        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 544
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0050]
        RIN 2127-AK46
        Insurer Reporting Requirements; List of Insurers Required To File Reports

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document proposes to amend Appendices A, B and C of 49 CFR Part 544, Insurer Reporting Requirements. The appendices list those passenger motor vehicle insurers that are required to file reports on their motor vehicle theft loss experiences. An insurer included in any of these appendices would be required to file three copies of its report for the 2006 calendar year before October 25, 2009. If the passenger motor vehicle insurers remain listed, they must submit reports by each subsequent October 25. We are proposing to add and remove several insurers from relevant appendices.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted not later than October 16, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0050 by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

            Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.

            Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to the street address listed above. The Internet access to the docket will be at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, by electronic mail to Carlita.Ballard@dot.gov. Ms. Ballard's telephone number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33112, Insurer reports and information, NHTSA requires certain passenger motor vehicle insurers to file an annual report with the agency. Each insurer's report includes information about thefts and recoveries of motor vehicles, the rating rules used by the insurer to establish premiums for comprehensive coverage, the actions taken by the insurer to reduce such premiums, and the actions taken by the insurer to reduce or deter theft. Under the agency's regulation, 49 CFR Part 544, the following insurers are subject to the reporting requirements:
        (1) Issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose total premiums account for 1 percent or more of the total premiums of motor vehicle insurance issued within the United States;
        (2) issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose premiums account for 10 percent or more of total premiums written within any one state; and
        (3) rental and leasing companies with a fleet of 20 or more vehicles not covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers of motor vehicles, other than any governmental entity.
        Pursuant to its statutory exemption authority, the agency exempted certain passenger motor vehicle insurers from the reporting requirements.
        A. Small Insurers of Passenger Motor Vehicles
        Section 33112(f)(2) provides that the agency shall exempt small insurers of passenger motor vehicles if NHTSA finds that such exemptions will not significantly affect the validity or usefulness of the information in the reports, either nationally or on a state-by-state basis. The term “small insurer” is defined, in Section 33112(f)(1)(A) and (B), as an insurer whose premiums for motor vehicle insurance issued directly or through an affiliate, including pooling arrangements established under state law or regulation for the issuance of motor vehicle insurance, account for less than 1 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the United States. However, that section also stipulates that if an insurance company satisfies this definition of a “small insurer,” but accounts for 10 percent or more of the total premiums for all motor vehicle insurance issued in a particular state, the insurer must report about its operations in that state.

        In the final rule establishing the insurer reports requirement (52 FR 59; January 2, 1987), 49 CFR Part 544, NHTSA exercised its exemption authority by listing in Appendix A each insurer that must report because it had at least 1 percent of the motor vehicle insurance premiums nationally. Listing the insurers subject to reporting, instead of each insurer exempted from reporting because it had less than 1 percent of the premiums nationally, is administratively simpler since the former group is much smaller than the latter. In Appendix B, NHTSA lists those insurers required to report for particular states because each insurer had a 10 percent or greater market share of motor vehicle premiums in those states. In the January 1987 final rule, the agency stated that it would update Appendices A and B annually. NHTSA updates the appendices based on data voluntarily provided by insurance companies to A.M. Best.1
           A.M. Best publishes in its State/Line Report each spring. The agency uses the data to determine the insurers' market shares nationally and in each state.

            1 A.M. Best Company is a well-recognized source of insurance company ratings and information. 49 U.S.C. 33112(i) authorizes NHTSA to consult with public and private organizations as necessary.

        B. Self-Insured Rental and Leasing Companies
        In addition, upon making certain determinations, NHTSA grants exemptions to self-insurers, i.e., any person who has a fleet of 20 or more motor vehicles (other than any governmental entity) used for rental or lease whose vehicles are not covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers of passenger motor vehicles, 49 U.S.C. 33112(b)(1) and (f). Under 49 U.S.C. 33112(e)(1) and (2), NHTSA may exempt a self-insurer from reporting, if the agency determines:
        (1) The cost of preparing and furnishing such reports is excessive in relation to the size of the business of the insurer; and 33112(e)(1) and (2),
        (2) the insurer's report will not significantly contribute to carrying out the purposes of Chapter 331.
        In a final rule published June 22, 1990 (55 FR 25606), the agency granted a class exemption to all companies that rent or lease fewer than 50,000 vehicles, because it believed that the largest companies' reports sufficiently represent the theft experience of rental and leasing companies. NHTSA concluded that smaller rental and leasing companies' reports do not significantly contribute to carrying out NHTSA's statutory obligations and that exempting such companies will relieve an unnecessary burden on them. As a result of the June 1990 final rule, the agency added Appendix C, consisting of an annually updated list of the self-insurers subject to Part 544. Following the same approach as in Appendix A, NHTSA included, in Appendix C, each of the self-insurers subject to reporting instead of the self-insurers which are exempted.

        NHTSA updates Appendix C based primarily on information from Automotive Fleet Magazine and Auto Rental News.2

            2 Automotive Fleet Magazine and Auto Rental News are publications that provide information on the size of fleets and market share of rental and leasing companies.

