        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 150126078-5078-01]
        RIN 0648-BE85
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Revise Maximum Retainable Amounts for Skates in the Gulf of Alaska

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to reduce the maximum retainable amount (MRA) of skates using groundfish and halibut as basis species in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) from 20 percent to 5 percent. Reducing skate MRAs is necessary to decrease the incentive for fishermen to target skates and slow the catch rate of skates in these fisheries. This proposed rule would enhance conservation and management of skates and minimize skate discards in GOA groundfish and halibut fisheries. This proposed rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982, the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than August 10, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0015, 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-2015-0015, 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 the draft Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (collectively the “Analysis”), Alaska Groundfish Harvest Specifications Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS), Supplementary Information Report (SIR) to the Final EIS, and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for the Gulf of Alaska Groundfish Harvest Specifications for 2015 and 2016 (Harvest Specifications IRFA) prepared for this action are available from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Peggy Murphy, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Authority for Action

        NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the GOA under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing groundfish fishing in the GOA and implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. The Council and NMFS manage skates (Raja and Bathyraja species) as a groundfish species under the FMP.
        Background

        NMFS proposes to modify regulations that specify the MRA for skates in the GOA. An MRA is the maximum amount of a species closed to directed fishing (i.e., skate species) that may be retained onboard a vessel. MRAs are calculated as a percentage of the weight of catch of each groundfish species or halibut open to directed fishing (the basis species) that is retained onboard the vessel. MRAs assist in limiting catch of a species within its annual total allowable catch (TAC). Once the TAC for a species is reached, retention of that species becomes prohibited and all catch of that species must be discarded. NMFS closes a species to directed fishing before the entire TAC is taken to leave sufficient amounts of the TAC available for incidental catch. The amount of the TAC remaining available for incidental catch is managed by a species-specific MRA. MRAs are a management tool to slow down the rate of harvest and reduce the incentive for targeting a species closed to directed fishing. NMFS has established a single MRA percentage for big skate (Raja binoculata), longnose skate (Raja rhina), and for all remaining skate species (Bathyraja spp.). The skate MRA in the GOA is set at 20 percent. The proposed rule would reduce the MRA for skates in the GOA from 20 percent to 5 percent. The reduced MRA would apply to all vessels directed fishing for groundfish species or halibut in the GOA. Under the proposed rule, the round weight of the retained skate species could be no more than 5 percent of the round weight of the basis species.
        The Council recommended and NMFS proposes to reduce the skate MRA to decrease the incentive for fishermen to target skates while directed fishing for groundfish and halibut, and to slow the harvest rate of skates in GOA groundfish and halibut fisheries. Information from recent years of skate catch in directed groundfish and halibut fisheries indicates that some fishermen have maximized their retention of skates early in the year by deliberately targeting them while directed fishing for other species. Over a period of years, the TAC of big skate and longnose skate has been exceeded in the Central GOA and Western GOA, respectively. In response, NMFS has prohibited retention of skates earlier in the year to reduce incentives to target skates and maintain catch at or below the TACs established for skate species in specific GOA regulatory areas. A prohibition on retention results in mandatory discard of all skate catch for the remainder of the year.
        This proposed rule would limit the amount of skates that could be retained while directed fishing for other groundfish and halibut. The proposed rule would slow the harvest rate of skates and would enhance NMFS' ability to limit the catch of skates to the skate TACs. In addition, the proposed rule is expected to minimize discards of skates by reducing the likelihood that NMFS would need to prohibit retention of a skate species in a GOA management area during the year to maintain skate catch at or below its TAC.
        This proposed rule would make four amendments to regulations. First, this proposed rule would amend regulations to reduce the skate MRA for all vessels fishing for groundfish and halibut in the GOA. This proposed rule would amend regulations that establish a skate MRA for all groundfish and halibut basis species in Table 10 to 50 CFR part 679 and for the fisheries under the Central GOA Rockfish Program in Table 30 to 50 CFR part 679. Second, this proposed rule would make minor clarifications in MRA regulations applicable to the Central GOA Rockfish Program. Third, this proposed rule would make minor corrections to incorrect cross references in regulations in §§ 679.7 and 679.28. Finally, this proposed rule would revise Table 2a to 50 CFR part 679 by adding whiteblotched, Alaska, and Aleutian skates as well as the scientific names for individual skate species that were inadvertently removed by a previous rule making.
        The following sections describe (1) management of skates in the GOA and the fisheries that would be affected by the rule; (2) the need for the proposed rule; and (3) the proposed rule.
        Management of Skates in the GOA and the Fisheries Affected by the Proposed Rule
        Management of Skates in the GOA
        In the GOA, the Council and NMFS manage skates as a groundfish species under the FMP. Management of skates in the GOA is described in Section 3.1.2 of the Analysis. Big skate and longnose skate are managed as single species, and all other skate species are managed in the “other skates” species group.
        GOA skate catches are managed subject to annual limits on the amounts of each species of skate, or group of skate species, that may be taken. The annual limits are defined in the FMP and referred to as “harvest specifications.” The overfishing limits (OFLs), acceptable biological catch (ABCs), and TACs for skates are specified through the annual “harvest specification process.” The FMP requires that the Council recommend and NMFS specify these annual limits for each species or species group of groundfish on an annual basis. A detailed description of the annual harvest specification process is provided in the Final EIS, the SIR, and the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (80 FR 10250, February 25, 2015) and is briefly summarized here.
        Section 3.2.1 of the FMP defines the OFL as the annual amount of catch that results whenever a stock or stock complex is subjected to a level of fishing mortality or annual total catch that jeopardizes the capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis. The OFL is the catch level above which overfishing is occurring. NMFS manages fisheries to ensure that no OFLs are exceeded in any year.
        Section 3.2.1 of the FMP defines the ABC as the level of a stock or stock complex's annual catch that accounts for the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL and any other scientific uncertainty. The ABC is set below the OFL.

        Section 3.2.1 of the FMP defines the TAC as the annual catch target for a stock or stock complex, derived from the ABC by considering social and economic factors and management uncertainty (i.e., uncertainty in the ability of managers to constrain catch so the annual catch limit is not exceeded, and uncertainty in quantifying the true catch amount). Section 3.2.3.4.1 of the FMP requires that the TAC must be set lower than or equal to the ABC. Section 3.2.3.4.3.2 of the FMP clarifies that TACs can be apportioned by regulatory area. There are three regulatory areas specified in the GOA management area: Western GOA, Central GOA, and Eastern GOA.

        Big skate and longnose skate have OFLs and ABCs defined for the GOA management area. The ABCs for big skate and longnose skate are apportioned to each of the regulatory areas in the GOA management area according to the proportion of the biomass estimated in each regulatory area. NMFS specifies TACs for big skate and longnose skate for the Western GOA, Central GOA, and Eastern GOA equal to the ABC for each of these regulatory areas. All other species of skates are assigned to the “other skates” species group. The other skates species group has an OFL and ABC, and TAC specified for the GOA management area (i.e., NMFS does not establish separate ABCs or TACs for the Western GOA, Central GOA, and Eastern GOA). NMFS does not establish regulatory area-specific ABCs or TACs for other skates because harvest is generally more broadly dispersed throughout the entire GOA, and they are not generally retained. All retained and discarded catch of skates accrues to the TACs, ABCs, and OFLs specified for the species. Additional detail on skate biomass and harvest specifications is available in Section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of the Analysis, respectively.
        NMFS ensures that OFLs, ABCs, and TACs are not exceeded by requiring vessel operators participating in groundfish fisheries in the GOA to comply with a range of restrictions, such as area, time, gear, and operation-specific fishery closures. Regulations at § 679.20(d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) describe the range of management measures that NMFS uses to maintain total catch at or below the TAC.

