        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 151130999-6225-01]
        RIN 0648-XE336
        Fishery of the Northeastern United States; Bluefish Fishery; 2016-2018 Bluefish Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed specifications; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          We propose specifications for the 2016-2018 bluefish fishery. This action is necessary to comply with the implementing regulations for the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan that require us to publish specifications and provide an opportunity for public comment. The proposed specifications are necessary to constrain harvest for this species within scientifically sound recommendations to prevent overfishing.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before April 15, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:

          A draft environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for these specifications and describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives, and provides an analysis of their impacts. Copies of the draft Specifications Document, including the draft EA and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available on request from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. These documents are also accessible via the Internet at www.mafmc.org and www.regulations.gov.
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-1060, by either of the following methods:

            Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
          1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-1060

          2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields
          3. Enter or attach your comments.
          —OR—

            Mail: Submit written comments to John Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fishery Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01950. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on the Proposed Rule for Bluefish Specifications.”

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Elizabeth Scheimer, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9236.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        General Specification Background

        The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) cooperatively manage the Atlantic bluefish (Pomatus saltatrix) fishery. Specifications in this fishery include various catch and landing subdivisions, such as annual catch limits (ACLs), commercial and recreational sector annual catch targets (ACTs), sector-specific landing limits (i.e., the commercial fishery quota and recreational harvest limit), and measures used to manage the recreational fishery (e.g., minimum fish size, bag limits) for the upcoming fishing year.
        The Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its implementing regulations establish the Council's process for establishing specifications. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and J. The regulations requiring annual specifications are found at § 648.162. The management unit specified in the FMP is U.S. waters of the western Atlantic Ocean, from Florida northward to the U.S./Canada border. The FMP also stipulates how to divide the specification catch limits into commercial and recreational fishery allocations, when and how to adjust commercial and recreational limits by quota transfer between the two sectors, and how to allocate state-by-state quotas.

        The annual specifications process requires that the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and the Bluefish Monitoring Committee review the best available scientific information and make recommendations to the Council. The SSC met July 21, 2015, to review a new 2015 benchmark stock assessment and recommend acceptable biological catches (ABCs) for 2016-2018 for this fishery. More details on the SSC's discussions are provided in the proposed Specifications section below. The Council's Bluefish Monitoring Committee met on July 27, 2015, to review the SSC's ABC recommendations and to propose complementary management measures. The Council and the Commission's Bluefish Management Board met jointly on August 10, 2015, to consider the recommendations of the SSC and the Bluefish Monitoring Committee, receive public comments, and formalize catch limit specifications and commercial and recreational management measures. More complete details on the SSC, Bluefish Monitoring Committee, and Council meeting deliberations can be found on the Council's Web site (www.mafmc.org).
        While the Board action was finalized at the August meeting, the Council's recommendations must be reviewed by NMFS to ensure that they comply with the FMP and all applicable law. NMFS must also conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking to propose and implement the final specifications.

        The Bluefish FMP defines ACL as equal to ABC. The Bluefish Monitoring Committee identifies the relevant sources of management uncertainty, which may be used to reduce the ACL before establishing the recreational and commercial ACTs. Because the bluefish fishery has not fully utilized available ACTs in recent years and management precision is timely, the Bluefish Monitoring Committee did not recommend applying a management uncertainty reduction before establishing sector-specific ACTs. The Bluefish Monitoring Committee recommended allocating 17 percent of the ACL to the commercial fishery and 83 of the ACL percent to the recreational fishery. Estimated discards are then subtracted from each sector ACT to calculate sector Total Allowable Landings (TALs). Using this method ensures that each sector is accountable for its respective discards, rather than simply apportioning the ABC by the allocation percentages to derive the sector TALs. Commercial discards are assumed to be negligible and recreational discards are projected using a 3-year moving average from Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) data. The Council may also specify a research set-aside (RSA) quota of up to 3 percent of the TAL, but the Council did not recommend RSA for 2016-2018. Additionally, the FMP specifies that if the recreational fishery is not projected to land its available harvest limit, then quota may be transferred from the recreational to the commercial sector, up to a commercial quota of 10.5 million lb (4,762 mt). The adjusted commercial quota is then allocated to the coastal states from Maine through Florida in specified shares as outlined in the FMP.

        A 2015 benchmark stock assessment used as the scientific basis for these specifications may be found on the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's Web site (www.nefsc.noaa.gov). The assessment indicates that bluefish are not overfished, and that overfishing is not occurring. The assessment updated the bluefish stock biological reference points. The previous assessment used Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) reference points for fishing mortality and total biomass. The stock recruitment relationship is poorly defined for bluefish, so the 2015 benchmark assessment used Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) per recruit based reference points as proxies for MSY reference points. This lowered the SSB target level from 324 million lb (147,052 mt) to 245 million pounds (111,228 mt) and lowered the current SSB estimate (191 million pounds in 2014; or 86,534 mt) used to develop the ABCs.
        The SSC modified the overfishing limit (OFL) probability distribution derived from the stock assessment, and determined that a lower coefficient of variation, or CV, to estimate scientific uncertainty was acceptable instead of the previously used 100-percent CV. The SSC stated this was acceptable because the new stock assessment improved treatment of uncertainty. The SSC's ABC recommendations are based on a 60-percent CV from the OFL and are, therefore, higher than they would have been under the previously used 100-percent CV.
        Proposed Specifications
        This rule proposes the Council's ABC recommendation and the commercial and recreational catch limits associated with that ABC for fishing years 2016-2018 as outlined in table 1.

          Table 1—Proposed 2016-2018 Bluefish Specifications and Calculations

            Current
            2015
            million lb
            mt
            Proposed
            2016
            million lb
            mt
            2017
            million lb
            mt
            2018
            million lb
            mt

            OFL
            34.22
            15,521
            25.76
            11,686
            26.44
            11,995
            27.97
            12,688

            ABC
            21.54
            9,772
            19.45
            8,825
            20.64
            9,363
            21.81
            9,895

            ACL
            21.54
            9,772
            19.45
            8,825
            20.64
            9,363
            21.81
            9,895

            Management Uncertainty
            0
            0
            0
            0
            0
            0
            0
            0

            Commercial ACT
            3.66
            1,661
            3.30
            1,500
            3.50
            1,592
            3.70
            1,682

            Recreational ACT
            17.88
            8,110
            16.14
            7,325
            17.13
            7,770
            18.10
            8,213

            Commercial Discards
            0
            0
            0
            0
            0
            0
            0
            0

            Recreational Discards
            3.35
            1,520
            2.98
            1,356
            2.98
            1,356
            2.98
            1,356

            Commercial TAL
            3.66
            1,661
            3.30
            1,500
            3.50
            1,592
            3.70
            1,682

            Recreational TAL
            14.53
            6,591
            13.15
            5,969
            14.14
            6,414
            15.11
            6,857

            Combined TAL
            18.19
            8,252
            16.46
            7,469
            17.65
            8,006
            18.82
            8,539

            Projected Recreational Landings
            12.95
            5,875
            10.98
            4,980
            10.98
            4,980
            10.98
            4,90

            Transfer
            1.58
            716
            2.17
            984
            3.16
            1,433
            4.13
            1,873

            Commercial Quota
            5.24
            2,377
            5.48
            2,485
            6.67
            3,025
            7.84
            3,556

            Recreational Harvest Limit (RHL)
            12.95
            5,875
            10.98
            4,980
            10.98
            4,980
            10.98
            4,980

            Note: Recreational projections, transfer, and resulting commercial quota and RHL may be adjusted as more up-to-date recreational data become available.

