillnets in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area in waters off the coasts of Georgia and Florida.  The intent of this proposed rule is to prohibit straight sets of gillnets at night from November 15 through March 31, annually, to reduce the risk of entanglement of large whales, including the western North Atlantic right whale.  NMFS is also announcing the availability of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR).

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed  prohibition of the straight set of gillnets must be postmarked or transmitted via facsimile by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, on May 28, 2002.  Comments transmitted via e-mail will not be accepted.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments on this proposed rule to the Chief, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432.
          Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT) meeting summaries, progress reports on implementation of the ALWTRP, and a table of the changes to the ALWTRP may be obtained by writing to Diane Borggaard, NMFS/Northeast Region, 1 Blackburn Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930 or Katie Moore, NMFS/Southeast Region, 9721 Executive Center Dr., St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Katie Moore, NMFS, Southeast Region, 727-570-5312; Diane Borggaard, NMFS, Northeast Region, 978-281-9145; or Patricia Lawson, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-2322.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access
        Copies of the EA and RIR can be obtained from the ALWTRP Web site:  http://www.nero.nmfs.gov/whaletrp/.
        Background

        The ALWTRP was developed pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to reduce the level of serious injury and mortality of whales by Atlantic lobster trap and gillnet fisheries.  The background for the take reduction planning process and development of the ALWTRP is set out in the preamble to the proposed (62 FR 16519, April 7, 1997), interim final (62 FR 39157, July 22, 1997), final (64 FR 7529, February 16, 1999), interim final (65 FR 80368, December 21, 2000), interim final (67 FR 1142, January 9, 2002), final (67 FR 1133, January 9, 2002), and final (67 FR 1300, January 10, 2002) rules implementing the ALWTRP.  Copies of these documents and supporting EAs are available from the contacts noted in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule.
        NMFS issued four biological opinions (BOs) on the multispecies, spiny dogfish, monkfish, and lobster fisheries on June 14, 2001, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  The BOs concluded that all four of the fisheries jeopardized the continued existence of the western North Atlantic right whale.  The reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) in the June 14, 2001, BOs included additional gear modifications for the northeast lobster trap fisheries and new gear modifications for the mid-Atlantic and southeast gillnet fisheries that are necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of western North Atlantic right whales.  Southeast gillnet gear restrictions identified in this proposed rule address the RPA in an effort to reduce potential entanglements of western North Atlantic right whales.
        Take Reduction Planning Activities in 2000 and 2001
        Pursuant to section 118 (f)(7)(E) and (F) of the MMPA, NMFS has reconvened the ALWTRT periodically to monitor progress of the ALWTRP and to make recommendations for improvements.  During the February 2000 meeting, the ALWTRT split into sub-groups covering the northeast, mid-Atlantic, and southeast areas.  The recommendations of the northeast sub-group were addressed by the December 2000 interim final rule.  The mid-Atlantic and southeast sub-groups met on August 25, 2000, and July 24, 2000, respectively, and provided meeting summaries with recommendations to the entire ALWTRT for review.
        The ALWTRT met as a whole on June 27 and 28, 2001, to review the elements of the RPA required by the four BOs and recommend measures that would not only satisfy the requirements of the ESA and the four BOs, but would also satisfy the requirements of the MMPA.  The MMPA provides the goals of reducing takes in commercial fishing operations to below the potential biological removal  (PBR) level within 6 months of the ALWTRP’s implementation and the achievement of a zero mortality rate within 5 years of ALWTRP implementation.  For western North Atlantic right whales, these two goals are essentially the same since the PBR level is defined as zero.  Consequently, the ALWTRT concurred that additional entanglement risk reduction is needed to comply with the MMPA.