        Regulations at § 679.20(d)(1)(i) specify that NMFS may establish a directed fishing allowance (DFA) for a species or species group when any allocation or apportionment of a target species or species group allocated or apportioned to a fishery will be reached. Regulations at § 679.20(d)(1)(ii)(B) specify that NMFS must also consider the amount of a species or species group closed to directed fishing that will be taken in directed fishing for other species when establishing a DFA. NMFS implements this provision through the annual harvest specifications process by subtracting the estimated amount of incidental catch of a species or species group taken in directed fishing for other species from the TAC of that species or species group. If an insufficient amount of TAC is available for a directed fishery for that species or species group, NMFS establishes the DFA for that species or species group as zero metric tons (mt) and, in accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), prohibits directed fishing for that species or species group.
        Directed fishing for groundfish in the GOA is defined at § 679.2 as any fishing activity that results in the retention of an amount of a species or species group onboard a vessel that is greater than the MRA for that species or species group. Therefore, when directed fishing for a species or species group is prohibited, retention of the species or species group is limited to an MRA. These species are referred to as incidental catch species. NMFS established MRAs to allow vessel operators fishing for species or species groups open to directed fishing to retain a specified amount of incidental catch species.
        NMFS has determined that the TACs specified for all skate species in the GOA are needed to support incidental catch of skates in other groundfish and halibut fisheries. As a result, there are insufficient TACs for these species to support directed fisheries, the DFA for skates is set to zero mt, and directed fishing for skates is prohibited at the beginning of the fishing year. When directed fishing for skates is prohibited, the catch of skates is limited by an MRA.
        The skate MRA is specified by basis species in Table 10 and Table 30 to 50 CFR part 679. The skate MRA is not specified by skate species. Instead, the skate MRA is based on the combined round weight of all skate species retained onboard a vessel. A single MRA for all skates was established because fishermen and processors may have difficulty identifying skate species and may not be able to easily determine if they have reached an MRA for a specific skate species. Therefore, a separate MRA for each species would be difficult to manage and enforce. Additional detail on the designation of a single skate MRA is provided in Section 4.1 of the Analysis.
        Currently, the skate MRA for all basis species in the GOA is 20 percent of the basis species round weight retained onboard a vessel. This means the maximum amount of big, longnose, and other skate species that may be retained onboard a vessel must not exceed 20 percent of the round weight of other groundfish species and halibut (basis species) retained onboard a vessel. For example, a vessel operator fishing Pacific cod, a basis species open to directed fishing, may retain big, longnose, and other skates in an amount up to 20 percent of the round weight equivalent of Pacific cod that is onboard the vessel at any point in time during a fishing trip.
        Amounts of skates onboard the vessel that are below or equal to the MRA may be retained. Amounts of skates in excess of the MRA must be discarded. An MRA applies at all times and to all areas for the duration of a fishing trip (see § 679.20(e)(3)). Vessel operators may retain incidental catch species while directed fishing for other groundfish species or halibut up to the MRA percentage of the basis species retained catch until the TAC for the incidental catch species is met.
        Regulations at § 679.20(d)(2) specify that if the TAC for the incidental catch species is met, NMFS will prohibit retention of the incidental catch species for the remainder of the year. Regulations at § 679.21(b) specify that if retention of a species is prohibited, the operator of each vessel engaged in directed fishing for groundfish in the GOA must return the prohibited species to the sea immediately, with a minimum of injury, regardless of its condition. Therefore, when NMFS prohibits retention of an incidental catch species, such as skates, vessel operators must discard all catch of that species. The primary purpose of requiring discards is to remove any incentive for vessel operators to increase incidental catch of the species as a portion of other fisheries and to minimize the catch of that species.
        Although MRAs limit the incentive to target on an incidental catch species, fishermen can “top off” their retained groundfish and halibut catch with incidental catch species up to the maximum permitted under the MRA. Fishermen are top-off fishing when they deliberately target and retain incidental catch species up to the MRA instead of harvesting the species incidentally. Thus, MRAs reflect a balance between NMFS' need to limit the harvest rate of incidental catch species and minimize regulatory discards of the incidental catch species while providing fishermen an opportunity to harvest available incidental species TAC through limited retention.
        Fisheries That Would Be Affected by the Proposed Rule
        Skates are caught in the GOA primarily by vessels directed fishing for groundfish with non-pelagic trawl gear and by vessels directed fishing for groundfish and halibut with hook-and-line gear. Very limited amounts of skates are also caught by vessels using pelagic trawl, pot, and jig gear in directed groundfish fisheries in the GOA. Section 3.1.1 of the Analysis presents detailed information on GOA skate catch by species, management area, gear, and target fishery for two time periods: From 2008 through 2012, and in 2013 and 2014. This information is briefly summarized below.
        Catch data are divided into these two periods, because the individual fishing quota (IFQ) halibut and small catcher vessel hook-and-line Pacific cod fisheries were largely unobserved before 2013. Data on the incidental catch of skate species from these fisheries prior to 2013 is limited or not available. In 2013, the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program was restructured (Restructured Observer Program) and observers were deployed in the IFQ halibut fishery and on smaller vessels (77 FR 70062, November 21, 2012). As a result, new observer data on skate catch were included in NMFS' catch accounting system. The improved observer data since 2013, and information on the amount of at-sea discards of skates from the IFQ halibut fishery and smaller hook-and-line vessels, show that an increased proportion of skate catch occurs on vessels using hook-and-line gear.
        Based upon NMFS' catch accounting system, big skate catch occurs primarily in the Central GOA. Less than one tenth of the catch comes from the Western GOA or the Eastern GOA. NMFS data show that from 2008 through 2012, an average of 67 percent of the big skate catch was caught by vessels using non-pelagic trawl gear and 32 percent was caught by vessels using hook-and-line gear. During 2013 and 2104, the proportion of big skate catch by vessels using non-pelagic trawl gear decreased to 54 percent, and the proportion caught by vessels using hook-and-line gear increased to 46 percent. Big skate catch by vessels using non-pelagic trawl gear occurs predominantly in the arrowtooth flounder directed fishery. Big skate catch by vessels using hook-and-line gear occurs predominantly in the Pacific cod and halibut directed fisheries. Less than 1 percent of the big skate catch was caught by vessels using other types of gear.