        The Council recommended the ABC values proposed by the SSC for 2016-2018. The Bluefish Monitoring Committee recommended using a 3-year average to project future recreational landings as was done in the previous specifications. The Council did not endorse this recommendation, requesting that the most recent available complete year's landing data be used to project recreational landings.
        Under certain conditions, the FMP allows a TAL transfer from the recreational to the commercial fishery, if projections indicate the full recreational landing limit will not be fully harvested. Council analysis using preliminary 2015 landings data to project future landings indicates the recreational fishery is not expected to land its harvest limit in 2016, so quota can be transferred to the commercial fishery. The amount of transfer was calculated so that the RHL equals expected recreational landings and the final commercial quota does not exceed 10.5 million lb, consistent with the FMP requirement outlining the transfer process. This option represents the preferred alternative recommended by the Council; however, the Council recognized that future updates to the recreational harvest projections may result in a different transfer amount from the recreational sector to the commercial sector. We will use updated 2015 MRIP recreational harvest data as they become available and adjust the 2016 recreational transfer limit, as needed, in the final rule. The Council recommended we re-evaluate the transfer each year, consistent with the FMP requirements, as additional recreational fishery data become available. Each year in 2017 and 2018, an updated projection for recreational landings will be based on realized recreational landings from the preceding year, and that projection will be used to estimate potential transfers from the recreational fishery to the commercial fishery. Any adjustments to the transfer amount will be published each year in a rule.

        We propose the Council-recommended status quo daily recreational possession limit of up to 15 fish per person. Fishing under these catch limits for 2016 through 2018 is not expected to compromise the bluefish stock, nor will fishing at this level present an unacceptably high likelihood of overfishing. The calculation process described above produced the management measures shown in Table 1. Table 2 presents the proposed state allocations for 2016-2018 using the state commercial quota allocations in the FMP. There were no states that exceeded their quota in 2015; therefore, no accountability measures are necessary for the 2016 fishing year. In 2017 and 2018, any commercial quota adjustments necessary to account for overages will be published in the Federal Register prior to the start of the respective fishing year.

          Table 2—2016-2018 Proposed Initial Bluefish State Commercial Quotas

            State
            FMP Percent share
            2016 Initial quota
            kg
            lb
            2017 Initial quota
            kg
            lb
            2018 Initial quota
            kg
            lb

            ME
            0.6685
            16,635
            36,673
            20,231
            44,602
            23,788
            52,443

            NH
            0.4145
            10,314
            22,739
            12,544
            27,655
            14,749
            32,517

            MA
            6.7167
            167,135
            368,469
            203,270
            448,135
            239,003
            526,912

            RI
            6.8081
            169,409
            373,483
            206,037
            454,233
            242,256
            534,082

            CT
            1.2663
            31,510
            69,467
            38,323
            84,487
            45,059
            99,339

            NY
            10.3851
            258,417
            569,712
            314,289
            692,888
            369,538
            814,691

            NJ
            14.8162
            368,678
            812,796
            448,389
            988,529
            527,211
            1,162,302

            DE
            1.8782
            46,736
            103,035
            56,841
            125,312
            66,833
            147,341

            MD
            3.0018
            74,695
            164,675
            90,845
            200,278
            106,814
            235,485

            VA
            11.8795
            295,603
            651,693
            359,515
            792,594
            422,713
            931,924

            NC
            32.0608
            797,783
            1,758,810
            970,270
            2,139,079
            1,140,833
            2,515,107

            SC
            0.0352
            876
            1,931
            1,065
            2,349
            1,253
            2,761

            GA
            0.0095
            236
            521
            288
            634
            338
            745

            FL
            10.0597
            250,320
            551,861
            304,441
            671,178
            357,959
            789,164

            Total
            100.0001
            2,488,344
            5,485,859
            3,026,344
            6,671,946
            3,558,344
            7,844,805

        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Bluefish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        These proposed specifications are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

        An IRFA was prepared by the Council, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), to examine the impacts of these proposed specifications on small business entities, if adopted. A copy of the detailed RFA analysis, including the IRFA, is available from NMFS or the Council (see ADDRESSES). The Council's analysis made use of quantitative approaches when possible. Where quantitative data on revenues or other business-related metrics that would provide insight to potential impacts were not available to inform the analyses, qualitative analyses were conducted. A summary of the 2016-2018 specifications IRFA analysis follows.
        Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered and a Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, This Proposed Rule
        This action proposes management measures, including annual catch limits, for the bluefish fishery in order to prevent overfishing and achieve optimum yield in the fishery. A complete description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the draft Specifications Document, and elsewhere in the preamble to this proposed rule, and are not repeated here.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply
        The Small Business Administration defines a small business as one that is independently owned and operated; not dominant in its field of operation; has annual receipts that do not exceed $20.5 million in the case of commercial finfish harvesting entities, $5.5 million in the case of commercial shellfish harvesting entities, $7.5 million in the case of for-hire fishing entities; or has fewer than 750 employees in the case of fish processors or 100 employees in the case of fish dealers.
        This proposed rule affects commercial and recreational fish harvesting entities engaged in the bluefish fishery. Individually-permitted vessels may hold permits for several fisheries, harvesting species of fish that are regulated by several different FMPs, beyond those impacted by the proposed action. Furthermore, multiple-permitted vessels and/or permits may be owned by entities affiliated by stock ownership, common management, identity of interest, contractual relationships, or economic dependency. For the purposes of the IRFA analysis, the ownership entities, not the individual vessels, are considered to be the regulated entities.
        Ownership entities are defined as those entities with common ownership personnel as listed on the permit application. Only permits with identical ownership personnel are categorized as an ownership entity. For example, if five permits have the same seven persons listed as co-owners on their permit applications, those seven persons would form one ownership entity that holds those five permits. If two of those seven owners also co-own additional vessels, that ownership arrangement would be considered a separate ownership entity for the purpose of this analysis.

        In preparation for this action, ownership entities are identified based on a list of all permits for the most recent complete calendar year. The current ownership data set used for this analysis is based on calendar year 2014 and contains average gross sales associated with those permits for calendar years 2012 through 2014. In addition to classifying a business (ownership entity) as small or large, a business can also be classified by its primary source of revenue. A business is defined as being primarily engaged in fishing for finfish if it obtains greater than 50 percent of its gross sales from sales of finfish. A description of the specific permits that are likely to be impacted by this action is provided below, along with a discussion of the impacted businesses, which can include multiple vessels and/or permit types.