        C. When a Listed Insurer Must File a Report
        Under Part 544, as long as an insurer is listed, it must file reports on or before October 25 of each year. Thus, any insurer listed in the appendices must file a report before October 25, and by each succeeding October 25, absent an amendment removing the insurer's name from the appendices.
        II. Proposal
        1. Insurers of Passenger Motor Vehicles
        Appendix A lists insurers that must report because each had 1 percent of the motor vehicle insurance premiums on a national basis. The list was last amended in a final rule published on August 18, 2008 (73 FR 48151). Based on the 2006 calendar year data market shares from A. M. Best, NHTSA proposes to remove Auto Club Southern California Group and add Auto Club Enterprise Insurance Group to Appendix A.
        Each of the 19 insurers listed in Appendix A are required to file a report before October 25, 2009, setting forth the information required by Part 544 for each State in which it did business in the 2006 calendar year. As long as these 19 insurers remain listed, they will be required to submit reports by each subsequent October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before.
        Appendix B lists insurers required to report for particular States for calendar year 2006, because each insurer had a 10 percent or greater market share of motor vehicle premiums in those States. Based on the 2006 calendar year data for market shares from A.M. Best, we propose to remove Farm Bureau of Idaho from Appendix B.
        The eight remaining insurers listed in Appendix B are required to report on their calendar year 2006 activities in every State where they had a 10 percent or greater market share. These reports must be filed by October 25, 2009, and set forth the information required by Part 544. As long as these eight insurers remain listed, they would be required to submit reports on or before each subsequent October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before.
        2. Rental and Leasing Companies

        Appendix C lists rental and leasing companies required to file reports. Subsequent to publishing the August 18, 2008 final rule (see 73 FR 48151), the agency was informed by Emkay, Inc., (Emkay) that it was a motor vehicle leasing company offering financial, fleet management and consulting services pertaining to operating a fleet of motor vehicles and does not provide insurance policies for its customers to purchase. However, Emkay further stated that it does include as a condition of its lease agreement that its lessees purchase and maintain its own motor vehicle insurance coverage. Emkay also submitted a copy of its lease agreement showing that insurance was required as a condition of the lease. Therefore, NHTSA proposes to remove Emkay, Inc. from the list of insurers required to meet the reporting requirements.
        Each of the remaining six companies (including franchisees and licensees) listed in Appendix C are required to file reports for calendar year 2006 no later than October 25, 2009, and set forth the information required by Part 544. As long as those six companies remain listed, they would be required to submit reports before each subsequent October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before.
        III. Regulatory Impacts
        1. Costs and Other Impacts
        This notice has not been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. NHTSA has considered the impact of this proposed rule and determined that the action is not “significant” within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This proposed rule implements the agency's policy of ensuring that all insurance companies that are statutorily eligible for exemption from the insurer reporting requirements are in fact exempted from those requirements. Only those companies that are not statutorily eligible for an exemption are required to file reports.

        NHTSA does not believe that this proposed rule, reflecting current data, affects the impacts described in the final regulatory evaluation prepared for the final rule establishing Part 544 (52 FR 59; January 2, 1987). Accordingly, a separate regulatory evaluation has not been prepared for this rulemaking action. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for 2008 (see http://www.bls.gov/cpi), the cost estimates in the 1987 final regulatory evaluation were adjusted for inflation. The agency estimates that the cost of compliance is $107,650 for any insurer added to Appendix A, $43,060 for any insurer added to Appendix B, and $12,423 for any insurer added to Appendix C. If this proposed rule is made final, for Appendix A, the agency would propose to remove one company and add one company; for Appendix B, the agency would propose to remove one company; and for Appendix C, the agency would propose to remove one company. The agency estimates that the net effect of this proposal, if made final, would be a cost decrease of approximately $55,483 to insurers as a group.
        Interested persons may wish to examine the 1987 final regulatory evaluation. Copies of that evaluation were placed in Docket No. T86-01; Notice 2. Any interested person may obtain a copy of this evaluation by writing to NHTSA, Technical Reference Division, 1201 New Jersey Avenue, SE., East Building, Ground Floor, Room E12-100, Washington, DC 20590, or by calling (202) 366-2588.
        2. Paperwork Reduction Act

        The information collection requirements in this proposed rule were submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This collection of information is assigned OMB Control Number 2127-0547 (“Insurer Reporting Requirements”).
        3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The agency also considered the effects of this rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale for the certification is that none of the companies proposed for Appendices A, B, or C are construed to be a small entity within the definition of the RFA. “Small insurer” is defined, in part under 49 U.S.C. 33112, as any insurer whose premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance account for less than 1 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the United States, or any insurer whose premiums within any State, account for less than 10 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the State. This notice would exempt all insurers meeting those criteria. Any insurer too large to meet those criteria is not a small entity. In addition, in this rulemaking, the agency proposes to exempt all “self-insured rental and leasing companies” that have fleets of fewer than 50,000 vehicles. Any self-insured rental and leasing company too large to meet that criterion is not a small entity.
        4. Federalism
        This action has been analyzed according to the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined that the proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
        5. Environmental Impacts
        In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, NHTSA has considered the environmental impacts of this proposed rule and determined that it would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
        6. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
        The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading, at the beginning, of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
        7. Plain Language
        Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
        • Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
        • Are the requirements in the proposal clearly stated?
        • Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
        • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
        • Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
        • Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
        • What else could we do to make the proposal easier to understand?
        If you have any responses to these questions, you can forward them to me several ways:
        a. Mail: Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., (West Building), Washington, DC 20590;
        b. E-mail: Carlita.Ballard@dot.gov; or
        c. Fax: (202) 493-2990.
        IV. Comments
        Submission of Comments
        1. How Can I Influence NHTSA's Thinking on This Proposed Rule?
        In developing our rules, NHTSA tries to address the concerns of all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rule. We invite you to provide views on our proposal, new data, a discussion of the effects of this proposal on you, or other relevant information. We welcome your views on all aspects of this proposed rule. Your comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below:
        • Explain your views and reasoning clearly.
        • Provide solid technical and cost data to support your views.
        • If you estimate potential costs, explain how you derived the estimate.
        • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
        • Offer specific alternatives.
        • Include the name, date, and docket number with your comments.
        2. How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
        Your comments must be written in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
        Your comments must not exceed 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments concisely. You may attach necessary documents to your comments. We have no limit on the attachments' length.

        Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES.

        Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at http:www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
        3. How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
        If you wish Docket Management to notify you, upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will mail the postcard.
        4. How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

        If you wish to submit any information under a confidentiality claim, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim as confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590. In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter addressing the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
        5. Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

        NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
        6. How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

        You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated above, in the same location. You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, log onto the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

        V. Conclusion
        Based on the foregoing, we are proposing to amend Appendices A and C of 49 CFR Part 544, Insurer Reporting Requirements. We are also amending § 544.5 to revise the example given the recent update to the reporting requirements.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 544
          Crime insurance, Insurance, Insurance companies, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 544 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 544—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 544 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
             49 U.S.C. 33112; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          2. Paragraph (a) of § 544.5 is revised to read as follows:

            § 544.5
            General requirements for reports.
            (a) Each insurer to which this part applies shall submit a report annually before October 25, beginning on October 25, 1986. This report shall contain the information required by § 544.6 of this part for the calendar year 3 years previous to the year in which the report is filed (e.g., the report due by October 25, 2009 will contain the required information for the 2006 calendar year).

            3. Appendix A to Part 544 is revised to read as follows:
            Appendix A—Insurers of Motor Vehicle Insurance Policies Subject to the Reporting Requirements in Each State in Which They Do Business

              Allstate Insurance Group
              American Family Insurance Group
              American International Group
              Auto Club Enterprise Insurance Group 1

                  1 Indicates a newly listed company, which must file a report beginning with the report due October 25, 2009.

              Auto-Owners Insurance Group
              Erie Insurance Group
              Berkshire Hathaway/GEICO Corporation Group
              California State Auto Group
              Hartford Insurance Group
              Liberty Mutual Insurance Companies
              Metropolitan Life Auto & Home Group
              Mercury General Group
              Nationwide Group
              Progressive Group
              Safeco Insurance Companies
              State Farm Group
              Travelers Companies
              USAA Group
              Farmers Insurance Group

            4. Appendix B to Part 544 is revised to read as follows:
            Appendix B—Issuers of Motor Vehicle Insurance Policies Subject to the Reporting Requirements Only in Designated States

              Alfa Insurance Group (Alabama)
              Auto Club (Michigan)
              Commerce Group, Inc. (Massachusetts)
              Kentucky Farm Bureau Group (Kentucky)
              New Jersey Manufacturers Group (New Jersey)
              Safety Group (Massachusetts)
              Southern Farm Bureau Group (Arkansas, Mississippi)
              Tennessee Farmers Companies (Tennessee)

            5. Appendix C to Part 544 is revised to read as follows:
            Appendix C—Motor Vehicle Rental and Leasing Companies (Including Licensees and Franchisees) Subject to the Reporting Requirements of Part 544

              Cendant Car Rental
              Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group
              Enterprise Rent-A-Car
              Hertz Rent-A-Car Division (subsidiary of The Hertz Corporation)
              U-Haul International, Inc. (Subsidiary of AMERCO)
              Vanguard Car Rental USA

            Issued on: August 11, 2009.
            Julie Abraham,
            Director, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs.

      [FR Doc. E9-19587 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        RIN 0648-BD83
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; Amendment 20A

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) have submitted Amendment 20A to the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources (CMP) in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP) (Amendment 20A) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 20A proposes actions to restrict sale of king and Spanish mackerel caught under the bag limit and to remove the income qualification requirement for king and Spanish mackerel commercial vessel permits.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before May 2, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on Amendment 20A, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2013-0168” 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-2013-0168, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Susan Gerhart, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            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, 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). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Electronic copies of Amendment 20A, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_sa/cmp/index.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Susan Gerhart, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone: 727-824-5305; email: Susan.Gerhart@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any fishery management plan or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the plan or amendment is available for review and comment.
        The FMP being revised by Amendment 20A was prepared by the Councils and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Actions Contained in Amendment 20A

        Currently, no Federal permits are required to sell CMP species, although commercial vessel permits are required to exceed the bag limit for king and Spanish mackerel. All fish harvested in Federal waters that are sold are considered commercial harvest and count towards a species' commercial quota, whether or not the fisherman has a Federal commercial permit. The Councils and NMFS are concerned that landings sold from recreational trips may contribute to the commercial quota and lead to early closures in the commercial sector. Reducing the sale of fish caught under the bag limit should improve the accuracy of data by reducing “double counting”, i.e., harvest from a single trip that is counted towards both the commercial quota and recreational allocation. This practice occurs when the same catches are reported through recreational surveys and commercial trip tickets and logbooks.