        The analysis indicates that congregations of big skate in the spring enable catcher vessel operators using non-pelagic trawl gear and hook-and-line gear to engage in top-off fishing. NMFS groundfish landings data on big skate confirm that specific areas have higher retention of big skate when compared to other areas (see Section 3.1.3 of the Analysis).
        Longnose skate are caught predominantly in the Central GOA, with more limited catch in the Eastern GOA, and the least amount of catch in the Western GOA. NMFS data show that from 2008 through 2012, an average of 53 percent of the longnose skate catch was caught by vessels using hook-and-line gear and 44 percent was caught by vessels using non-pelagic trawl gear. During 2013 and 2014, the proportion of longnose skate catch by vessels using hook-and-line gear increased to 67 percent, and the proportion of catch by vessels using non-pelagic trawl gear decreased to 31 percent. Longnose skate catch by vessels using hook-and-line gear occurs predominantly in Pacific cod, halibut, and sablefish directed fisheries. Longnose skate catch by vessels using non-pelagic trawl gear occurs predominantly in the arrowtooth flounder and flatfish directed fisheries. Approximately 2 percent of the longnose skate catch was caught by vessels using other types of gear.
        Other skates are caught primarily in the Central GOA. From 2008 through 2012, an average of 78 percent of the other skate catch was caught by vessels using hook-and-line gear, and 20 percent was caught by vessels using non-pelagic trawl gear. During 2013 and 2014, the proportion of catch of other skate catch by vessels using hook-and-line gear increased to 90 percent and the proportion of catch by vessels using non-pelagic trawl gear decreased to 10 percent. Other skate catch by vessels using hook-and-line gear occurs predominantly in the Pacific cod, halibut, and sablefish directed fisheries. Other skate catch by vessels using non-pelagic trawl gear occurs predominantly in the arrowtooth and deep-water flatfish target fisheries. Less than 1 percent of the other skate catch was caught by vessels using other types of gear.
        Need for the Proposed Rule
        In December 2013, the Council received public testimony that the current MRA for skates in the GOA allows fishermen to deliberately target skates while ostensibly directed fishing for other groundfish or halibut. This “topping-off” pattern of maximizing skate catch up to the MRA limit of 20 percent of the basis species onboard a vessel has increased the harvest rate of skates. In recent years, skate catch has exceeded the TAC in some areas. The estimated catch of big skate exceeded the TAC in the Central GOA in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, and the estimated catch of longnose skates exceeded the TAC in the Western GOA in 2009, 2010, and 2013. The catch of other skates has not exceeded the TACs established for the GOA management area; however, in 2013 and 2014, the catch of other skates was estimated at 93 percent and 98 percent of the 2013 and 2014 TACs, respectively.
        When fishery managers estimated the big or longnose skate TACs would be exceeded, NMFS prohibited retention of big or longnose skates in the directed fisheries for groundfish and halibut and required discard of all big or longnose skate catch for the remainder of the calendar year. The earlier in the year that big or longnose skate retention is prohibited, the more regulatory discards of big or longnose skate can occur since groundfish and halibut fisheries will continue to catch these skates incidentally.
        The Council determined and NMFS agrees that reducing the skate MRA would decrease the incentive for fishermen to engage in top-off fishing for skates and slow the harvest rate of skates to levels that more accurately reflect the rate of incidental catch of skates in the directed groundfish and halibut fisheries in the GOA. Reducing the skate MRA would slow the skate harvest rate and accrual of skate catch against the TAC. A slower harvest rate may reduce the potential that NMFS will have to prohibit skate retention to avoid exceeding a skate species' TAC. In addition, a slower harvest rate could extend skate retention throughout the year and result in lower regulatory discards of skates.
        This proposed rule would help ensure that skate catch in the future does not exceed a TAC, ABC, or OFL. The Council and NMFS analyzed four alternative MRAs to reduce the incentive for fishermen to pursue top-off fishing for skates and slow the rate of skate harvest. In addition to the status quo of an MRA of 20 percent, the Council and NMFS evaluated alternatives to reduce skate MRAs to 15, 10, and 5 percent. To estimate impacts of the alternative MRAs, the Analysis considered two metrics.
        First, the Analysis examined the rate of big skate catch relative to groundfish catch by directed fishery before and after big skate retention was prohibited in 2013 and 2014 (see Section 4.5.1.1 of the Analysis). The Analysis assumed that once big skate retention was prohibited by regulation, a vessel operator would not be engaging in top-off fishing for big skates if they were encountered while directed fishing for groundfish or halibut. Thus, the Analysis assumed that the relative catch rates of big skate after retention was prohibited were a reasonable estimate of the likely incidental catch rate of big skate.
        The Analysis examined big skate catch rates because they are the most abundant skates in the GOA and significant proportions of big skate catches are retained compared to the catch of longnose and other skates. The 2013 and 2014 period was selected for analysis because NMFS prohibited retention of big skates in the Central GOA during these years, allowing a clear comparison of changes in catch rates after retention was prohibited. NMFS also has more complete data on big skate catch rates after 2013 due to the Restructured Observer Program.
        Results from the analysis of big skate harvest rates indicate that after big skate retention was prohibited the harvest rate for big skate dropped from as much as 8.6 percent of the total groundfish and halibut catch to a harvest rate that ranged from 6.3 percent to 0.1 percent of the total groundfish and halibut catch depending on the year, gear type, and target fishery. These data indicate that participants in various target fisheries could avoid the incidental catch of big skate when there was not an incentive to retain big skates.
        Second, the Analysis used a model of retained skate catch of all skate species, in all areas and by vessels using all gear types under a range of hypothetical MRAs ranging from one percent to 20 percent of the basis species. The model allowed the Council and NMFS to compare the amount of retained skate catch that would be likely under these alternative MRAs (see Section 4.5.1.4 of the Analysis).
        Results from the model indicate that as the MRA becomes more restrictive, the incentive for vessel operators to engage in top-off fishing is reduced and overall skate catch may be reduced as fishermen avoid areas where skates are encountered. The model estimated that a reduction in the skate MRA ranging from 20 percent to 10 percent would have relatively limited impacts on the amount of GOA skates that are retained relative to the current 20 percent MRA. Therefore, NMFS expects reducing the MRA to 15 or 10 percent would not result in a significantly lower catch rate of GOA skates. The model indicates that reducing the skate MRA below 10 percent would be expected to result in more limited top-off fishing and lower overall catch of skates. The model indicates that a 5 percent MRA would best ensure that NMFS did not have to prohibit the retention of skates and that skate TACs would not be exceeded.