        The ownership database shows that for the 2012-2014 period, 724 affiliate firms held a bluefish commercial permit only, 144 affiliate firms held a bluefish party/charter permit only, and 144 firms held both commercial and party/charter permits. However, not all of those affiliate firms are active participants in the fishery. According to the ownership database, 950 affiliate firms landed bluefish during the 2012-2014 period, with 942 of those business affiliates categorized as small business and 8 categorized as large business.
        Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of This Proposed Rule
        There is no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action.
        Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This Proposed Rule
        NMFS is not aware of any relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
        Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
        The Council analyzed four sets of combined catch limit alternatives for each of the fishing years 2016-2018 for the bluefish fishery. The alternatives were as follows:
        • Alternative 1 is the Council's preferred alternative that we are proposing as outlined in this rule's preamble;
        • Alternative 2 is the status quo and would maintain the current measures in effect;
        • Alternative 3 is an alternative provided for analytical purposes as the “most restrictive” set of commercial quotas, based on no transfer between the recreational and commercial sectors; and
        • Alternative 4 is the counter-point to Alternative 3, a maximum quota transfer of up to 10.5 million lb (4,762 mt) commercial quota.
        The preferred alternative represents an increase in commercial quota and a decrease in RHL for all three years 2016-2018 relative to the 2015 implemented limits. The discussion below is based on the conclusions of the IRFA analyses in the draft Specifications Document provided by the Council. Table 3 outlines the available commercial quota and recreational harvest limits for the four alternatives used in the IRFA.

          Table 3—Summary of Landings Limits by Alternative

            Year
            Alternative
            Commercial quota
            million lb
            mt
            Recreationalharvest limit

            million lb
            mt

            2016
            1
            5.48
            2,485
            10.98
            4,980

            2
            5.24
            2,376
            12.95
            5,874

            3
            3.31
            1,501
            13.15
            5,964

            4
            10.5
            4,760
            5.96
            2,703

            2017
            1
            6.67
            3,025
            10.98
            4,980

            2
            5.24
            2,376
            12.95
            5,874

            3
            3.51
            1,592
            14.14
            6,413

            4
            10.5
            4,760
            7.15
            3,243

            2018
            1
            7.84
            3,556
            10.98
            4,980

            2
            5.24
            2,376
            12.95
            5,874

            3
            3.71
            1,682
            15.11
            6,853

            4
            10.5
            4,762
            8.32
            3,773

        Commercial Fishery Impacts
        To assess the impact of the alternatives on commercial fisheries, the Council conducted a threshold analysis and an analysis of potential changes in ex-vessel gross revenue that would result from each alternative, using Northeast dealer reports and South Atlantic Trip Ticket reports.
        Alternative 1 (the preferred alternative) and Alternative 4 represent increases in commercial quotas relative to 2015. It is expected that Alternatives 1 and 4 would have neutral socio-economic impacts. In recent years, bluefish commercial landings have been substantially lower than the quotas due to market conditions. Unless market conditions change substantially, we expect that commercial landings will be close to 2014 landings despite an increase in fishing opportunity. There is no indication that the market environment for commercially caught bluefish will change considerably in 2016-2018.
        Under the Alternative 2 (status quo) measures, the 2016-2018 specifications would have no change in allowable commercial landings relative to the 2015 limits. As such, it is expected that no change in revenues or fishing opportunities would occur. Alternative 2 would likely result in quota constraints for vessels in New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and North Carolina; however, these quota constraints may not have an economic impact due to the ability to transfer quota from state to state.
        Under Alternative 3, the most commercially restrictive alternative considered, 72 out of 942 small firms in the Northeast region are projected to incur revenue losses of 5 percent or more in 2016 when compared to 2015. Of those firms, 43 percent had gross sales of $10,000 or less, likely indicating that their dependence on fishing is small. In 2017, 68 small firms likely would be faced with revenue reductions of 5 percent or more (60 percent with gross sales of $10,000 or less), and in 2018, 61 small firms likely would be faced with revenue reductions of 5 percent or more (61 percent with gross sales less than $10,000). For large firms that landed bluefish in the Northeast during 2012-2014, the potential overall revenue reduction is 0.01 percent for each year in 2016-2018. Assuming no change in prices, the average decrease in revenue distributed among all firms that landed bluefish in the Northeast would be $780 per firm in 2016, $649 in 2017, and $518 in 2018.

        The South Atlantic Trip Ticket Report data indicate that 757 vessels landed commercial bluefish quota in North Carolina from 2012-2014. On average, these vessels generated 8.9 percent of their total ex-vessel revenue from bluefish landings. Landings are projected to decrease in North Carolina by 43 percent as a consequence of Alternative 3 quota in 2016 relative to 2014; however, this analysis may overestimate the negative impact to small businesses because quota may be transferred between states. Alternative 3 represents a 40-percent reduction in 2017 and 36-percent reduction in 2018 for North Carolina relative to 2014 landings. If commercial quota is transferred from a state or states that do not land their entire bluefish quotas, as was done frequently in previous years, the number of affected entities could change. Under this alternative, the amount of potential surplus quota available to be transferred is low for all years 2016-2018, but transfers could lessen the adverse economic impact on vessels landing in the state(s) receiving quota transfers. Such transfers cannot be predicted or projected, as each occurs on a case-by-case basis by agreement between states.
        Recreational Fishery Impacts
        It is very difficult to calculate the economic value of recreational fisheries. No changes to the recreational fishing season, minimum fish size, or per-angler possession limit are being proposed. Because these measures are not changing, it is not expected that there will be any associated economic impact on the recreational fishery. The only potential variable that may have an economic on impact recreational fisheries and regulated small business entities that participate in them are the various landing limits under consideration. Using the preliminary 2015 recreational landings data, Alternative 1 (preferred) proposes an RHL (10.98 million lb, 4,980 mt) that is approximately 15 percent lower than the 2015 limit; however, the proposed RHL is the same as 2015 landings. As such, the proposed RHL is not expected to be constraining, and, therefore, is not expected to impact recreational fisheries. Under the Alternative 2 (status quo), the RHL (12.95 million lb, 5,874 mt) is approximately 15 percent above the recreational landings for 2015 (10.98 million lb, 4,980 mt). The RHLs for Alternative 3 (13.15 million lb, 5,964 mt) and Alternative 4 (5.96 million lb, 2,703 mt) in 2016 are approximately 20 percent above and 46 percent below the recreational landings for 2015, respectively. Alternative 4, which we are not recommending, is the only alternative that could potentially have negative impacts on the recreational fishery by risking a closure. None of the analyses indicate that the proposed measures will have a negative impact on recreational fishing. The proposed RHLs each year are not anticipated to limit recreational catch or negatively impact recreational fishing revenue, because the RHLs will be based on realized landings from the preceding year.
        Summary
        The Council selected Alternative 1 (preferred) over Alternative 2 (status quo), Alternative 3 (no transfer), and Alternative 4 (maximum transfer), stating that the Alternative 1 measures were consistent with the advice provided to the Council by its SSC and Bluefish Monitoring Committees. The Council analysis indicates the proposed measures would have less negative economic impacts than the most restrictive Alternative 3, while also benefitting from the potential for increased efficiency of flexible sector quota transfer. Alternative 2, the status quo alternative, is not feasible because it could result in combined landings that are higher than the ABC, which is inconsistent with the Council's risk policy on overfishing and is in violation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Alternative 4 is not preferred because it represents significant decreases in recreation limits below historical catch and it is not expected that the commercial sector would fully utilize the resulting quota. The proposed measures in Alternative 1 contain the second largest overall increase in commercial quota and the second lowest overall reduction in RHL of all the analyzed alternatives when compared to 2015 measures. As such, NMFS is proposing to implement the Council's preferred ABCs, ACLs, ACTs, commercial quotas, and recreational harvest limits, as presented in Table 1 of this proposed rule preamble.