        NMFS published a proposed rule on October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49896), and final rule on January 10, 2002 (67 FR 1300), to amend the ALWTRP per the RPA and the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team’s recommendations.  The rule included provisions such as requiring weak links, temporal anchoring, and line diameter restrictions.  The proposed rule also included provisions addressing the straight set of gillnets in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area at night.  Though NMFS prepared a thorough analysis of the straight set provision to include in the proposed rule’s EA, NMFS accidentally left out the analysis in the EA.  In order to ensure that the public had sufficient information to review and analyze the straight set provision in the proposed rule, NMFS removed the straight set provision from the January 10, 2002, final rule.  NMFS is issuing this proposed rule to provide the public adequate time to review and comment on the measure and the EA.  The EA and RIR regarding the straight set provision are now available for public review, and NMFS is seeking public comments.
        Changes Proposed for the ALWTRP for Gillnet Gear
        Regulatory measures discussed by the southeast sub-group included applying northeast gear marking requirements to the southeast area and a restriction on gear deployment methods for non-shark gillnets during the western North Atlantic right whale calving season.  The October 1, 2001, proposed rule discussed NMFS’ decision to leave the existing gear marking requirement in place for the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area.  Additional gillnet restrictions discussed but not adopted by the sub-group included time-area management, net modifications (e.g., weak links), and seasonal restrictions.  In the development of the proposed rule, NMFS excluded these preliminary alternatives and several others from detailed analysis, because the alternatives were not considered to be within the scope of the action, technically feasible, or recommended by the ALWTRT.
        The gillnet restriction recommended by the southeast sub-group was the prohibition of straight sets of gillnets at night from November 15 through March 31, annually, in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area, (i.e., unless the exemption under 50 CFR 229.32 (f)(3)(iii), which relates to shark gillnets, applies).  The Southeast U.S. Restricted Area consists of those waters from 27° 51′ N lat. (near Sebastian Inlet, FL) to 32° 00′ N lat. (near Savannah, Georgia) extending from the shore outward to 80° W long.  Night means any time between one-half hour before sunset and one-half hour after sunrise, as per the ALWTRP (50 CFR 229.2).
        A straight set is the deployment of a gillnet in a straight line, as opposed to the deployment of a gillnet in a circular manner, for example, around a school of fish.  Both deployment types are currently fished in the proposed management area, the U.S. Restricted Area, which includes a nursery area for mothers and calves.  Right whales generally occur in this area from November 15 through March 31.  A prohibition during that time-area of the gear types with which the right whale is known to have become entangled would afford additional protection to the concentrations of western North Atlantic right whales.  NMFS believes that straight set gillnets deployed during daytime are of very minimal threat to whales.  Such gear is retrieved within about one-half hour of every set, and thus the fisher would be on-site in the possible event of an entanglement.  Straight sets at night pose a higher level of risk of entanglement to whales than strike sets or straight sets during the day, because fishers are not as actively involved with straight set gear (in comparison to the strike set method used in southeast Atlantic waters), and whales are much more difficult to spot at night due to darkness.  Through the proposed rule, NMFS aims to reduce the potential for the entanglement of western North Atlantic right whales in straight set gillnet gear.  Due to the gear restrictions, the proposed rule will reduce the likelihood of effort influx into the fishery in the future, thereby further reducing the potential likelihood of entanglements.
        Figure 1 shows the boundaries for the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area.  Currently the shark gillnet fishery is regulated using these boundaries (50 CFR 229.32 (f)(1)).