        In December 2014, following public comment and input from its advisory bodies, the Council unanimously recommended reducing the MRA for skates from 20 percent to 5 percent for all basis species in the GOA. Overall, reducing the skate MRA would primarily affect vessel operators who retained big skate at an amount greater than 5 percent of their basis species in the Central GOA. Reducing the skate MRA to 5 percent would have the greatest effect on vessels retaining big skates in the Central GOA because big skate catches have consistently exceeded the big skate TAC in the Central GOA, and data indicate that vessel operators can and do engage in topping-off for big skates. This proposed rule would have a relatively limited impact on vessel retention of longnose and other skates given these species have not been found to congregate like big skates and are not currently subject to the same patterns of top-off fishing. This proposed rule is not likely to have significant impacts on the conservation or management of groundfish or halibut in the GOA because this proposed rule would only limit the amount of skates that may be retained.
        This proposed rule would affect all catcher vessels and catcher/processors directed fishing for groundfish and halibut in the GOA that may harvest any species of skate. Section 4.6.1.1 of the Analysis estimates the annual revenue at risk for all catcher vessels and catcher/processors that could be affected by this proposed rule at $2.4 million. However, the impact relative to each vessel that retains skates in the GOA is quite small. Analysis of the gross revenue data for vessels that retained GOA skates indicates that from 2008 through 2013 the average percentage of annual gross revenue derived from skate catch by catcher vessels ranged between 0.7 percent and 1.28 percent of their total annual gross revenue; the average percentage of annual gross revenue derived from skate catch by catcher/processors ranged between 0.26 percent and 0.77 percent of their total annual gross revenue (see Section 4.6.1.1 of the Analysis). In general, vessels that catch and retain skates show relatively little dependence on GOA skates for their gross revenues. The actual impact on gross revenue for a specific vessel may vary from year to year depending on the total abundance of skates, total catch of skates, market conditions, and ex-vessel price. Section 4.5.1.4 of the Analysis describes the effect of the 5 percent MRA on specific vessel operations in greater detail.
        The impact of this proposed rule on communities is discussed in Section 4.6.2 of the Analysis. Impacts would be most pronounced on Kodiak, AK, where, from 2008 through 2014, 87 percent to 93 percent of skates retained by catcher vessels were delivered. Kodiak accounted for between 84 percent and 91 percent of the first wholesale value of shoreside skate processing in Alaska, which ranged between $3.2 and $5.1 million annually. Skates accounted for between 0.98 percent and 1.38 percent of the first wholesale value of production at Kodiak.
        Although this proposed rule could limit the total amount of skates delivered, it is also possible that skate deliveries would continue under the 5 percent MRA, but would be distributed throughout the year provided a TAC limit is not reached. Therefore, the impact on total landings on any community may be limited. Communities in the State of Alaska where skates and processed skate products are landed may realize lower tax revenues from the State of Alaska Fisheries Business Tax and Fishery Resource Landing Tax, but only if total skate landings decline.
        Proposed Rule
        This proposed rule would make four changes to the regulations. First, this proposed rule would revise skate MRAs in Table 10 to 50 CFR part 679, Gulf of Alaska Retainable Percentages, and in Table 30 to 50 CFR part 679, Rockfish Program Retainable Percentages. NMFS would reduce the incidental catch species MRAs for skates for each basis species listed in Tables 10 and 30 from 20 percent to 5 percent. NMFS notes the basis species termed “Aggregated amount of non-groundfish species” includes all legally retained IFQ halibut as explained in footnote 12 to Table 10. If the proposed reductions in skate MRAs are approved, then skate MRAs would be set equal to 5 percent in Tables 10 and 30 on the effective date of the final rule.
        Second, this proposed rule would correct two regulatory cross-reference errors. These errors resulted from reorganizing and renumbering the Federal Fisheries Permit requirements in § 679.4(b) and were implemented in a final rule published on October 21, 2014 (79 FR 62885). Current regulations at § 679.7(a)(18) and § 679.28(f)(6)(i) incorrectly refer to the FFP requirements at § 679.4(b)(5)(vi), a paragraph that no longer exists. This proposed rule would correct those cross references to § 679.4(b).
        Third, this proposed rule would modify regulatory text to clarify that a vessel fishing under a Rockfish Program cooperative quota (CQ) permit may harvest groundfish species not allocated as CQ up to the MRA for that species as established in Table 30 to 50 CFR part 679. This proposed rule would remove the last sentence in regulations at § 679.20(f)(2), because the sentence makes an incorrect statement. The heading in the last column in Table 30 correctly states that the MRA for vessels fishing under the Rockfish Program is calculated as “a percentage of total retained rockfish primary species and rockfish secondary species”. This proposed rule would correct this discrepancy by removing the last sentence of § 679.20(f)(2). The current regulations at § 679.81(h)(4)(i) and (h)(5) use the term “incidental catch species” in the calculation of an MRA to refer to “groundfish species not allocated as cooperative quota (CQ).” This proposed rule would add the referenced text to § 679.81(h)(4)(i) and (h)(5) to ensure consistent use of terminology in the regulations.
        Fourth, this proposed rule would revise Table 2a to 50 CFR part 679 to add whiteblotched, Alaska, and Aleutian skates, as well as the scientific names for individual skate species. Adding these individual skate species and the scientific names would facilitate the reporting of individual skate species taken during groundfish harvest and provides more detailed information regarding skate harvests for stock assessments and fisheries management. This revision would support managing skates as a target species group or as individual target species. These skate species and scientific names were added to Table 2a in final regulations implementing changes to groundfish management in the BSAI and GOA on October 6, 2010 (75 FR 61639). Subsequent regulations published on July 11, 2011 (76 FR 40628), amended Table 2a to 50 CFR part 679 and that revision inadvertently removed the skate species codes implemented on October 6, 2010. The proposed addition of these skate species and scientific names would correct this error that was noticed during the preparation of this proposed rule. The proposed addition of species codes does not change the management of skates or the other provisions of this proposed rule.
        Classification

        Pursuant to sections 304 (b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

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

        NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A copy of the Analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows. A description of the proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this proposed rule are contained elsewhere in the preamble, and are not repeated here.
        This proposed rule, a reduction in GOA skate MRAs, directly regulates all entities fishing for groundfish and halibut in the GOA that have the potential to catch any species of skate. These entities operate vessels that are directly regulated by the GOA groundfish harvest specifications.
        On June 12, 2014, the Small Business Administration issued an interim final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33647, June 12, 2014). The rule increased the size standard for Finfish Fishing from $19.0 million to $20.5 million. The new size standards were used to prepare the IRFA for this proposed rule.
        The IRFA estimates that this proposed rule would directly regulate 1,153 small entities. Of these small entities, the IRFA estimates that this proposed rule would directly regulate 1,073 small catcher vessels fishing with hook-and-line gear (including jig gear), 116 small catcher vessels fishing with pot gear, and 32 small catcher vessels fishing with trawl gear. In addition, this proposed rule would directly regulate 2 small catcher/processors fishing with hook-and-line gear, and one small catcher/processor fishing with trawl gear. Specific revenue data for these small catcher/processors are confidential but are less than $20.5 million annually. The IRFA estimates that the average gross revenues for 2013 (the most recent year of complete revenue data) are $380,000 for small hook-and-line catcher vessels, $960,000 for small pot catcher vessels, and $2.8 million for small trawl catcher vessels.
        This proposed rule does not create new recordkeeping and reporting requirements, or alter existing requirements.
        The IRFA prepared for this proposed rule has not identified Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the preferred alternative (a 5 percent MRA).
        An IRFA should include a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives, are consistent with applicable statutes, and that would minimize the significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
        The Council and NMFS considered four alternatives in the development of this proposed rule. This proposed rule would implement Alternative 4, a 5 percent skate MRA. The significant alternatives to this proposed rule are Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, a 20 percent, 15 percent, and 10 percent skate MRA, respectively. As discussed in Section 4.7 and 4.8 of the Analysis, these proposed alternatives are not expected to reduce the incentive for fishermen to target and retain skates and thus, would not accomplish the objectives of this proposed rule—to slow the harvest rate of skates that may be incidentally retained to ensure that the TACs for skate species are not exceeded. The Analysis did not identify any other alternatives that would more effectively meet the RFA criteria to minimize adverse economic impacts on directly regulated small entities.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries.

          Dated: July 7, 2015.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 679 as follows:

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

        1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.

        2. In § 679.7, revise paragraph (a)(18) to read as follows:

          § 679.7
          Prohibitions.

          (a)  * * *
          (18) Pollock, Pacific Cod, and Atka Mackerel Directed Fishing and VMS. Operate a vessel in any Federal reporting area when a vessel is authorized under § 679.4(b) to participate in the Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, or pollock directed fisheries and the vessel's authorized species and gear type is open to directed fishing, unless the vessel carries an operable NMFS-approved Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) and complies with the requirements in § 679.28(f).

        3. In § 679.20, revise paragraph (f)(2) to read as follows:

          § 679.20
          General limitations.

          (f)  * * *
          (2) Retainable amounts. Any groundfish species for which directed fishing is closed may not be used to calculate retainable amounts of other groundfish species. Only fish harvested under the CDQ Program may be used to calculate retainable amounts of other CDQ species.

        4. In § 679.28, revise paragraph (f)(6)(i) to read as follows:

          § 679.28
          Equipment and operational requirements.

          (f)  * * *
          (6)  * * *
          (i) You operate a vessel in any reporting area (see definitions at § 679.2) off Alaska while any fishery requiring VMS, for which the vessel has a species and gear endorsement on its Federal Fisheries Permit under § 679.4(b), is open.

        5. In § 679.81, revise paragraphs (h)(4)(i) and (h)(5) introductory text to read as follows:

          § 679.81
          Rockfish Program annual harvester privileges.