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

          Dated: March 24, 2016.
          Eileen Sobeck,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-07263 Filed 3-30-16; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 02-735, MB Docket No. 02-69, RM-10385]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Jennings and Iowa, LA

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This document requests comments on a petition filed by Apex Broadcasting, Inc. requesting the reallotment of Channel 225C2 from Jennings, Louisiana, to Iowa, Louisiana, and modification of the license for Station KJEF-FM to specify operation on Channel 225C2 at Iowa, Louisiana, as its community of license. The coordinates for Channel 225C2 at Iowa are 30-05-17 and 93-00-05. In accordance with Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, we shall not accept competing expressions of interest in the use of Channel 225C2 at Iowa.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before May 20, 2002, and reply comments on or before June 4, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Erwin G. Krasnow, Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand, 901 15th Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kathleen Scheuerle, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 02-69, adopted March 25, 2002, and released March 29, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554 telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com. Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contact.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio broadcasting.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Louisiana, is amended by removing Jennings, Channel 225C2 and adding Iowa, Channel 225C2.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            John A. Karousos,
            Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Office of Broadcast License Policy, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 02-8797 Filed 4-10-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 02-2226; MB Docket No. 02-274, RM-10560; MB Docket No. 02-275, RM-10561]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Jasper, FL and Tigerton, WI

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Audio Division requests comment on a petition filed by Powerline NA, Inc. proposing the allotment of Channel 298A at Jasper, Florida, as the community's first local aural transmission service. Channel 298A can be allotted to Jasper in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 2.2 kilometers (1.4 miles) northwest to avoid a short-spacing to the vacant allotment site of Channel 299C3, Perry, Florida. The coordinates for Channel 298A at Jasper are 30-31-49 North Latitude and 82-57-58 West Longitude. The Audio Division also requests comment on a petition filed by Starboard Broadcasting, Inc. proposing the allotment of Channel 295A at Tigerton, Wisconsin, as the community's first local aural transmission service. Channel 295A can be allotted to Tigerton in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 14.1 kilometers (8.7 miles) northeast to avoid a short-spacing to the license sites of Station WLJY, Channel 293C1, Marshfield, Wisconsin, Station WJLW, Channel 294C3, Allouez, Wisconsin, and Station WUPM, Channel 295C1, Ironwood, Michigan. The coordinates for Channel 295A at Tigerton are 44-50-07 North Latitude and 88-56-41 West Longitude.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before November 12, 2002, and reply comments on or before November 26, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, his counsel, or consultant, as follows: Powerline NA, Inc., c/o Clyde Scott, Jr., EME Communications, 293 JC Saunders Road, Moultrie, GA 31768 and Starboard Broadcasting, Inc., c/o David Vacheresse, President, 1496 Bellevue St. Building 2, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54311.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket Nos. 02-274, 02-275, adopted September 4, 2002, and released September 20, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.

        Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contact.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio, Radio broadcasting.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Florida, is amended by adding Jasper, Channel 298A.
            3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Wisconsin, is amended by adding Tigerton, Channel 295A.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            John A. Karousos,
            Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 02-26234 Filed 10-15-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        JAMES MADISON MEMORIAL FELLOWSHIP FOUNDATION
        45 CFR Part 2400
        Fellowship Program Requirements

          AGENCY:
          James Madison Fellowship Foundation.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The following are proposed amendments to the regulations governing the annual competition for James Madison Fellowships and the obligations of James Madison Fellows. These amendments would update and replace certain provisions of the Foundation's existing regulations as implemented by the James Madison Memorial Fellowship Act of 1986. These revised regulations would govern the qualifications and applications of candidates for fellowships; the selection of Fellows by the Foundation; the graduate programs Fellows must pursue; the terms and conditions attached to awards; the Foundation's annual Summer Institute on the Constitution; and related requirements and expectations regarding fellowships.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted on or before February 17, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Address all comments about these proposed regulations to James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation, 2000 K Street, NW., Suite 303, Washington, DC 20006-1809.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Lewis F. Larsen. Telephone: (202) 653-8700.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The reason for the proposed changes to the Foundation's regulations comes as a result of the Foundation's desire to clarify several of the rules and regulations that James Madison Fellows must observe when accepting their fellowships. Although many of the changes are minor insertions of words and punctuation, this document specifically expands the definition section to include further detailed definitions on Credit Hour Equivalent, Incomplete, Repayment, Satisfactory Progress, Stipend, Teaching Obligation, Termination and Withdrawal. The Foundation now encourages James Madison Fellows to choose a graduate program which does not include the writing of a thesis. Graduate programs for which Fellows may apply have been broadened to included political science. Finally, a section entitled “Teaching Obligation” was added to further clarify the obligation to teach, required by the Foundation once each fellow has earned a master's degree.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
        The President certifies that these regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        These regulations apply to individuals eligible to apply for fellowship assistance. Individuals are not included in the definition of “small entities” in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

        Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
        These proposed regulations do not contain any information collection requirements.

          List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 2400
          Education, Fellowships.

          Dated: December 10, 2003.
          Paul A. Yost, Jr.,
          President.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble and under authority of 20 U.S.C. 4501 et seq., Chapter XXIV, Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended by revising part 2400 as follows:

          PART 2400—FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
          1. The authority citation for part 2400 is revised to read as follows:

            Authority:
            20 U.S.C. 4501 et seq., unless otherwise noted.

          2. Section 2400.3 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(8) and (b)(8) to read as follows:

            § 2400.3
            Eligibility.

            (a) * * *
            (8) Sign agreements that, after completing the education for which the fellowship is awarded, they will teach American history, American government, social studies, or political science full time in secondary schools for a period of not less than one year for each full year of study for which assistance was received, preferably in the State listed as their legal residence at the time of their fellowship award. For the purposes of this provision, a full academic year of study is considered by the Foundation to be 18 credit hours or 27 quarter hours. Fellows' teaching obligations will be figured at full academic years of study; and when Fellows have studies for partial academic years, those years will be rounded upward to the nearest one-half year to determine Fellows' total teaching obligations.
            (b) * * *
            (8) Sign an agreement that, after completing the education for which the fellowship is awarded, they will teach American history, American government, social studies, or political science full time in secondary schools for a period of not less than one year for each full academic year of study for which assistance was received, preferably in the State listed as their legal residence at the time of their fellowship award. Fellows' teaching obligations will be figured at full academic years of study; and when Fellows have studies for partial academic years, those years will be rounded upward to the nearest one-half year to determine Fellows' total teaching obligations.