        BILLING CODE  3510-22-S

          EP27MR02.001

        BILLING CODE  3510-22-C

        Classification
        This proposed rule does not include a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  The basis for this certification follows:
        The MMPA provides the statutory basis for the rule.  The proposed rule would prohibit the use of straight set gillnets in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area at night from November 15 through March 31, annually, unless the fishing activity was exempted under 50 CFR 229.32 (f)(3)(iii), which pertains to restrictions on shark gillnet fishing.
        The objective of the proposed rule is to eliminate serious injuries or mortalities of western North Atlantic right whales attributable to entanglements with fishing gear and incorporates the time and area during which right whale calves are born.
        Available data do not demonstrate that the fishing behavior or methodology restricted by the proposed rule is utilized to a great extent in the restricted area.  Virtually all recorded gillnet harvests from this area and season are attributed to runaround gillnets and not straight set gillnets.  Less than $133 per year of gross revenues in total can potentially be attributed to the use of straight set gillnets.  Further, data on average trip times, soak times, and vessel characteristics indicate that the fishery is primarily prosecuted as a day fishery.  Therefore, any direct economic impacts on the fishery will be minimal since the fishery does not substantially operate in the manner being restricted.
        Generally, a fish-harvesting business is considered a small business if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and has annual receipts not in excess of $3.5 million.  One hundred two unique entities (vessels or persons) have reported landings in this fishery over the 1997-2000 fishing seasons.  Total dockside value of commercial harvests by these entities from all fishing activities and all gears averaged from $16,000 to $24,000 per year over this period.  The maximum gross revenues were less than $300,000.  All operations would be considered small business entities.  Thus, business operations in this fishery consist solely of small business entities.
        The determination of significant economic impact can be ascertained by examining two criteria: disproportionality and profitability.  The disproportionality question is: Do the regulations place a substantial number of small entities at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities?  All business entities participating in the respective area of the south Atlantic gillnet fishery are considered small business entities.  Thus, the issue of disproportionality does not arise in the present case.
        The profitability question is: Do the regulations significantly reduce profit for a substantial number of small entities?  The predominant harvest methodology in this fishery is runaround (i.e., strike) gillnets and day trips and not the methodology restricted by the proposed rule.  Less than $500, or $133 per year, of reported landings from all participants over the 1997-2000 fishing seasons is potentially attributable to straight set gillnets.  Participation ranged from 41 to 62 vessels during this period, for an average of less than $4 per vessel.  Whether spread over multiple participants or attributed to a single vessel, it is clear that restricting the use of this gear will not significantly reduce profits for a substantial number of small entities.  On this basis, the proposed rule may be adjudged not to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        Accordingly, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared.  Copies of the RIR are available (see ADDRESSES).
        This proposed rule has been determined not to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 229

        Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Fisheries and Marine mammals.

          Dated: March 19, 2002.
          Rebecca Lent
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set out in the preamble, the National Marine Fisheries Service proposes to amend 50 CFR part 229 as follows:

            PART 229—AUTHORIZATION FOR COMMERCIAL FISHERIES UNDER THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972

          1. The authority citation for part 229 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 1371 et seq.

          2.  In § 229.3, paragraph (k) is revised to read as follows:

            § 229.3
            Prohibitions.

          (k) It is prohibited to fish with gillnet gear in the areas and for the times specified in § 229.32(f)(1) through (f)(4), unless the gear or the person with gillnet gear complies with the  gear marking requirements specified in § 229.32(f)(2), the requirements for observer coverage as specified in §229.32(f)(3), and the closures, requirements, and other restrictions as specified in 229.32(f)(4).

          3. In § 229.32, the heading of paragraph (f) and paragraph (f)(3) are revised; and paragraph (f)(4) is added to read as follows:

            § 229.32
            Atlantic large whale take reduction plan regulations.

          (f) Restrictions applicable to the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area and the Southeast U.S. Observer Area.* * *

          (3) Observer requirement.No person may fish with shark gillnet gear in the southeast U.S. observer area from November 15 through March 31 of the following year unless the operator of the vessel calls the SE Regional Office in St. Petersburg, FL, not less than 48 hours prior to departing on any fishing trip in order to arrange for observer coverage.  If the Regional Office requests that an observer be taken on board a vessel during a fishing trip at any time from November 15 through March 31 of the following year, no person may fish with shark gillnet gear aboard that vessel in the southeast U.S. observer area unless an observer is on board that vessel during the trip.
          (4) Restricted Period, closure and restrictions, and exemption.