        For the Gulf region, Amendment 20A would prohibit the sale of bag-limit-caught king and Spanish mackerel except in two limited circumstances. First, bag-limit-caught king and Spanish mackerel could be sold when harvested during a for-hire trip on a vessel with both a Gulf Charter/Headboat Coastal Migratory Pelagic Fish Permit and either a King Mackerel Commercial Permit or a Spanish Mackerel Commercial Permit, as appropriate to the species harvested or possessed. Second, king and Spanish mackerel harvested during state-permitted tournaments may be donated to a dealer who has a state or Federal permit and then sold by that dealer, if the proceeds are donated to charity. Dealers receiving such fish must report them as tournament-caught fish. In the Gulf, these sales from dually-permitted vessels or tournaments would only occur in Florida because all other Gulf states prohibit the sale of any bag-limit caught fish.
        Currently, there is no Federal dealer permit for king or Spanish mackerel. However, a proposed rule published on January 2, 2014 (79 FR 81), that would implement the Generic Dealer Amendment, includes an action to implement a Gulf and South Atlantic dealer permit which would add king and Spanish mackerel onto the Federal dealer permit. Therefore, if the Generic Dealer Amendment is approved and a final rule is implemented, there would be a Federal dealer permit for king and Spanish mackerel.
        For the Atlantic region, Amendment 20A would prohibit the sale of bag-limit-caught king and Spanish mackerel except those harvested during a state-permitted tournament. As in the Gulf, king and Spanish mackerel harvested during state-permitted tournaments may be donated to a dealer with a state or Federal permit and then sold by that dealer, if the proceeds are donated to charity. Dealers receiving such fish must report them as tournament-caught fish.
        Amendment 20A would also remove the income qualification requirement for king and Spanish mackerel commercial vessel permits. To obtain or renew a king or Spanish mackerel commercial vessel permit, a minimum amount of the applicant's earned income must be derived from commercial or charter fishing. This requirement is difficult to enforce and has recently been removed as a requirement to obtain or renew a Gulf reef fish permit. No other Federal permit in the Southeast Region has an income qualification requirement except the Federal commercial spiny lobster permit, which mirrors requirements by Florida. This action would not affect the number of king mackerel permits issued, which are limited access, but could increase the number of Spanish mackerel permits issued, which are open access.
        Amendment 20A also contained an action to eliminate or restrict latent permits; however, the Councils chose not to take action on that issue at this time.

        A proposed rule that would implement measures outlined in Amendment 20A has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        Consideration of Public Comments
        The Council submitted Amendment 20A for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation on November 26, 2013. Comments received by May 2, 2014, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the amendment. Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

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

          Dated: February 25, 2014.
          James P. Burgess,
          Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2014-04628 Filed 2-28-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [I.D. 092200A]
        Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Hearings

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

          ACTION:
          Public hearings; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene public hearings on draft Amendment 7 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico.  Amendment 7 proposes to create a Federal trap certificate program for the commercial stone crab fishery in Federal waters (exclusive economic zone (EEZ)) off Florida.  This program would be similar to the trap certificate program adopted by the State of Florida.  In addition, public testimony on Amendment 7 will be accepted at the Gulf Council meeting in November 2000.  A separate Federal Register notice will give details about that meeting.

          DATES:

          The Council will accept written comments through November 3, 2000.  The public hearings will be held in October 2000.  See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times of the public hearings.

          ADDRESSES:

        Written comments should be sent to  Mr. Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S. Highway 301, North, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL  33619.  Copies of draft Amendment 7 are available from Mr. Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S. Highway 301, North, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL  33619; telephone: 813-228-2815; fax: 813-769-4520.  The public hearings will be held in Marathon and Crystal River, FL  (For specific locations, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S. Highway 301, North, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL  33619; telephone: 813-228-2815.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The public hearings will be convened to take public comment on draft Amendment 7.  Draft Amendment 7 would create a Federal trap certificate program for the commercial stone crab fishery in the EEZ off Florida.  This program would be similar to the trap certificate program adopted by the State of Florida.
        A summary of the proposed Amendment 7 Federal stone crab trap certificate program follows:
        1.  The Federal program would recognize the Florida stone crab license and tags for use in the EEZ but would not require them.
        2.  Persons who could not obtain or chose not to obtain the state license/tags could apply for a Federal vessel permit, trap certificate, and trap tags.
        3.  The same qualifying criteria would apply for obtaining the Federal vessel permit/trap certificate/trap tags as apply for obtaining the state license/tags (i.e., 300 lb (136.1 kg) of claws landed in one of the six fishing seasons 1993/1994 through 1998/1999).  The end of the draft Amendment 7 qualifying period would be May 15, 1999.
        4.  Persons would have 90 days to apply for a Federal vessel permit/trap certificate/trap tags after the effective date of implementation of the final rule.
        5.  Persons qualifying would be issued a Federal vessel permit/trap certificate/trap tags based on their landings divided by 5 lb (2.3 kg), which is the annual harvest level that would occur when the number of traps is reduced to the optimum level of 600,000 traps.
        6.  Federal vessel permits, trap certificates, and tags would be non-transferrable.
        7.  It is anticipated that the cost of the Federal trap tags would be higher than the cost of the state trap tags (i.e., $1.10 vs $0.50).
        8.  Draft Amendment 7 includes a Federal appeals process allowing fishermen to appeal denied applications for a Federal vessel permit/trap certificate/trap tags.
        Time and Location for Public Hearings
        Public hearings for draft Amendment 7 will be held at the following locations, dates, and times:
        1.  October 16, 2000, 7 p.m., Marathon Government Center, BOCC Room, 2798 Overseas Highway MM 47.5, Marathon, FL  33050; telephone:  305-295-4385.
        2.  October 18, 2000, 7 p.m., Plantation Inn & Gulf Resort, 9301 West Fort Island Trail, Crystal River, FL  34429; telephone:  352-795-4211.
        Special Accommodations

        These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Anne Alford at the Council (see ADDRESSES) by November 3, 2000.