          (h)  * * *
          (4)  * * *
          (i) The MRA for groundfish species not allocated as CQ (incidental catch species) for vessels fishing under the authority of a CQ permit is calculated as a proportion of the total allocated rockfish primary species and rockfish secondary species on board the vessel in round weight equivalents using the retainable percentage in Table 30 to this part; except that—

          (5) Maximum retainable amount (MRA) calculation and limits—catcher/processor vessels. The MRA for groundfish species not allocated as CQ (incidental catch species) for vessels fishing under the authority of a CQ permit is calculated as a proportion of the total allocated rockfish primary species and rockfish secondary species on board the vessel in round weight equivalents using the retainable percentage in Table 30 to this part as determined under § 679.20(e)(3)(iv).

        6. Revise Table 2a to part 679 to read as follows:

          Table 2a to Part 679—Species Codes: FMP Groundfish

            Species description
            Code

            Atka mackerel (greenling)
            193

            Flatfish, miscellaneous (flatfish species without separate codes)
            120

            FLOUNDER:

            Alaska plaice
            133

            Arrowtooth
            121

            Bering
            116

            Kamchatka
            117

            Starry
            129

            Octopus, North Pacific
            870

            Pacific cod
            110

            Pollock
            270

            ROCKFISH:

            Aurora (Sebastes aurora)
            185

            Black (BSAI) (S. melanops)
            142

            Blackgill (S. melanostomus)
            177

            Blue (BSAI) (S. mystinus)
            167

            Bocaccio (S. paucispinis)
            137

            Canary (S. pinniger)
            146

            Chilipepper (S. goodei)
            178

            China (S. nebulosus)
            149

            Copper (S. caurinus)
            138

            Darkblotched (S. crameri)
            159

            Dusky (S. variabilis)
            172

            Greenstriped (S. elongatus)
            135

            Harlequin (S. variegatus)
            176

            Northern (S. polyspinis)
            136

            Pacific Ocean Perch (S. alutus)
            141

            Pygmy (S. wilsoni)
            179

            Quillback (S. maliger)
            147

            Redbanded (S. babcocki)
            153

            Redstripe (S. proriger)
            158

            Rosethorn (S. helvomaculatus)
            150

            Rougheye (S. aleutianus)
            151

            Sharpchin (S. zacentrus)
            166

            Shortbelly (S. jordani)
            181

            Shortraker (S. borealis)
            152

            Silvergray (S. brevispinis)
            157

            Splitnose (S. diploproa)
            182

            Stripetail (S. saxicola)
            183

            Thornyhead (all Sebastolobus species)
            143

            Tiger (S. nigrocinctus)
            148

            Vermilion (S. miniatus)
            184

            Widow (S. entomelas)
            156

            Yelloweye (S. ruberrimus)
            145

            Yellowmouth (S. reedi)
            175

            Yellowtail (S. flavidus)
            155

            Sablefish (blackcod)
            710

            Sculpins
            160

            SHARKS:

            Other (if salmon, spiny dogfish or Pacific sleeper shark—use specific species code)
            689

            Pacific sleeper
            692

            Salmon
            690

            Spiny dogfish
            691

            SKATES:

            Whiteblotched (Bathyraja maculata)
            705

            Aleutian (B. aleutica)
            704

            Alaska (B. parmifera)
            703

            Big (Raja binoculata)
            702

            Longnose (R. rhina)
            701

            Other (if Whiteblotched, Aleutian, Alaska, Big or Longnose skate—use specific species code listed above)
            700

            SOLE:

            Butter
            126

            Dover
            124

            English
            128

            Flathead
            122

            Petrale
            131

            Rex
            125

            Rock
            123

            Sand
            132

            Yellowfin
            127

            Squid, majestic
            875

            Turbot, Greenland
            134

        7. Revise Table 10 to part 679 to read as follows:

          EP10JY15.009

          EP10JY15.010

          EP10JY15.011

        8. Revise Table 30 to part 679 to read as follows:

          Table 30 to Part 679—Rockfish Program Retainable Percentages
          [In round wt. equivalent]

            Fishery
            Incidental catch species
            Sector
            MRA as apercentage of total retained rockfish primary species and rockfish
              secondary species

            Rockfish Cooperative Vessels fishing under a CQ permit
            Pacific codShortraker/Rougheye aggregate catch

            Catcher/ProcessorCatcher Vessel

            4.0 2.0

            See rockfish non-allocated species for “other species”

            Rockfish non-allocated Species for Rockfish Cooperative vessels fishing under a Rockfish CQ permit
            PollockDeep-water flatfish
              Rex sole

            Catcher/Processor and Catcher VesselCatcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel
              Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel

            20.020.0
              20.0

            Flathead sole
            Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel
            20.0

            Shallow-water flatfish
            Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel
            20.0

            Arrowtooth flounder
            Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel
            35.0

            Other rockfish
            Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel
            15.0

            Atka mackerel
            Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel
            20.0

            Aggregated forage fish
            Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel
            2.0

            Skates
            Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel
            5.0

            Other species
            Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel
            20.0

            Longline gear Rockfish Entry Level Fishery
            See Table 10 to this part.

            Opt-out vessels
            See Table 10 to this part.

            Rockfish Cooperative Vessels not fishing under a CQ permit
            See Table 10 to this part.

      [FR Doc. 2015-16935 Filed 7-9-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042; FXES11130900000-167-FF09E42000]
        RIN 1018-BA41
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period; availability of peer review and supplementary documents.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our March 11, 2016, proposed rule to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, by removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis). In our proposed rule, we emphasized that the governments of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho needed to promulgate regulations managing human-caused mortality of grizzly bears before we would proceed with a final rule. Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho recently finalized such mechanisms. We are also announcing the receipt of five independent peer reviews of the proposed rule. We are reopening the comment period for the proposed rule to allow all interested parties an additional opportunity to comment on the proposed rule in light of these documents. If you submitted comments previously, you do not need to resubmit them because we have already incorporated them into the public record and will fully consider them in preparing the final rule.

          DATES:

          We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before October 7, 2016. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the search box, enter the docket number for the proposed rule, which is FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042. Then click on the Search button. On the resulting page, you may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!” Please ensure you have found the correct document before submitting your comments. If your comments will fit in the provided comment box, please use that feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our comment review procedures. If you attach your comments as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters or a petition), our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Public Comments below in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more information).

            Document availability: You may obtain the information and documents associated with this reopened public comment period and described below in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042, from the Service's Mountain Prairie Region Grizzly Bear Web site https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlybear.php, or from the office listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Wayne Kasworm, Acting Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grizzly Bear Recovery Office, University Hall, Room #309, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812; telephone 406-243-4903. For Tribal inquiries, contact Ivy Allen, Native American Liaison, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; telephone: 303-236-4575. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments

        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on the March 11, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 13174) to remove the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) population of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We specifically seek comments on the proposed rule in light of five peer reviews and recently finalized State regulatory mechanisms. The State regulations describe Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho's approach to managing human-caused mortality should we delist the grizzly bear in the GYE. The State regulatory mechanisms include Montana's Grizzly Bear Hunting Regulations, Chapter 67 of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission regulations, Idaho's Fish and Game Commission Proclamation, and the Memorandum of Agreement Regarding the Management and Allocation of Discretionary Mortality of Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Tri-State MOA). Copies of Grizzly Bear Montana Hunting Regulations, Chapter 67 of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission regulations, Idaho's Fish and Game Commission Proclamation, and the Tri-State MOA are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042 or at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlybear.php; or upon request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grizzly Bear Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties.