          (i) Restricted period. The restricted period for the southeast U.S. restricted area is from November 15 through March 31 of the following year, unless the Assistant Administrator revises this restricted period in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section.
          (ii) Closure for shark gillnet gear.Except as provided under paragraph (f)(4)(iv) of this section, no person may fish with shark gillnet gear in the southeast U.S. restricted area during the restricted period.
          (iii) Restrictions for straight sets.Except as provided for shark gillnet gear under paragraph (f)(4)(iv) of this section, no person may fish with a straight set of gillnet gear at night in the southeast U.S. restricted area during the restricted period.  A straight set is defined as a set in which the gillnet is placed in a line in the water column, as opposed to a circular set in which the gillnet is placed to encircle an area in the water column.
          (iv) Special provision for strikenets.Fishing for sharks with strikenet gear is exempt from the restrictions under paragraphs (f)(4)(ii) and (f)(4)(iii) of this section if:
          (A) No nets are set at night or when visibility is less than 500 yards (460m).
          (B) Each set is made under the observation of a spotter plane.
          (C) No net is set within 3 nautical miles of a right, humpback, fin or minke whale.
          (D) If a right, humpback, fin or minke whale moves within 3 nautical miles of the set gear, the gear is removed immediately from the water.

      [FR Doc. 02-7129 Filed 3-26-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 300
        [EPA-R04-SFUND-2007-0590; FRL-8451-3]
        National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to delete the Rochester Property Superfund Site from the National Priorities List.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA Region 4 is issuing a notice of intent to delete the Rochester Property Superfund Site (Site) located in Travelers Rest, South Carolina, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this notice of intent. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is found at Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA and the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
          In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving the direct final notice of deletion of the Rochester Property Superfund Site without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final notice. If no significant, material, and adverse comments are received in response to this notice, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final notice will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final notice based on this proposed notice. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

          DATES:
          Comments concerning this Site must be received by September 10, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R04-SFUND-2007-0590 by one of the following methods:
          1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          2. E-mail: webster.donna@epa.gov.

          3. Fax: (404) 562-8788.
          4. Mail: Donna Webster (EPA-R04-SFUND-2007-0590), Superfund Remedial & Site Evaluation Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
          5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Donna K. Webster, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

          Please see the direct final notice which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Donna K. Webster, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Remedial & Site Evaluation Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, Phone: (404) 562-8870, Electronic Mail: webster.donna@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For additional information see the direct final notice which is published in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

          Information Repositories: Repositories have been established to provide detailed information concerning this decision at the following addresses:
        1. Travelers Rest Library, 17 Center Street, Travelers Rest, SC 29690, Hours: Monday through Thursday—9 a.m. until 9 p.m., Friday and Saturday—9 a.m. until 6 p.m.; or,
        2. U.S. EPA Record Center, Region IV Library, 61 Forsyth St. SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, Hours: Monday thru Friday—8 a.m. until 4 p.m., by appointment only. Contact Ms. Debbie Jourdan, (404) 562-8862.

          Dated: July 23, 2007.
          J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
          Regional Administrator, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. E7-15331 Filed 8-8-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of Designation of the Northern Sea Otter in the Aleutian Islands as a Candidate Species

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of designation of a candidate species.

          SUMMARY:

          In this document, we present information on the recent addition of the northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) found in the Aleutian Islands to the list of candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Identification of candidate taxa can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential listings, allowing resource managers to alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list taxa as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list this candidate species, the early notice provided here could result in fewer restrictions on activities by prompting candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to this species.
          We also announce the availability of the candidate and listing priority assignment form for this candidate species. This document describes the status and threats that we evaluated to determine that the northern sea otter in the Aleutian Islands warrants consideration for listing, and to assign a listing priority to this species.
          We request additional status information that may be available for the northern sea otter. We will consider this information in evaluating, monitoring, and developing conservation strategies for this species.