            3. Section 2400.4 is amended by revising the definitions of “Full-time study,” “State,” and “Stipend,” to read as follows:

            § 2400.4
            Definitions.

              Full-time study means study for an enrolled student who is carrying at least 9 credit hours a semester or its equivalent.

              State means each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and, considered as a single entity, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

              Stipend means the amount paid by the Foundation to a Fellow or on his or her behalf for the allowable costs of graduate study which have been approved under the fellowship.

            4. Section 2400.20 is revised to read as follows:

            § 2400.20
            Preparation of application.
            Applications, on forms mailed directly by the Foundation to those who request applications or downloaded from the Foundation's website, must be completed by all fellowship candidates in order that they be considered for an award.
            5. Section 2400.30 is amended by adding a new paragraph (g) to read as follows:

            § 2400.30
            Selection criteria.

            (g) Content of the 600-word essay.

            § 2400.31
            [Amended]
            6. In § 2400.31, paragraph (b) is amended by removing the word “legally” and adding, in its place, the word “legal”; and paragraph (c) is amended by removing the words “An alternate will receive” and adding, in their place, “An alternate may, at the Foundation's discretion, receive”.

            § 2400.42
            [Amended]
            7. In § 2400.42, paragraph (b) is amended by removing the word “constitution” and adding, in its place, the word “Constitution”.

            § 2400.43
            [Amended]
            8. In § 2400.43, paragraph (c) is amended by removing the words “strongly encourages” and adding, in their place, the words “in general, requires”.
            9. Section 2400.44 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

            § 2400.44
            Commencement of graduate study.
            (a) Fellows may commence study under their fellowships as early as the summer following the announcement of their award. Fellows are normally expected to commence study under their fellowships in the fall term of the academic year following the date on which their award is announced. However, as indicated in § 2400.61, they may seek to postpone the commencement of fellowship study for up to one year under extenuating circumstances.

            § 2400.46
            [Amended]
            10. Section 2400.46 is amended by removing the word “five” and adding, in its place, the word “three”.
            11. Section 2400.47 is revised to read as follows:

            § 2400.47
            Summer Institute's relationship to fellowship.
            Each year, the Foundation normally offers during July a four-week graduate-level Institute on the principles, framing, ratification, and implementation of the United States Constitution at an accredited university in the Washington, DC area. The Institute is an integral part of each fellowship.
            12. Section 2400.48 is revised to read as follows:

            § 2400.48
            Fellows' participation in the Summer Institute.
            Each fellow is required as part of his or her fellowship to attend the Institute (if it is offered), normally during the summer following the Fellow's commencement of graduate study under a fellowship.

            § 2400.50
            [Amended]
            13. Section 2400.50 is amended by removing “For their participation in the Institute, Fellows are paid” and adding, in its place, “At the Foundation's discretion, Fellows may be paid”.

            § 2400.53
            [Amended]
            14. Section 2400.53 is amended by adding a new sentence at the end to read “A waiver of the time limit may be given for full-time students who require more than 36 credit hours or 54 quarter hours to complete their approved degree.”
            15. Section 2400.55 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) and (i) to read as follows:

            § 2400.55
            Certification for stipend.

            (f) The amount and nature of income from any other grants or awards;

            (i) A full Plan of Study over the duration of the fellowship, including information on the contents of required constitutional courses. Senior Fellows must provide evidence of their continued full-time employment as teachers in grades 7-12.
            16. Section 2400.56 is revised to read as follows:

            § 2400.56
            Payment of stipend.
            Payment for tuition, required fees, books, room, and board subject to the limitations in §§ 2400.52 through 2400.55 and §§ 2400.59 through 2400.60 will be paid via Electronic Funds Transfer to each Fellow at the beginning of each term of enrollment and upon the Fellow's submission of a completed Payment Request Form which includes the current University bulletin of cost information.

            § 2400.58
            [Amended]
            17. In § 2400.58, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the words “fewer than” and adding, in their place, the words “at least”; and paragraph (b) is amended by removing the words “the Foundation will seek to recover” and adding, in their place, the words “the Fellow must repay”.

            § 2400.60
            [Amended]
            18. In § 2400.60, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the words “unless they are credited to the minimum number of credits required for the degree” at the end of the paragraph.

            § 2400.61
            [Amended]
            19. Section 2400.61 is amended by adding a new sentence at the end to read “All postponements are given at the Foundation's discretion and will normally not extend for more than one year.”
            20. Section 2400.63 is revised to read as follows:

            § 2400.63
            Excluded graduate study.
            James Madison Fellowships do not provide support for study toward doctoral degrees, for the degree of master of arts in public affairs or public administration. The Foundation may at its discretion, upon request of the Fellow, provide tuition only assistance toward teacher certification.

      [FR Doc. 03-30945 Filed 12-15-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-05-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        RIN 0648-BF25
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bycatch Management in the Bering Sea Pollock Fishery

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

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

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted Amendment 110 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP). If approved, Amendment 110 would improve the management of Chinook and chum salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery by creating a comprehensive salmon bycatch avoidance program. This proposed action is necessary to minimize Chinook and chum salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery to the extent practicable while maintaining the potential for the full harvest of the pollock total allowable catch within specified prohibited species catch limits. Amendment 110 is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than March 8, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0081, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0081, 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.

            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 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).

          Electronic copies of Amendment 110 and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared for this action (collectively the “Analysis”) may be obtained from www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Gretchen Harrington, 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. 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 notice announces that proposed Amendment 110 to the FMP is available for public review and comment.

        NMFS manages the pollock fishery in the exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) under the FMP. The Council prepared this FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.
        The Bering Sea Pollock Fishery

        Amendment 110 would apply to owners and operators of catcher vessels, catcher/processors, motherships, inshore processors, and the six Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program groups participating in the pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus) fishery in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. The pollock fishery is the largest single species fishery, by volume, in the United States. In 2013, the value of this fishery was more than 1.329 billion dollars, the most recent year of complete data on wholesale value. In 2015, the pollock TAC was 1,310,000 metric tons (mt).
        The pollock fishery is managed under the American Fisheries Act (AFA) (16 U.S.C. 1851 note). In October 1998, Congress enacted the AFA, which “rationalized” the pollock fishery by identifying the vessels and processors eligible to participate in the fishery and allocating pollock among those eligible participants. For more information on the AFA, please see the final rule implementing the AFA (67 FR 79692, December 30, 2002).
        Under the AFA, 10 percent of the pollock total allowable catch (TAC) is allocated to the CDQ Program. After the CDQ Program allocation is subtracted, an amount needed for the incidental catch of pollock in other groundfish fisheries is subtracted from the TAC. In 2015, the CDQ allocation was 131,000 mt of pollock and the incidental catch allowance was 47,160 mt. The allocation of pollock to the CDQ Program is further allocated among the six non-profit corporations (CDQ groups) that represent the 65 communities eligible for the CDQ Program under section 305(i)(1)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