          Dated:  October 3, 2000.
          Clarence Pautzke,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-25957 Filed 10-6-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 101228634-0481-01]
        RIN 0648-BA26
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Bluefish Fishery; 2011 Atlantic Bluefish Specifications; Regulatory Amendment

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed specifications; regulatory amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes specifications for the 2011 Atlantic bluefish fishery, including total allowable landings (TAL), a commercial quota and recreational harvest limit (RHL), and a recreational possession limit. The intent of this action is to establish the allowable 2011 harvest levels and other management measures to achieve the target fishing mortality rate (F), consistent with the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). NMFS also proposes to amend the bluefish regulations that specify the process for setting the annual TAL and target F to more clearly reflect the intent of the FMP.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before January 31, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by 0648-BA26, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov

          • Fax: 978-281-9135, Attn: Regional Administrator.
          • Mail and Hand Delivery: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on 2011 Bluefish Specifications.”

            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 wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of the specifications document, including the Environmental Assessment and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/IRFA) and other supporting documents for the specifications, are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The specifications document is also accessible via the Internet at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Tobey Curtis, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9273, or Sarah Heil, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9257.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Atlantic bluefish fishery is managed cooperatively by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission). The management unit for bluefish specified in the FMP is U.S. waters of the western Atlantic Ocean. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and J. The regulations requiring annual specifications are found at § 648.16.
        The FMP requires the Council to recommend, on an annual basis, a total allowable catch (TAC) and a TAL that will control fishing mortality. An estimate of annual discards is deducted from the TAC to calculate the TAL that can be made during the year by the commercial and recreational fishing sectors combined. The FMP requires that 17 percent of the TAL be allocated to the commercial fishery, as a quota (further allocated to the states from Maine to Florida in specified shares), with the remaining 83 percent of the TAL allocated as an RHL. The Council may also recommend a research set-aside (RSA) quota, which is deducted from the bluefish TAL (after any applicable transfer) in an amount proportional to the percentage of the overall TAL as allocated to the commercial and recreational sectors.
        Pursuant to § 648.162, the annual review process for bluefish requires that the Council's Bluefish Monitoring Committee (Monitoring Committee) and Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) review and make recommendations based on the best available data, including, but not limited to, commercial and recreational catch/landing statistics, current estimates of fishing mortality, stock abundance, discards for the recreational fishery, and juvenile recruitment. Based on the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee and SSC, the Council makes a recommendation to the NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator. Because this FMP is a joint plan, the Commission also meets during the annual specification process to adopt complementary measures.

        The Council's recommendations must include supporting documentation concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations. NMFS is responsible for reviewing these recommendations to assure they achieve the FMP objectives, and may modify them if they do not. NMFS then publishes proposed specifications in the Federal Register, and after considering public comment, NMFS will publish final specifications in the Federal Register.

        Proposed Specifications
        Updated Model Estimates

        According to Amendment 1 to the FMP (Amendment 1), overfishing for bluefish occurs when F exceeds the fishing mortality rate that allows maximum sustainable yield (FMSY), or the maximum F threshold to be achieved. The stock is considered overfished if the biomass (B) falls below the minimum biomass threshold, which is defined as 1/2 BMSY. Amendment 1 also established that the long-term target F is 90 percent of FMSY (FMSY = 0.19, therefore Ftarget = 90 percent of FMSY, or 0.17), and the long-term target B is BMSY = 324 million lb (146,964 mt).

        An age-structured assessment program (ASAP) model for bluefish was approved by the 41st Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC 41) in 2005 to estimate F and annual biomass. In June 2010, the ASAP model was updated in order to estimate the current status of the bluefish stock (i.e., 2009 biomass and F estimates) and enable the Monitoring Committee and SSC to recommend 2011 specifications using landings information and survey indices through the 2009 fishing year. The results of the assessment update were as follows: (1) An estimated stock biomass for 2009, B2009 = 343.901 million lb (155,991 mt); and (2) an estimated fishing mortality rate for 2009, F2009 = 0.10. Based on the updated 2009 estimate of bluefish stock biomass, the bluefish stock is not considered overfished: B2009 is greater than the minimum biomass threshold, 1/2 BMSY = 162 million lb (73,526 mt), and is above BMSY. Biomass has been above the target since 2007, and the stock was declared rebuilt in October 2009, satisfying the rebuilding program requirement to achieve rebuilding by 2010 that was established in Amendment 1. Estimates of F have declined from 0.41 in 1991 to 0.10 in 2009. The updated model results also conclude that the Atlantic bluefish stock is not experiencing overfishing; i.e., the most recent F (F2009 = 0.10) is less than the maximum F overfishing threshold specified by SARC 41 (FMSY = 0.19).
        2011 TAL