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not accept comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Grizzly Bear Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Background

        On March 11, 2016, we published a proposed rule to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.11(h), under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), by removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) population of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) (81 FR 13174). In the proposed rule, we explained that State regulations addressing human-caused grizzly bear mortality in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho must include five elements to maintain a recovered population of grizzly bears in the GYE:
        1. Suspension of all discretionary mortality inside the Demographic Monitoring Area (DMA), except if required for human safety, if the model-averaged Chao2 population estimate falls below 600.
        2. Suspension of grizzly bear hunting inside the DMA if total mortality limits for any sex/age class (as per tables 1, 2, and 3 in the proposed rule) are met at any time during the year (the mortality limits in these tables are reiterated in table 1 in this document, below).
        3. Prohibition of recreational harvest of female grizzly bears with young.

        4. In a given year, allowance of discretionary mortality only if nondiscretionary mortality (e.g., mortality from illegal kills, mortality from self-defense, calculated unknown/unreported mortalities, natural mortalities, and mortality from other causes such as vehicle collisions) does not meet or exceed total mortality limits for that year.
        5. Provisions to ensure that any mortality that exceeds total mortality limits in any year will be subtracted from that age/sex class total mortality limit for the following year to ensure that long-term mortality levels remain within prescribed limits inside the DMA.

          Table 1 1—Total Mortality 2 Limits for Grizzly Bears Inside the Demographic Monitoring Area
          [These mortality rates were calculated as those limits necessary to manage toward the long-term average population size that occurred from 2002 to 2014 using the model-averaged Chao2 population estimate method (674, 95% CI = 600-747). If the population estimate is fewer than 674, the total mortality rate for independent females and dependent young must be less than 7.6 percent. If population size is estimated at fewer than 600 in any year, no discretionary mortality will occur unless necessary for human safety.3]

            Total grizzly bear population estimate
            ≤674
            675-747
            >747

            Mortality limit % for independent FEMALES (≥2 years) (using model-averaged Chao2 method)
            ≤7.6%
            9%
            10%

            Mortality limit % for independent MALES (≥2 years) (using model-averaged Chao2 method)
            15%
            20%
            22%

            Mortality limit % for DEPENDENT YOUNG (using model-averaged Chao2 method)
            ≤7.6%
            9%
            10%

            1 Similar to table 1 in proposed rule (81 FR 13174, March 11. 2016).

            2 Total mortality: Documented known and probable grizzly bear mortalities from all causes including but not limited to: Management removals, illegal kills, mistaken-identity kills, self-defense kills, vehicle kills, natural mortalities, undetermined-cause mortalities, grizzly bear hunting, and a statistical estimate of the number of unknown/unreported mortalities.

            3 The phrasing in the table header in the proposed rule erroneously noted that there would be no discretionary mortality at population levels fewer than or equal to 600 bears, as opposed to population levels fewer than 600 bears. We changed the phrasing here to match the phrasing in the rest of the proposed rule, the revised recovery criteria, and the draft conservation strategy.

        We noted that regulatory mechanisms containing these provisions must be in place in each State for delisting to occur because the adequacy or inadequacy of those regulatory mechanisms help inform us whether a species, once delisted, will remain recovered. The ESA requires the Service to consider existing regulatory mechanisms when making listing determinations.
        Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho recently finalized such regulatory mechanisms governing potential hunting seasons for grizzly bear. These three States also approved the Tri-State MOA, which outlines their coordinated plans for grizzly bear management and allocates discretionary mortality of grizzly bears in the GYE between the three States. The three States approved the Tri-State MOA on the following dates: Wyoming, on May 11, 2016; Montana, on July 13, 2016; and Idaho, on August 8, 2016.
        Highlights of Recently Released State Grizzly Bear Management Regulations
        Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho each used a different regulatory method, appropriate to their respective legal processes, to enact their State rules governing human-caused grizzly bear mortality. Montana's Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted hunting regulations that outline the structure of a possible future grizzly bear hunting season on July 13, 2016 (Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission, 2016). Montana's Fish and Wildlife Commission also approved the Tri-State MOA (Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission, & Idaho Fish and Game Commission, 2016). Before adopting these regulations and the MOA, Montana released the drafts of these documents for public comment and review. The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted the hunting regulations and the MOA in the same manner that it adopts other regulations, with public notice and comment. In the Service Assessment below, we assume the MOA and hunting regulations are regulatory in nature.

        On July 8, 2016, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission approved a regulatory framework that “provides for the management of grizzly bears in Wyoming to ensure a recovered population” (Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, 2016). The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission invited the public to participate in the process of developing these regulations with a public comment period. Once the Governor of Wyoming approves and signs these regulations, they will be incorporated into Chapter 67 of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission's regulations. In the Service Assessment, set forth below, we anticipate that, prior to publication of our final rule, the Governor of Wyoming will sign the version of the regulations that was approved by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission.
        Idaho's Fish and Game Commission issued a proclamation relating to the limit of the take of grizzly bears in the GYE on August 8, 2016 (Idaho Fish and Game Commission, 2016). Idaho Code Section 36-105 authorizes the Idaho Fish and Game Commission to use proclamations, which “have full force and effect as law,” as a means of “setting any season or limit on numbers, size, sex or species of wildlife classified by the commission as game animals.” Since grizzly bears are classified as game animals in Idaho Administrative Code 13.01.06.100.01e, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission may use a proclamation to establish binding limits on the take of grizzly bears (Idaho Administrative Code 13.01.06.100.01e).

        Table 2 cross-references the aforementioned requirements in the proposed rule with the content of each State's regulations. The full text of the State regulations and the Tri-State MOA can be found on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042 or https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlybear.php; or upon request from the Grizzly Bear Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

          Table 2—Cross-Reference Between the Regulatory Requirements in the Proposed Rule To Remove the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears From Listing Under the Endangered Species Act (81 FR 13174; March 11, 2016) and the State Grizzly Bear Regulatory Mechanisms

            Required element described in the proposed rule
            Montana (Tri-state memorandum of agreement (MOA) and Grizzly Bear hunting regulations)
            Wyoming (Chapter 67 of WY Game and Fish Commission regulations)
            Idaho (ID Fish and Game Commission proclamation)

              Requirement 1: Suspension of all discretionary mortality inside the Demographic Monitoring Area (DMA), except if required for human safety, if the model-averaged Chao2 population estimate falls below 600
            Tri-State MOA: section IV(2)(a)(i), section IV(2)(c)(i), section IV(4)(a), and section IV(6)
            Section 4(c)
            Section 2.

              Requirement 2: Suspension of grizzly bear hunting inside the DMA if total mortality limits for any sex/age class (as per tables 1, 2, and 3 in the proposed rule) are met at any time during the year (these mortality limits are reiterated in table 1 in this document)
            Tri-State MOA: section IV(2)(c), section IV(4)(a), and section IV(6)
            Section 4(d)
            Section 3 and section 5.

              Requirement 3: Prohibition of recreational harvest of female grizzly bears with young
            Tri-State MOA: section IV(4)(b); Grizzly Bear Hunting Regulations, pp. 4 and 7
            Section 4(e)
            Section 4.

              Requirement 4: In a given year, allowance of discretionary mortality only if non-discretionary mortality (e.g., mortality from illegal kills, self-defense, calculated unknown/unreported mortalities, natural mortalities, and other causes such as vehicle collisions) does not meet or exceed total mortality limits for that year
            Tri-State MOA: section IV(2)(c), section IV(4)(a), and section IV(6)
            Section 4(d) and section 4(k)
            Section 5.