          DATES:
          We will accept comments on this document at any time.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit written comments and data regarding the northern sea otter to the Marine Mammals Management Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Douglas Burn, Wildlife Biologist, Marine Mammals Management Office at the above address, or telephone 907/786-3800 or facsimile 907/786-3816.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we list taxa of wildlife and plants that are endangered or threatened, based on the best available scientific and commercial information. As part of this program, we also identify taxa that we regard as candidates for listing. Candidate taxa are those taxa for which we have on file sufficient information to support issuance of a proposed rule to list under the Act. In addition to our annual review of all candidate taxa (64 FR 57534; October 25, 1999), we have an on-going review process, particularly to update taxa whose status may have changed markedly.
        Section 3 of the Act generally defines an endangered species as any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a threatened species as any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
        (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range;
        (B) Overutilization of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
        (C) Disease or predation affecting the species;
        (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the species; and

        (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence.

        We are required to make the listing determination “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available” and “taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species, whether by predator control, protection of habitat and food supply, or other conservation practices, within any area under its jurisdiction, or on the high seas.” Sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b)(1)(A) and our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(f) require us to consider any State or local laws, regulations, ordinances, programs, or other specific conservation measures that either positively or negatively affect a species' status (i.e., efforts that create, exacerbate, reduce, or remove threats identified through the section 4(a)(1) analysis).
        We maintain the list of candidate species for a variety of reasons, including: to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that could affect decisions of planners and developers; to solicit input from interested parties to identify those candidate taxa that may not require protection under the Act or additional taxa that may require the Act's protections; to solicit information on the status of species and measures necessary to conserve species, and to solicit information needed to prioritize the order in which we will propose taxa for listing. We encourage consideration of candidate taxa in environmental planning, such as in environmental impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (implemented at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and in local and Statewide land use planning.
        According to our 1983 Listing Priority System (48 FR 43098; September 21, 1983), all species that are candidates for listing are assigned a listing priority number. This system ranks species according to—(1) the magnitude of threats they face, (2) the immediacy of these threats, and (3) the taxonomic distinctiveness of the entity that may be listed. Listing priority numbers range from 1 (highest priority) to 12 (lowest priority). We will complete proposals to list candidate species, based on their listing priority, to the extent that our resources for listing activities and our workload for other listing activities will allow.

        This notice provides specific explanations of why we classified the northern sea otter as a candidate. This decision was approved by the Service's Director Jamie Rappaport Clark, on August 22, 2000. It is important to note that candidate assessment is an ongoing function and changes in status should be expected. If we remove taxa from the candidate list, they may be restored to candidate status if additional information supporting such a change becomes available to us. We issue requests for such information in a Candidate Notice of Review published in the Federal Register every year.
        Findings
        The worldwide population of sea otters in the early 1700s has been estimated at 150,000 (Kenyon 1969) to 300,000 (Johnson 1982). Extensive commercial hunting of sea otters began following the arrival in Alaska of Russian explorers in 1741 and continued during the 18th and 19th centuries. By the time sea otters were afforded protection from commercial harvests by international treaty in 1911, the species was nearly extinct throughout its range, and may have numbered only 1,000-2,000 individuals (Kenyon 1969).

        Following the international treaty in 1911, only 13 isolated remnant populations scattered throughout the historic range remained. However, once commercial harvests ceased, these populations began to grow and recolonize their former range. Today three subspecies of sea otter have been identified (Wilson et al. 1991). The northern sea otter contains two subspecies: Enhydra lutris kenyoni which occurs from the Aleutian Islands to Oregon, and Enhydra lutris lutris which occurs in the Kuril Islands, Kamchatka Peninsula, and Commander Islands in Russia. The third subspecies, Enhydra lutris nereis, occurs in California and is known as the southern sea otter.