        The “directed fishing allowance” is the remaining amount of pollock, after subtraction of the CDQ Program allocation and the incidental catch allowance. The directed fishing allowance is then allocated among the AFA inshore sector (50 percent), the AFA catcher/processor sector (40 percent), and the AFA mothership sector (10 percent). Annually, NMFS further apportions the pollock allocations to the CDQ Program and the other three AFA sectors between two seasons—40 percent to the A season (January 20 to June 10) and 60 percent to the B season (June 10 to November 1) (see § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(B)(1)).
        The AFA allows for the formation of fishery cooperatives within the non-CDQ sectors. A purpose of these AFA cooperatives is to further subdivide each sector's or inshore cooperative's pollock allocation among participants in the sector or cooperative through private contractual agreements. The cooperatives manage these allocations to ensure that individual vessels and companies do not harvest more than their agreed upon share. The cooperatives also facilitate transfers of pollock among the cooperative members, enforce contract provisions, and participate in an intercooperative agreement to minimize non-Chinook salmon bycatch as well as an incentive plan agreement to minimize Chinook salmon bycatch.
        The inshore sector is comprised of catcher vessels eligible to deliver pollock to the seven eligible AFA inshore processors. Eligible catcher vessels may form inshore cooperatives associated with a particular inshore processor. NMFS permits the inshore cooperatives, allocates pollock to them, and manages these allocations through a regulatory prohibition against an inshore cooperative exceeding its pollock allocation.
        The AFA catcher/processor sector is comprised of the catcher/processors and catcher vessels eligible under the AFA to deliver to catcher/processors. The AFA mothership sector is made up of three motherships and the catcher vessels eligible under the AFA to deliver pollock to these motherships. These sectors have formed cooperatives; however, NMFS does not manage the sub-allocations of pollock among the cooperative members. The cooperatives control the harvest by their member vessels so that the pollock allocation to the sector is not exceeded. However, NMFS monitors pollock harvest by all members of the catcher/processor sector and mothership sector. NMFS retains the authority to close directed fishing for pollock by a sector if vessels in that sector continue to fish once the sector's seasonal allocation of pollock has been harvested.
        Salmon Bycatch in the Bering Sea Pollock Fishery
        Pollock is harvested with fishing vessels using trawl gear, which are large nets towed through the water by the vessel. Pollock can occur in the same locations as Chinook salmon and chum salmon. Consequently, Chinook salmon and chum salmon are incidentally caught in the nets as fishermen target pollock.
        Section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act defines bycatch as fish that are harvested in a fishery, which are not sold or kept for personal use. Therefore, Chinook salmon and chum salmon caught in the pollock fishery are considered bycatch under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and NMFS regulations at 50 CFR part 679. Bycatch of any species, including discard or other mortality caused by fishing, is a concern of the Council and NMFS. National Standard 9 and section 303(a)(11) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council to select, and NMFS to implement, conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality.
        The bycatch of culturally and economically valuable species like Chinook salmon and chum salmon, which are fully allocated and, in some cases, facing conservation concerns, are categorized as prohibited species under the FMP and are the most regulated and closely managed category of bycatch. Pacific salmon, steelhead trout, Pacific halibut, king crab, Tanner crab, and Pacific herring are classified as prohibited species in the groundfish fisheries off Alaska. As a prohibited species, fishermen must avoid salmon bycatch and any salmon caught must either be donated to the Prohibited Species Donation Program under § 679.26, or returned to Federal waters as soon as is practicable, with a minimum of injury, after an observer has determined the number of salmon and collected any scientific data or biological samples.
        Chinook Salmon Bycatch
        The pollock fishery catches more than 95 percent of the Chinook salmon taken incidentally in the BSAI groundfish fisheries, based on data from 1992 through 2014. However, this percentage has declined in recent years with the decline in the amount of Chinook salmon caught in the pollock fishery. From 1992 through 2001, the average Chinook salmon bycatch in the pollock fishery was 32,482 fish per year. Bycatch increased substantially from 2002 through 2007, to an average of 74,067 Chinook salmon per year. A historic high of approximately 122,000 Chinook salmon was taken in the pollock fishery in 2007. However, since 2007 Chinook salmon bycatch then declined substantially to an average of 15,500 Chinook salmon per year from 2008 to 2014. The decline is most likely due to a combination of factors, including changes in abundance and distribution of Chinook salmon and pollock, as well as changes in fleet behavior to avoid salmon bycatch.

        Chinook salmon taken in the pollock fishery originate from Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, and Canada. Estimates vary, but more than half of the Chinook salmon bycatch in the pollock fishery may be destined for western Alaska. Western Alaska includes the Bristol Bay, Kuskokwim, Yukon, and Norton Sound areas. Section 3.4 of the Analysis provides additional information about Chinook salmon biology, distribution, and stock assessments by river system or region (see ADDRESSES).
        Chum Salmon Bycatch
        The pollock fishery catches over 95 percent of the chum salmon taken incidentally as bycatch in the BSAI groundfish fisheries. The pollock fishery catches chum salmon almost exclusively in the B season (after June 10). The pollock fishery has caught large numbers of chum, with a historic high of approximately 700,000 chum salmon taken in 2005. Since then, bycatch levels have been quite variable, ranging from a low of 13,280 chum salmon in 2010 to a high of 309,646 chum salmon in 2006. Average chum salmon bycatch from 2006 to 2014 was 115,190 chum salmon. In 2014, the pollock fishery caught 219,428 chum salmon.

        Genetic information indicates that the majority of the chum salmon caught in the pollock fishery are of Asian origin (approximately 60 percent) while a smaller percentage (approximately 21 percent) originate from aggregate streams in western Alaska. Chum salmon from elsewhere in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, and Canada comprise the remaining percentage of the bycatch (approximately 19 percent). While the genetics cannot differentiate hatchery-origin fish from wild Asian chum salmon, given the high proportion of Pacific Rim hatchery-released chum from Japan, much of the Asian origin chum observed in the bycatch is likely to be of Asian hatchery-origin. While Alaska chum salmon runs have indicated a history of volatility in run sizes, chum salmon stocks in Alaska are generally at higher levels of abundance than historical periods. Section 3.4 of the Analysis provides additional information about chum salmon biology, distribution, and stock assessments by river system or region (see ADDRESSES).
        Importance of Salmon in Western Alaska
        The Council and NMFS have been concerned about the potential impact of Chinook and chum salmon bycatch on returns to western Alaska given the relatively large proportion of bycatch from these river systems that occurs in the pollock fishery. Chinook salmon and chum salmon support commercial, subsistence, sport, and personal use fisheries in their regions of origin. The Alaska Board of Fisheries adopts regulations through a public process to conserve salmon and to allocate salmon to the various users. The State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game manages the salmon commercial, subsistence, sport, and personal use fisheries. The first management priority is to meet spawning escapement goals to sustain salmon resources for future generations. The next priority is for subsistence use under both State and Federal law. Salmon is a primary subsistence food in some areas. Subsistence fisheries management includes coordination with U.S. Federal agencies where Federal rules apply under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