              Requirement 5: Provisions to ensure that any mortality that exceeds total mortality limits in any year will be subtracted from that age/sex class total mortality limit for the following year to ensure that long-term mortality levels remain within prescribed limits inside the DMA
            Tri-State MOA: section IV(2)(c)
            Section 4(g), section 4(k), and section 4(l)
            Section 6.

        Service Assessment
        The Service has reviewed the recently finalized State regulations governing the management of grizzly bears in the GYE and the regulation of human-caused mortality (including the Tri-State MOA, Montana's Grizzly Bear Hunting Regulations, Chapter 67 of Wyoming's Game and Fish Commission regulations, and Idaho's Fish and Game Commission Proclamation). Our preliminary assessment is that these documents are consistent with the letter or intent of the regulatory requirements regarding human-caused mortality that we outlined in the proposed rule. Thus, based on our review, we believe the regulatory framework in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, in combination with the Tri-State MOA, will maintain a recovered population of grizzly bears in the GYE. We are accepting public comments on these State regulations and our preliminary assessment that they provide adequate regulatory mechanisms such that we can conclude that the population no longer meets the definition of threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
        Peer Review and Public Comments

        In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we subjected the proposed delisting rule to peer review. We received submissions from five independent peer reviewers, and their input is available as described under ADDRESSES. These peer reviews were conducted by third-party selected scientific experts in large carnivore ecology and management with expertise in one or more of the following areas: population ecology, management, demographics, conservation, and population genetics. We welcome any comments on the proposed rule in light of these reviews (see compiled reviews in Amec Foster Wheeler, 2016). Previously received public comments, and the data and information they provided, can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042.
        References Cited

        A complete list of references cited is available: on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042; from the Service's Mountain Prairie Region Grizzly Bear Web site https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlybear.php; or upon request from the Grizzly Bear Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Authority

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

          Dated: August 16, 2016.
          James W. Kurth,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-21368 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 110111018-1019-01]
        RIN 0648-XA109
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Annual Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes a regulation to implement the annual harvest guideline (HG) and seasonal allocations for Pacific sardine in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast for the fishing season of January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. This rule is proposed according to the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The proposed 2011 maximum HG for Pacific sardine is 50,526 metric tons (mt), of which 4,200 mt would initially be set aside for potential use under an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP). The remaining 46,326 mt, constituting the initial commercial fishing HG, would be divided across the seasonal allocation periods in the following way: January 1-June 30—16,214 mt would be allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt; July 1-September 14—18,530 mt would be allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt; September 15-December 31—11,582 mt would be allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt, plus an additional 2,000 mt set aside to buffer against reaching the total HG. This rule is intended to conserve and manage Pacific sardine off the West Coast.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by February 11, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this proposed rule identified by 0648-XA109 by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Mail: Rodney R. McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.
          • Fax: (562) 980-4047.

            Instructions: No comments will be posted for public viewing until after the comment period has closed. 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 (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 (enter N/A in the required fields if you prefer to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of the report “Assessment of Pacific Sardine Stock for U.S. Management in 2011” may be obtained from the Southwest Regional Office (see
            ADDRESSES).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joshua Lindsay, Southwest Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4034.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The CPS FMP, which was implemented by publication of a final rule in the Federal Register on December 15, 1999 (64 FR 69888), divides management unit species into two categories: Actively managed and monitored. Harvest guidelines for actively managed species (Pacific sardine and Pacific mackerel) are based on formulas applied to current biomass estimates. Conversely, annual biomass estimates are not currently calculated for species that are classified as monitored stocks (jack mackerel, northern anchovy, and market squid).
        During public meetings each year, the estimated biomass for each actively managed species within the CPS FMP is presented to the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) CPS Management Team (Team), the Council's CPS Advisory Subpanel (Subpanel) and the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and the biomass and the status of the fisheries are reviewed and discussed. The biomass estimate is then presented to the Council along with HG recommendations and comments from the Team, Subpanel and SSC. Following review by the Council and after hearing public comment, the Council adopts a biomass estimate and makes its HG recommendation to NMFS.
        The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement the 2011 HG for Pacific sardine in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast. The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set an annual HG for the Pacific sardine fishery based on the annual specification framework in the FMP. This framework includes a harvest control rule that determines what the maximum HG for the current fishing season will be, based, in large part, on the estimate of stock biomass. The harvest control rule in the CPS FMP is HG = [(Biomass-Cutoff) * Fraction * Distribution] with the parameters described as follows:
        1. Biomass. The estimated stock biomass of Pacific sardine age one and above for the 2011 management season is 537,173 mt.
        2. Cutoff. This is the biomass level below which no commercial fishery is allowed. The FMP established this level at 150,000 mt.
        3. Distribution. The portion of the Pacific sardine biomass estimated in the EEZ off the Pacific coast is 87 percent and is based on the average historical larval distribution obtained from scientific cruises and the distribution of the resource according to the logbooks of aerial fish-spotters.
        4. Fraction. The harvest fraction is the percentage of the biomass above 150,000 mt that may be harvested.
        At the November 2010 Council meeting, the Council adopted the 2010 Assessment of the Pacific Sardine Resource in 2010 for U.S. management in 2011 and a Pacific sardine biomass estimate of 537,173 mt. When this biomass estimate is applied to the harvest control rule for Pacific sardine in the CPS FMP, the resulting maximum HG is 50,526 mt. For the 2011 Pacific sardine fishing year, the Council recommended to NMFS a maximum HG of 50,526 mt. Similar to the action taken in 2009 and 2010, the Council also recommended that 4,200 mt of the available 2011 HG be initially reserved for fishing/research activities that would be undertaken under a potential exempted fishing permit (EFP). In 2010, 5,000 mt was subtracted from the total HG for an EFP.
        The Council will hear proposals and comments on any potential EFPs at the March 2011 Council meeting, and at the April 2011 Council meeting it will make a final recommendation to NMFS on whether or not all or a portion of the 4,200 mt set-aside should be allocated for use under an EFP(s). NMFS will likely make a decision on whether to issue an EFP for Pacific sardine some time prior to the start of the second seasonal period (July 1, 2011). Any of the 4,200 mt that is not issued to an EFP will be rolled into the third allocation period's directed fishery. Any set-aside attributed to an EFP designed to be conducted during the closed fishing time in the second allocation period (prior to September 15), but not utilized, will roll into the third allocation period's directed fishery. Any set-aside attributed to an EFP designed to be conducted during closed fishing times in the third allocation, but not utilized, will not be re-allocated.
        The Council also recommended that the remaining 46,326 mt (HG of 50,526 mt minus proposed 4,200 mt EFP set-aside) be used as the initial overall commercial fishing HG for Pacific sardine, and that this amount be allocated across the seasonal periods established by Amendment 11 (71 FR 36999). The Council recommended incidental catch set-asides of 1,000 mt per allocation period, and an additional management uncertainty buffer of 2,000 mt in the third period. The purpose of the incidental set-aside allotments and allowance of an incidental catch-only fishery is to allow for the restricted incidental landings of Pacific sardine in other fisheries, particularly other CPS fisheries, when a seasonal directed fishery is closed. The additional management buffer in the third period is due to difficulties associated with closing the fishery, and to help ensure that the fishery does not exceed the maximum HG.