        The Council's SSC met in July 2010 to review updated stock status and other fishery independent and dependent data to recommend an acceptable biological catch (ABC) for the 2011 bluefish fishing year. Based on the updated bluefish assessment, the SSC recommended an ABC of 31.744 million lb (14,399 mt), which corresponds to an F of 0.15. Following the SSC meeting, the Monitoring Committee met to review the SSC's ABC determination and recommend bluefish management measures for 2011. The MC recommended an Ftarget of 0.15 and a corresponding TAC of 31.744 million lb (14,399 mt). After subtracting an estimate of discards of 4.451 million lb (2,019 mt) (the average annual discard level from 2007-2009) from the TAC, the Monitoring Committee recommended a 2011 TAL of 27.293 million lb (12,380 mt). At its August 2010 meeting, the Council concurred with the recommendation of the Monitoring Committee for a TAC of 31.744 million lb (14,299 mt) and a TAL of 27.293 million lb (12,380 mt). The proposed TAL is a 7-percent decrease from the 2010 TAL of 29.264 million lb (13,274 mt) due to a slight decrease in the 2009 estimate of bluefish stock biomass. The discussion below describes the recommended allocation of TAL between the commercial and recreational sectors, and the proportional adjustments to account for the recommended bluefish RSA quota.
        Proposed Commercial Quota and Recreational Harvest Limit
        Based strictly on the percentages specified in the FMP (17 percent commercial, 83 percent recreational), the commercial quota for 2011 would be 4.640 million lb (2,105 mt) and the RHL would be 22.653 million lb (10,275 mt) in 2011. However, the FMP stipulates that, in any year in which 17 percent of the TAL is less than 10.500 million lb (4,763 mt), and the recreational fishery is not projected to land its harvest limit for the upcoming year, the commercial quota may be increased up to 10.500 million lb (4,763 mt), provided that the combined projected recreational landings and commercial quota would not exceed the TAL. The RHL would then be adjusted downward so that the TAL would be unchanged.
        The Council postponed projections of estimated recreational harvest for 2011 until Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) harvest data through Wave 5 of 2010 became available (six “Waves” of data are released each year by MRFSS). In the meantime, the 3-year average of annual recreational harvest from 2007 through 2009 (17.882 million lb (8,111 mt)) was applied as the estimated recreational harvest for 2011. As such, it was expected that a transfer of up to 4.772 million lb (2,164 mt) from the recreational sector to the commercial sector could be approved. This option represents the preferred alternative recommended by the Council in its specifications document.
        Northeast Regional Office staff recently updated the recreational harvest projection using 2010 MRFSS data through Wave 5. Using the best available data, the 2011 recreational harvest was estimated to be 16.992 million lb (7,707 mt), or approximately 62 percent of the TAL. Consistent with the Council's recommendation, this would allow for a transfer of 4.772 million lb (2,164 mt) from the recreational sector to the commercial sector. This would result in an adjusted commercial quota of 9.411 million lb (4,269 mt) and an RHL of 17.882 million lb (8,111 mt).
        RSA
        Two research projects that would utilize bluefish RSA quota have been preliminarily approved and forwarded to NOAA's Grants Management Division. A 105,000-lb (48-mt) RSA quota is preliminarily approved for use by these projects during 2011. Proportional adjustments of this amount to the commercial and recreational allocations would result in a final commercial quota of 9.375 million lb (4,253 mt) and a final RHL of 17.813 million lb (8,080 mt). NMFS staff will update the commercial and recreational allocations based on the final 2011 RSA awards as part of the final rule for the 2011 specifications.
        Proposed Recreational Possession Limit
        The Council recommends, and NMFS proposes, to maintain the current recreational possession limit of up to 15 fish per person to achieve the RHL.
        Proposed State Commercial Allocations
        The proposed state commercial allocations for the recommended 2011 commercial quota are shown in Table 1, based on the percentages specified in the FMP. These quotas do not reflect any adjustments for quota overages that may have occurred in some states in 2010. Any potential deductions for states that exceeded their quota in 2010 will be accounted for in the final rule.

          Table 1—Proposed Bluefish Commercial State-by-State Allocations for 2011
          [Including RSA deductions]

            State
            Percent share
            2011 Council-proposed commercial quota (lb)
            2011 Council-proposed commercial quota (kg)