        In recent years of low Chinook salmon returns, the in-river harvest of western Alaska Chinook salmon has been severely restricted and, in some cases, river systems have not met escapement goals. Surplus fish beyond escapement needs and subsistence use are made available for other uses. Commercial fishing for Chinook salmon may provide the only source of income for many people who live in remote villages. Appendix A-4 of the Analysis provides an overview of the importance of subsistence salmon harvests and commercial salmon harvests (see ADDRESSES).
        Management of Salmon Bycatch in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
        Over the last 20 years, the Council and NMFS have implemented several management measures to limit salmon bycatch in the BSAI trawl fisheries. Management measures have focused on minimizing Chinook salmon bycatch, chum salmon bycatch, and non-Chinook salmon bycatch. Non-Chinook bycatch is a category that includes all salmon species except Chinook salmon, but is comprised predominantly by chum salmon.
        Most recently, NMFS implemented Amendment 84 to the FMP to address increases in Chinook salmon and non-Chinook (predominantly chum) salmon bycatch in the pollock fishery that were occurring despite PSC limits being reached and the closures of the Chinook Salmon Savings Area and Chum Salmon Savings Area (72 FR 61070, October 29, 2007) and Amendment 91 to the FMP, which implemented a program to manage Chinook salmon bycatch that provides incentives for each vessel to avoid Chinook salmon at all times (75 FR 53026, August 30, 2010).
        Amendment 84 was implemented to enhance the effectiveness of salmon bycatch measures by exempting pollock vessels from Chinook Salmon Savings Area and Chum Salmon Savings Area closures if they participate in an intercooperative agreement (ICA) to reduce salmon bycatch. The ICA allowed vessels participating in the pollock fishery to use their internal cooperative structure to reduce Chinook salmon and non-Chinook salmon bycatch using a method called the voluntary rolling hotspot system. The ICA operates in lieu of a fixed area closure and is required to identify and close areas of high salmon bycatch and move vessels to other areas. Amendment 84 required that parties to the ICA include the AFA cooperatives, the six CDQ groups, at least one third party group, including any organizations representing western Alaskans who depend on salmon and have an interest in salmon bycatch reduction, and at least one entity retained to facilitate bycatch avoidance behavior and information sharing. All AFA cooperatives and CDQ groups participate in the ICA.
        Amendment 91 removed Chinook salmon bycatch from the Amendment 84 program and established a separate program to manage Chinook salmon. Amendment 91 combined a limit on the amount of Chinook salmon that may be caught incidentally with a novel approach designed to minimize bycatch to the extent practicable in all years and prevent bycatch from reaching the limit in most years while providing the fleet the flexibility to harvest the pollock TAC.
        Amendment 91 established two PSC limits for the pollock fishery—60,000 and 47,591 Chinook salmon. Under Amendment 91, the PSC limit is 60,000 Chinook salmon if some or all of the pollock industry participates in an industry-developed contractual arrangement, called an incentive plan agreement (IPA) that establishes an incentive program to minimize bycatch at all levels of Chinook salmon abundance. Participation in an IPA is voluntary; however, any vessel or CDQ group that chooses not to participate in an IPA is subject to a restrictive opt-out allocation (also called a backstop cap). Since implementation, all AFA vessels have participated in an IPA.

        To ensure participants develop effective IPAs, participants provide the Council and NMFS annual reports that describe the efforts each IPA is taking to ensure that each vessel does its best to avoid Chinook salmon at all times while fishing for pollock and, that collectively, bycatch is minimized in each year. The IPA system is based on being flexible, responsive, and able to be tailored by each sector to fit its operational needs. The IPAs that impose rewards for avoiding Chinook salmon bycatch, and/or penalties for failure to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch at the vessel level, warrant setting the PSC limit at 60,000 Chinook salmon. While the IPAs provide an incentive to minimize bycatch in all years to a level below the limit, a limit of 60,000 Chinook salmon provides the industry the flexibility to harvest the pollock TAC in high-abundance years when bycatch is extremely difficult to avoid.
        Under Amendment 91, the 47,591 Chinook salmon PSC limit applies fleet-wide if the industry does not form any IPAs. This PSC limit was the approximate 10-year average of Chinook salmon bycatch from 1997 to 2006. The 47,591 PSC limit limits Chinook salmon bycatch in the pollock fishery if no other incentives, namely IPAs, are operating to minimize bycatch below this level.
        Both PSC limits are divided between the A and B seasons and allocated to AFA sectors, inshore cooperatives, and CDQ groups as transferable PSC allocations. Transferability of the PSC mitigates the variation in the encounter rates of salmon bycatch among sectors, inshore cooperatives, and CDQ groups, in a given season. It allows eligible participants to obtain a larger portion of the PSC allocation in order to harvest their pollock allocation or to transfer surplus PSC allocation to other entities. When a transferable PSC allocation is reached, the affected sector, inshore cooperative, or CDQ group must stop fishing for pollock for the remainder of the season even if its pollock allocation has not been fully harvested.
        The sector-level performance standard is an additional tool to ensure that the IPA is effective and that sectors do not fully harvest the Chinook salmon PSC allocations under the 60,000 Chinook salmon PSC limit in most years. For a sector to continue to receive Chinook salmon PSC allocations under the 60,000 Chinook salmon PSC limit, that sector may not exceed its annual threshold amount in any three years within seven consecutive years. If a sector fails this performance standard, it will permanently be allocated a portion of the 47,591 Chinook salmon PSC limit. The risk of bearing the potential adverse economic impacts of a reduction from the 60,000 PSC limit to the 47,591 PSC limit creates incentives for fishery participants to cooperate in an effective IPA.
        Amendment 110 Management Measures
        In April 2015, the Council recommended Amendment 110 to the FMP to create a comprehensive salmon bycatch avoidance program for the pollock fishery that works more effectively than the current salmon bycatch programs to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch and Alaska-origin chum salmon bycatch. Amendment 110 would modify the existing Chinook salmon bycatch program to make it more effective at avoiding Chinook salmon and incorporate measures to avoid chum salmon into the IPAs. In particular, the Council expressed that it remains extremely important to ensure that the Chinook salmon bycatch program is working as intended and to evaluate whether the incentives are strong in times of historically low Chinook salmon abundance. Thus the management measures included in Amendment 110 focus on retaining the incentives to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch at all levels of abundance as intended by Amendment 91.
        The Council also expressed that it remains extremely important to provide the incentives to avoid Alaska-origin chum salmon while maintaining the flexibility to avoid Chinook salmon. The Council's action is designed to consider the importance of continued production of critical chum salmon runs in western Alaska by focusing on bycatch avoidance of Alaskan chum salmon runs. These runs have indicated a history of volatility in run sizes and an historic importance in the subsistence lifestyle of Alaskans. Additional protections to other chum stocks outside of Alaska are embedded in the Council's objective to avoid the high bycatch of chum salmon overall, recognizing that most non-Alaska chum salmon are likely from Asian hatcheries.
        Amendment 110, if approved, would—
        • Incorporate chum salmon avoidance into the IPAs established under Amendment 91 to the FMP and remove the non-Chinook salmon bycatch reduction ICA program previously established under Amendment 84 to the FMP;
        • modify the requirements for the content of the IPAs to increase the incentives for fishermen to avoid Chinook salmon; and
        • reduce the Chinook salmon PSC limit and performance standard in years with low Chinook salmon abundance.
        Incorporate Chum Salmon Avoidance Into the Incentive Plan Agreements
        Currently, Chinook salmon and chum salmon bycatch are managed under two different programs (Amendment 84 and Amendment 91). This has created inefficiencies and does not allow participants in the pollock fishery the flexibility to modify their harvest patterns and practices to effectively minimize both Chinook salmon and chum salmon bycatch. Adding chum salmon measures to the IPAs would make salmon bycatch management more effective, comprehensive, and efficient by increasing flexibility to respond to changing conditions and providing greater incentives to reduce bycatch of both salmon species. The chum salmon specific requirements in the implementing regulations for Amendment 84 sometimes prevent fishery participants from making decisions to avoid Chinook salmon when the vessels are encountering both chum salmon and Chinook salmon.
        Amendment 110 would incorporate chum salmon avoidance into the IPAs established under Amendment 91. Chum salmon would no longer be managed under Amendment 84. However, Amendment 110 would maintain the current non-Chinook salmon PSC limit of 42,000 fish and the closure of the Chum Salmon Savings Area to pollock fishing when the PSC limit has been reached. Vessels that participate in an IPA would be exempt from the Chum Salmon Savings Area closure. The purpose of maintaining the non-Chinook salmon PSC limit and the Chum Salmon Savings Area closure is to provide additional incentives for vessels to join an IPA and as back-stop chum salmon measures for those vessels that choose not to participate in an IPA. Incorporating chum salmon into the IPAs meets the purpose and need for this action by providing measures to prevent high chum salmon bycatch, while allowing for participants in the pollock fishery the flexibility to avoid Alaska chum stocks and to adapt quickly to changing conditions through their coordinated management under the IPAs. In doing so, the Council intended to strike an appropriate balance between regulatory requirements and adaptive management for chum salmon bycatch.
        Modify the IPAs To Increase the Incentives To Avoid Chinook Salmon