        The directed harvest levels and incidental set-aside would be initially allocated across the three seasonal allocation periods in the following way: from January 1-June 30, 15,214 mt would be allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set aside of 1,000 mt; from July 1-September 14, 17,530 mt would be allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set aside of 1,000 mt; and from September 15-December 31, 8,582 mt would be allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set aside of 1,000 mt. If during any of the seasonal allocation periods the applicable adjusted directed harvest allocation is projected to be taken, fishing would be closed to directed harvest and only incidental harvest would be allowed. For the remainder of the period, any incidental Pacific sardine landings would be counted against that period's incidental set-aside. The proposed incidental fishery would also be constrained to a 30 percent by weight incidental catch rate when Pacific sardine are landed with other CPS so as to minimize the targeting of Pacific sardine. In the event that an incidental set-aside is projected to be attained, the incidental fishery will be closed for the remainder of the period. If the set-aside is not fully attained or is exceeded in a given seasonal period, the directed harvest allocation in the following seasonal period would automatically be adjusted downward to account for the discrepancy. Additionally, if during any seasonal period the directed harvest allocation is not fully attained or is exceeded, then the following period's directed harvest total would be adjusted upward to account for this discrepancy as well.

        If the total HG or these apportionment levels for Pacific sardine are reached or are expected to be reached, the Pacific sardine fishery would be closed until it re-opens either per the allocation scheme or the beginning of the next fishing season. The NMFS Southwest Regional Administrator would publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the date of any such closure.
        For the 2011 Pacific sardine fishing season the Council also recommended an overfishing limit (OFL) of 92,767 mt and an Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) and Annual Catch Limit (ACL) of 84,681 mt. The HG proposed for the 2011 fishing season is operationally similar to an Annual Catch Target (ACT) (as defined at § 600.310(f)(2)). These reference points are in accordance with the proposed Amendment 13 to the CPS FMP on which the Council took final action on in June 2010, and that will undergo review by NMFS. The intent of Amendment 13 is to revise relevant sections of the CPS FMP to ensure they are consistent with the objectives of the revised National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines.

        Detailed information on the fishery and the stock assessment are found in the report “Assessment of Pacific Sardine Stock for U.S. Management in 2011” (see
          ADDRESSES).
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 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, as required by section the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. The results of the analysis are stated below. For copies of the IRFA, and instructions on how to send comments on the IRFA, please see the ADDRESSES section above.
        The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement the 2011 HG for Pacific sardine in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast. The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set an annual HG for the Pacific sardine fishery based on the harvest control rule in the FMP. The harvest control rule is applied to the current stock biomass estimate to derive the annual HG. The HG is determined using an environmentally-based formula accounting for the effect of ocean conditions on stock productivity.
        The HG is apportioned based on the following allocation scheme: 35 percent of the HG is allocated coastwide on January 1; 40 percent of the HG, plus any portion not harvested from the initial allocation is then reallocated coastwide on July 1; and on September 15 the remaining 25 percent, plus any portion not harvested from earlier allocations will be released. If the total HG or these apportionment levels for Pacific sardine are reached at any time, the Pacific sardine fishery is closed until either it re-opens per the allocation scheme or the beginning of the next fishing season. There is no limit on the amount of catch that any single vessel can take during an allocation period or the year; the HG and seasonal allocations are available until fully utilized by the entire CPS fleet.
        The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are the vessels that compose the West Coast CPS finfish fleet. Approximately 108 vessels are permitted to operate in the sardine fishery component of the CPS fishery off the U.S. West Coast; 64 permits in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California (south of 39 N. lat.), and a combined 44 permits in Oregon and Washington's state Pacific sardine fisheries. The U.S. Small Business Administration defines small businesses engaged in fishing as those vessels with annual revenues of or below $4 million. The average annual per vessel revenue in 2010 for the West Coast CPS finfish fleet was well below $4 million, and all of these vessels therefore are considered small businesses under the RFA. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed rule has an equal effect on all of these small entities, and therefore will impact a substantial number of these small entities in the same manner. Accordingly, there would be no economic impacts resulting from disproportionality between small and large business entities under the proposed action.
        The profitability of these vessels as a result of this proposed rule is based on the average Pacific sardine ex-vessel price per mt. NMFS used average Pacific sardine ex-vessel price per mt to conduct a profitability analysis because cost data for the harvesting operations of CPS finfish vessels was unavailable.
        For the 2010 fishing year, the maximum HG was set at 72,039 mt. Approximately 66,000 mt of the HG was harvested during the 2010 fishing season, with an estimated total coastwide ex-vessel value of $12.2 million. Using these figures, the 2010 ex-vessel price per mt of Pacific sardines was $185.
        The proposed HG for the 2011 Pacific sardine fishing season (January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011) is 50,526 mt. This HG is approximately 25% less than the directed fishing HG for 2010 of 68,039 mt. This decrease in HG is due to a decrease in the coastwide Pacific sardine biomass from which the HG is directly derived.

        If the fleet were to take the entire 2011 HG, and using the 2010 ex-vessel average price of $185 per mt of Pacific sardine, the total potential revenue for the entire fleet would be approximately $9.3 million. This would be slightly less than the average coastwide total ex-vessel value achieved from 2001-2010 of approximately $11.5 million. There will also likely be a drop in profitability based on this rule compared to last season due the lower HG this fishing season. Whether this will occur depends greatly on market forces within the fishery, and on the regional availability of the resource to the fleets and the fleets' ability to find pure schools of Pacific sardine. A change in the market rate and/or the potential lack of availability of the resource to the fleets could cause a reduction in the amount of Pacific sardine that is harvested which, in turn, would reduce the total revenue to the fleet from Pacific sardine.

        However, the revenue derived from harvesting Pacific sardine is only one factor determining the overall revenue of a majority of the CPS fleet, and therefore the economic impact to the fleet from the proposed action, can not be viewed in isolation. CPS finfish vessels typically harvest a number of other species, including anchovy, mackerel, squid, and tuna, making Pacific sardine only one component of a multi-species CPS fishery. A reliance on multiple species is a necessity because each CPS stock is highly associated to present ocean and environmental conditions. Because each species responds to such conditions in its own way, not all CPS stocks are likely to be abundant at the same time; therefore as abundance levels and markets fluctuate, the CPS fishery as a whole has endured by depending on a group of species.
        No significant alternatives to this proposed rule were considered or exist that would accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statutes, and which would minimize any significant economic impact of this proposed rule on the affected small entities. The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set an annual HG for the Pacific sardine fishery based on the harvest control rule in the FMP. The harvest control rule is applied to the current stock biomass estimate to determine what the HG for that fishing season will be; as biomass increases so will the HG, conversely as biomass decreases so does the HG. The determination of the annual HG merely implements the established procedures of the FMP with the goal of continuing to provide expected net benefits to the nation, regardless of what the specific annual allowable harvest of Pacific sardine equates to.
        There are no reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements required by this proposed rule. Additionally, no other Federal rules duplicate, overlap or conflict with this proposed rule.
        This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paper Reduction Act.

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

          Dated: January 21, 2011.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-1839 Filed 1-26-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 54
        [WC Docket No. 13-184; Report No. 3143; FRS 16540]
        Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petition for Reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding filed by Debra M. Kriete, on behalf of State E-Rate Coordinators' Alliance and Fred Brakeman, on behalf of Infinity Communications & Consulting, Inc.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before April 8, 2020. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before April 20, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joseph Schlingbaum, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, (202) 418-0829.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3143, released February 28, 2020. The full text of the Petitions are available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Petitions also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5.U.S.C. because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

          Subject: Modernizing the E-Rate Program for Schools and Libraries, FCC 19-117 published at 84 FR 70026, December 20, 2019, in WT Docket No. 13-184. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

          Number of Petitions Filed: 2.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Cecilia Sigmund,
          Federal Register Liaison Officer, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2020-06114 Filed 3-23-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P