            ME
            0.6685
            62,673
            28,428

            NH
            0.4145
            38,860
            17,627

            MA
            6.7167
            629,704
            285,629

            RI
            6.8081
            638,273
            289,516

            CT
            1.2663
            118,718
            53,850

            NY
            10.3851
            973,624
            441,629

            NJ
            14.8162
            1,389,049
            630,062

            DE
            1.8782
            176,085
            79,871

            MD
            3.0018
            281,425
            127,652

            VA
            11.8795
            1,113,727
            505,178

            NC
            32.0608
            3,005,765
            1,363,392

            SC
            0.0352
            3,300
            1,497

            GA
            0.0095
            891
            404

            FL
            10.0597
            943,117
            427,791

            Total
            100.0001
            9,375,204
            4,252,521

        Proposed Regulatory Amendment

        Amendment 1, implemented in 2000, established a rebuilding schedule to rebuild the bluefish stock biomass to its biomass target using a graduated step reduction in fishing mortality over a 9-year period. Amendment 1 specified a target F of 90 percent of FMSY, to become effective after the rebuilding period. The regulations at § 648.160(a) state that the Council must set the TAL to “achieve the target fishing mortality rate (F) specified in the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Bluefish for the upcoming fishing year or the estimated F for the fishing year preceding the Council submission of the recommended specifications, whichever F is lower.” These regulations reflect the annual specification process during the rebuilding period; however, the regulations do not reflect the intent of the FMP for specification of the TAL after the rebuilding period. The “whichever F is lower” provision was only intended to apply to annual specifications during the rebuilding period. Therefore, this rule proposes to eliminate the “whichever F is lower” provision to more clearly reflect the intent of the FMP.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Bluefish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which 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 preamble and in the SUMMARY. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
        Small businesses operating in commercial and recreational (i.e., party and charter vessel operations) fisheries have been defined by the Small Business Administration as firms with gross revenues of up to $4.0 and $6.5 million, respectively. The categories of small entities likely to be affected by this action include commercial and charter/party vessel owners holding an active Federal permit for Atlantic bluefish, as well as owners of vessels that fish for Atlantic bluefish in state waters. All federally permitted vessels fall into the definition of small businesses; thus, there would be no disproportionate impacts between large and small entities as a result of the proposed rule.
        An active participant in the commercial sector was defined as any vessel that reported having landed one or more lb (0.45 kg) in the Atlantic bluefish fishery in 2009 (the last year for which there are complete data). The active participants in the commercial sector were defined using two sets of data. The Northeast dealer reports were used to identify 688 vessels that landed bluefish in states from Maine through North Carolina in 2009. However, the Northeast dealer database does not provide information about fishery participation in South Carolina, Georgia, or Florida. South Atlantic Trip Ticket reports were used to identify 908 vessels 1
           that landed bluefish in North Carolina and 685 vessels that landed bluefish on Florida's east coast. Bluefish landings in South Carolina and Georgia were near zero in 2009, representing a negligible proportion of the total bluefish landings along the Atlantic Coast. Therefore, this analysis assumed that no vessel activity for these two states took place in 2009. In recent years, approximately 2,063 party/charter vessels may have been active in the bluefish fishery and/or have caught bluefish.

            1 Some of these vessels were also identified in the Northeast dealer data; therefore, double counting is possible.

        There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action. In addition, NMFS is not aware of any relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
        The IRFA in the Draft EA analyzed three alternatives (including a no action/status quo alternative) for the 2011 Atlantic bluefish fishery. All quota alternatives considered in this analysis are based on various commercial harvest levels for bluefish (a low, medium, and high level of harvest). For analysis of impacts of each alternative, the maximum potential RSA quota of 3 percent of the TAL (818,797 lb (371 mt)) was used. For analysis of impacts of Alternatives 1 and 3, the recommended transfer of 4.772 million lb (2,164 mt) from the recreational sector to the commercial sector was used. Under Alternative 2, no transfer of bluefish would be made from the recreational sector to the commercial sector, and the allocation of the TAL would be based strictly on the percentages specified in the FMP (17 percent commercial, 83 percent recreational).

        Alternatives 1 and 2 would implement a TAL of 27.293 million lb (12,380 mt). Alternative 3 would implement status quo management measures for 2011, which would result in a TAL identical to the 2010 TAL, or 29.264 million lb (13,274 mt). The proposed 2011 Atlantic bluefish specification alternatives are shown in Table 2, along with the resulting commercial quota and RHL after any applicable transfer described earlier in the preamble and after deduction of the RSA quota. Alternative 1 (Council's preferred) would allocate 9.129 million lb (4,141 mt) to the commercial sector and 17.345 million lb (7,868 mt) to the recreational sector. Alternative 2 would result in the most restrictive commercial quota and would allocate 4.501 million lb (2,041 mt) to the commercial sector and 21.974 million lb (9,967 mt) to the recreational sector. Alternative 3 (status quo) would allocate 10.051 million lb (4,559 mt) to the commercial sector and 18.335 million lb (8,317 mt) to the recreational sector. The commercial quota and RHL under Alternative 3 would be slightly different than those in 2010 due to differences in the RSA quota.
        Table 2. Proposed 2011 Atlantic Bluefish Specification Alternatives for TAL, Commercial Quota, and RHL (million lb).

          Table 2—Proposed 2011 Atlantic Bluefish Specification Alternatives for TAL, Commercial Quota, and RHL
          [million lb]

            TAL
            Commercial quota
            RHL

            Alternative 1
            27.293 (12,380 mt)
            9.129 (4,141 mt)
            17.345 (7,868 mt)

            Alternative 2
            27.293 (12,380 mt)
            4.501 (2,041 mt)
            21.974 (9,967 mt)

            Alternative 3
            29.264 (13,274 mt)
            10.051 (4,559 mt)
            18.335 (8,317 mt)