        Amendment 110 would modify the IPAs to increase the incentives for fishermen to avoid Chinook salmon. The Council and NMFS recognize that the IPAs were effective at providing incentives for each vessel to avoid Chinook salmon, but that additional measures are necessary to address higher Chinook salmon PSC rates observed during October (the last month when the pollock fishery is authorized to operate) and to address concerns with individual vessels that consistently have significantly higher Chinook salmon PSC rates relative to other vessels fishing at the same time. The Council and NMFS wanted to ensure the use of salmon excluder devices (i.e., gear modifications that are designed to exclude salmon bycatch while retaining pollock) and a rolling hotspot program. The new provisions described below are intended to provide an opportunity for IPAs to increase their responsiveness in October, and improve performance of individual vessels.
        Reduce the Chinook Salmon Performance Standard and PSC Limit in Years of Low Chinook Salmon Abundance
        Amendment 110 would add a new lower Chinook salmon PSC limit and performance standard for the pollock fishery in years of low Chinook salmon abundance. The Council and NMFS considered a lower performance standard and PSC limit would be appropriate at low levels of Chinook salmon abundance in western Alaska to accommodate the fact that most of the Chinook salmon bycatch comes from western Alaska. These provisions work in conjunction with the change to the IPA requirements to ensure that Chinook salmon bycatch is avoided at all times, particularly at low abundance levels.
        Each year NMFS would determine whether Chinook salmon abundance was low based on information provided by the State of Alaska. Annually, the State would provide an index of abundance based on the post-season in-river Chinook salmon run size for the Kuskokwim, Unalakleet, and Upper Yukon aggregate stock grouping. When this index is less than or equal to 250,000 Chinook salmon, then the new lower performance standard and low PSC limit would apply.
        In low Chinook salmon abundance years, NMFS would set the performance standard at 33,318 Chinook salmon and the PSC limit at 45,000 Chinook salmon. NMFS would publish the lower PSC limit and performance standard in the annual harvest specifications. In years when abundance is above 250,000 Chinook salmon, NMFS would manage under the current 47,591 Chinook salmon performance standard and 60,000 Chinook salmon PSC limit established under Amendment 91.
        The inclusion of a lower PSC limit and performance standard is based on the need for additional incentives to reduce bycatch when Chinook salmon stocks are critically low in order to minimize the impact of the pollock fishery on the salmon stocks. Any additional fish returning to Alaska rivers improves the ability to meet the escapement goals, which is necessary for long-term sustainability of Chinook salmon and the people reliant on salmon fisheries. While the performance standard is the operational limit in the IPAs, reducing the 60,000 PSC limit is also appropriate given the potential for decreased bycatch reduction incentives should a sector exceed its performance standard before the PSC limit is reached. The reduced PSC limit is intended to encourage vessels to avoid bycatch in years of low abundance and to set a maximum permissible PSC limit that reduces the risk of adverse impact on stocks in western Alaska during periods of low abundance.

        NMFS is soliciting public comments on proposed Amendment 110 through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish in the Federal Register and seek public comment on a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 110, following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 110, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 110. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 110. To be considered, comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day of the comment period.

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

          Dated: January 5, 2016.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-00150 Filed 1-7-16; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [I.D. 110705B]
        South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Hearings

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; additional public hearing.

          SUMMARY:
          The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold an additional public hearing in Key West, Florida for Amendment 13C to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan. The additional hearing is being added to accommodate those recently impacted by Hurricane Wilma. Earlier public hearings have been noticed. A total of 11 public hearings regarding Amendment 13C will be held. Amendment 13C is intended to eliminate or phase out overfishing of snowy grouper, golden tilefish, vermilion snapper, and black sea bass; and increase red porgy harvest consistent with an updated stock assessment.

          DATES:
          The additional public hearing will be held November 28, 2005, beginning at 6 p.m.
          Written comments must be received in the Council office by close of business on November 28, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          The hearing will be held at the Key West Hilton Resort and Marina, 245 Front Street, Key West, FL 33040; Phone; 305/294-4000.

          Written comments should be sent to Bob Mahood, Executive Director, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699, or via email to snappergroupercomments@safmc.net.
          Copies of the public hearing document are available from Kim Iverson, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699; telephone: 843-571-4366 or toll free at 866/SAFMC-10.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Kim Iverson, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699; telephone: 843-571-4366; fax: 843-769-4520; email address: kim.iverson@safmc.net.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Special Accommodations
        These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) three days prior to the meeting.

          Dated: November 7, 2005.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-22551 Filed 11-10-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S