        The period of recolonization was marked by high reproductive rates and range expansion. Survey data indicate that otters were present in all island groups in the Aleutians by the 1980s (Brueggeman et al. 1988, Estes 1990). Calkins and Schneider (1985) calculated the sea otter population in the Aleutians as 55,100 to 73,700 individuals, which represented over half the Alaska population. The entire Aleutian archipelago was not systematically surveyed again until 1992. During these surveys Evans et al. (1997) estimated the Aleutian Islands sea otter population as 19,157 ± 3,281. The most striking results of this survey were that sea otter density and abundance in the Rat, Delarof, and western Andreanof Islands had unexpectedly declined by more than 50 percent. Boat-based surveys of sea otters at several islands in the Near, Rat, and Andreanof Islands further documented an ongoing decline of sea otters during the 1990s (Estes et al. 1998). As few as 6,000 sea otters may remain in the Aleutians today (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Unpublished Data).

        Potential threats include both natural fluctuations and human activities, which may have caused changes in the Bering Sea ecosystem. Subsistence hunting occurs at very low levels and does not appear to be a factor in the decline. While disease, starvation, and contaminants have not been implicated at this time, additional evaluation of these factors is warranted. The hypothesis that predation by killer whales is causing the sea otter decline (Estes et al. 1998) should also be studied further.
        Due to the precipitous and rapid nature of the ongoing population decline, we have assigned the northern sea otter in the Aleutian Islands listing a priority of three under our Listing Priority System. Additionally we note that the imminence of the threats underscores the urgent need for more information regarding the cause of the decline in this population.
        Request for Information
        We request you submit any further information on the northern sea otter as soon as possible or whenever it becomes available. We are seeking the following types of information:
        (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to the northern sea otter;
        (2) Reasons why any habitat of this species should or should not be determined to be critical habitat pursuant to section 4 of the Act;
        (3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and population size of this species; and
        (4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible impacts on this species.

        Information regarding the range, status, habitat needs, and listing priority assignment for the northern sea otter is available for review by contacting the Service as specified in the ADDRESSES section.

        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In certain circumstances, we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this request prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others, is available upon request from the Marine Mammals Management Office (see ADDRESSES section).
        References Cited

          Brueggeman, J.J., G.A. Green, R.A. Grotefendt, and D.G. Chapman. 1988. Aerial surveys of sea otters in the northwestern Gulf of Alaska and southeastern Bering Sea. Minerals Management Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Final Report. Anchorage, Alaska.

          Calkins, D.G., and K.B. Schneider. 1985. The sea otter (Enhydra lutris). Pages 37-45. In: Marine Mammals Species Accounts. J.J. Burns K.J. Frost,and L.F. Lowry (Eds.). Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Technical Bulletin 7.
          Estes, J.A. 1990. Growth and equilibrium in sea otter populations. Journal of Animal Ecology 59:385-401.
          Estes, J.A., M.T. Tinker, T.M. Williams, and D.F. Doak. 1998. Killer Whale Predation Linking Oceanic and Nearshore Ecosystems. Science 282: 473-476.
          Evans, T.J., D.M. Burn, and A.R. DeGange. 1997. Distribution and Relative Abundance of Sea Otters in the Aleutian Archipelago. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management Technical Report MMM 97-5. 29 pp.
          Johnson, A.M. 1982. Status of Alaska sea otter populations and developing conflicts with fisheries. Trans. 47th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference:293-299.
          Kenyon, K. W. 1969. The Sea Otter in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. United States Department of the Interior. North American Fauna, Number 68. 352 pp.

          Wilson, D.E., M.A. Bogan, R.L. Brownell, Jr., A.M. Burdin, and M.K. Maminov. 1991. Geographic variation in sea otters, Enhydra lutris. Journal of Mammalogy 72:22-36.

        Author

        This notice was compiled from materials supplied by staff biologists located in the Service's regional and field offices. The materials were compiled by, Division of Endangered Species (see ADDRESSES section).
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

          Dated: November 3, 2000.
          David B. Allen,
          Regional Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7.