        Commercial Fishery Impacts
        To assess the impact of the alternatives on commercial fisheries, the Council conducted a threshold analysis and 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.
        Under Alternative 1, the recommended commercial quota for 2011 is approximately 40 percent higher than 2009 commercial landings. When this commercial quota is distributed to the states from Maine to Florida (based on the percentages specified in the FMP), each state's 2011 quota is higher than its 2009 landings, except for New York and New Jersey. New York and New Jersey both fully harvested their initial bluefish quota and received commercial quota transfers from other states in 2009. Therefore, New York and New Jersey's 2009 landings were greater than their initially allocated 2009 commercial quota. Results of the threshold analysis from dealer data estimated that, coast wide, there would be no revenue change for 449 vessels, while 219 vessels could incur slight revenue losses of less than 5 percent. Approximately 20 vessels could incur revenue losses of more than 5 percent. A larger number of these vessels have home ports in New York than in any other state. Of the 20 vessels that may experience revenue losses of more than 5 percent, 15 percent had gross sales of $1,000 or less, and 80 percent had gross sales of $10,000 or less. This likely indicates that the dependence on income from fishing for some of these vessels is very small. If commercial quota is transferred from a state or states that do not land their entire bluefish quota for 2011, as was done in 2010 and frequently in previous years, the number of affected entities described above could decrease, thus decreasing the adverse economic impact on vessels landing in the state(s) receiving quota transfers.
        Alternative 2 would result in a commercial quota 31 percent below the 2009 commercial landings. Although the overall commercial quota would be lower than 2009 commercial landings, when distributed to the states, each state's 2011 quota is higher than its 2009 landings, except for Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and North Carolina. For these states, 2011 commercial landings would be constrained by the 2011 commercial quota under Alternative 2. The threshold analysis projected that 566 vessels could incur revenue losses of less than 5 percent and 61 vessels could incur revenue losses of 5 percent or more. Of the vessels likely to be impacted with revenue reductions of 5 percent or more, 36 percent had gross sales of $1,000 or less and 61 percent had gross sales of $10,000 or less, which may indicate that the dependence on fishing for some of these vessels is small. A larger number of impacted vessels have home ports in New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, which may indicate a higher dependence on bluefish for these states.
        Under Alternative 3, the 2011 commercial quota is approximately 54 percent higher than the 2009 commercial landings. Most states show a similar directional change in fishing opportunities under this alternative; however, New York's 2011 commercial quota would be lower than its 2009 commercial landings. Analysis of Alternative 3 concluded that, coast wide, 565 vessels would likely have no change in revenue relative to 2009, but 8 vessels were projected to incur revenue losses of more than 5 percent. Of the vessels projected to incur revenue losses of more than 5 percent, 88 percent had gross sales of $10,000 or less, likely indicating that the dependence on fishing for some of these vessels is small. No revenue reduction would be expected for vessels that land bluefish in North Carolina or Florida under Alternative 3. If commercial quota is transferred from a state or states that do not land their entire bluefish quota for 2011, as was done in 2010 and frequently in previous years, the number of affected entities described above could decrease, thus decreasing the adverse economic impact on vessels landing in the state(s) receiving quota transfers.
        Recreational Fishery Impacts
        For Alternative 1, the recommended RHL for the recreational sector (17.345 million lb, 7,868 mt) is approximately 28 percent above the recreational landings for 2009 and 7 percent below the RHL implemented for 2010 (18.631 million lb (8,451 mt)). The proposed 2011 RHL is approximately 3 percent less than the projected 2011 recreational landings. There is little empirical evidence regarding the sensitivity of charter/party anglers to fishing regulations. However, under Alternative 1, given the recreational landings in recent years, it is possible that the proposed RHL may cause a slight decrease in recreational satisfaction. In addition, if the proposed measures discourage trip-taking behavior, the demand for party/charter boat trips may be slightly negatively impacted as a result of the proposed 2011 RHL under Alternative 1. Some anglers may reduce their effort in 2011 as a result of the RHL, and are likely to transfer this effort to alternative species, resulting in little change in overall fishing effort. The IRFA analyzed the maximum transfer amount from the recreational sector to the commercial sector, but future updates of recreational harvest projections could result in a lesser transfer amount.

        The 2011 RHL under Alternative 2 would be 62 percent higher than the recreational landings in 2009 and 18 percent higher than the 2010 RHL. In addition, the 2011 RHL is 23 percent higher than the projected recreational landings for 2011. Under Alternative 3, the 2011 RHL would be 35 percent higher than 2009 recreational landings and 2 percent lower than the 2010 RHL. The 2011 RHL would be approximately 3 percent higher than the projected 2011 recreational landings. Thus, Alternatives 2 and 3 are not expected to have any negative effects on recreational fishermen or the demand for party/charter boat trips. In addition, neither of these alternatives are expected to result in recreational landings in excess of the RHL.
        RSA Quota Impacts
        For analysis of each alternative, the maximum RSA quota amount (3 percent of the TAL) was deducted from the initial overall TAL for 2011 to derive the adjusted 2011 commercial quota and RHL under each alternative. Thus, the threshold analyses for each alternative accounted for overall reductions in fishing opportunities due to RSA. Specification of RSA quota for 2011 is expected to benefit all participants in the fishery as a result of improved data and information for management or stock assessment purposes.
        Summary
        The Council recommended Alternative 1 over Alternatives 2 and 3 because it is projected to achieve the target F in 2011, while providing the second least restrictive commercial quota among the alternatives analyzed. Alternative 2 was not recommended by the Council because it would yield the lowest commercial fishing opportunities among the alternatives due to an absence of a quota transfer under this alternative. Alternative 3 was not selected because it would result in a TAC above the level recommended by the SSC and Monitoring Committee.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: January 11, 2011.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
          1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

          2. In § 648.160, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

            § 648.160
            Catch quotas and other restrictions.

            (a) Annual review. On or before August 15 of each year, the Bluefish Monitoring Committee will meet to determine the total allowable level of landings (TAL) and other restrictions necessary to achieve the appropriate target fishing mortality rate (F) specified in the Atlantic Bluefish FMP. In determining the TAL and other restrictions necessary to achieve the appropriate F, the Bluefish Monitoring Committee will review the following data, subject to availability: Commercial, recreational, and research catch data; current estimates of fishing mortality; stock status; recent estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis results; levels of noncompliance by fishermen or individual states; impact of size/mesh regulations; discards; sea sampling data; impact of gear other than otter trawls and gill nets on the mortality of bluefish; and any other relevant information.

      [FR Doc. 2011-798 Filed 1-13-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P