      [FR Doc. 00-28796 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-U


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        RIN 0648-AY00
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Amendment 10

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of a fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (Amendment 10), incorporating the public hearing document and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), for review by the Secretary of Commerce and is requesting comments from the public.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before September 14, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:

          A final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) was prepared for Amendment 10 that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of Amendment 10, including the FSEIS, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. The FSEIS/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov.
          You may submit comments on this notice of availability, identified by “0648-AY00”, by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal http://www.regulations.gov;
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Carrie Nordeen;
          • Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on MSB Amendment 10.”

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF formats only.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        In February 2005, NMFS notified the Council that the butterfish stock was overfished, which triggered MSA requirements to implement rebuilding measures for the stock. In response, Amendment 10 to the MSB FMP was initiated by the Council in October 2005. Management measures for rebuilding butterfish are designed to reduce the fishing mortality on butterfish that occurs through discarding, which is the primary source of fishing mortality. Measures that reduce butterfish discards are expected to also reduce the bycatch of other finfish species in MSB fisheries.

        The purpose of Amendment 10 is to bring the MSB FMP into compliance with Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requirements by: 1) Establishing a rebuilding program that allows the butterfish stock to rebuild and permanently protects the long-term health and stability of the stock; and 2) minimizing bycatch and the fishing mortality of unavoidable bycatch, to the extent practicable, in the MSB fisheries. Amendment 10 would increase the minimum codend mesh requirement for the Loligo squid (Loligo) fishery; establish a butterfish rebuilding program with a butterfish mortality cap program for the Loligo fishery; establish a 72-hr trip notification requirement for the Loligo fishery; and require an annual assessment of the butterfish rebuilding program by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC).

        Initially, Amendment 9 to the MSB FMP (Amendment 9) was intended to bring the MSB FMP into compliance with MSA bycatch requirements, and contained several management measures intended to address deficiencies in the FMP that relate to discarding, especially as they affect butterfish. Specifically, those management measures would have attempted to reduce finfish discards by MSB small-mesh fisheries through mesh size increases in the directed Loligo fishery, removal of mesh size exemptions for the directed Illex squid fishery, and establishment of seasonal Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs). However, those specific management alternatives were developed in 2004, prior to the butterfish stock being declared overfished. On June 13, 2007, the Council recommended that all management measures developed as part of Amendment 9 to correct deficiencies in the FMP related to bycatch of finfish, especially butterfish, be considered in Amendment 10. Accordingly, no action was taken in Amendment 9 (73 FR 37382, July 1, 2008) to address bycatch.
        The Council held three public meetings on Amendment 10 during June 2008. Following the public comment period that ended on June 23, 2008, the Council adopted Amendment 10 on October 16, 2008. In Amendment 10, measures recommended by the Council would:

        • Establish a minimum mesh increase to 2-1/8 inches (54 mm) (from 1-7/8 inches ( 48 mm)) for the Loligo fishery during Trimesters I (Jan-Apr) and III (Sep-Dec), starting in 2010;
        • Establish a butterfish mortality cap program for the Loligo fishery, starting in 2011;

        • Establish a 72-hr trip notification requirement for the Loligo fishery, to facilitate the placement of NMFS observers on Loligo trips, starting in 2011; and
        • Require an annual assessment of the butterfish mortality cap program by the Council's SSC and, if necessary, implementation of additional butterfish rebuilding measures through the annual specifications process.

        Public comments are solicited on Amendment 10 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period stated in this notice of availability (NOA). A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 10 may be published in the Federal Register for public comment, following NMFS's evaluation of the proposed rule under the procedures of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Public comments must be received by the end of the comment period provided in this NOA of Amendment 10 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove Amendment 10. To be considered, comments must be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period provided in this NOA.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: July 8, 2009
          Kristen C. Koch,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E9-16671 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S