        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 060719196-6196-01.; I.D. 071106F]
        RIN 0648-AU54
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries

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

          ACTION:
           Proposed rule, request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

           The final rule implementing the specifications for the 2005 fishing year for Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish (MSB) clarified the expiration date of the limited entry program for Illex squid, established a minimum mesh requirement for the butterfish fishery, and removed a regulatory requirement for annual specifications to be published by a specific date. These regulatory measures were intended to be of a permanent nature, unlike the specifications themselves, which expired January 1, 2006. An error in the final rule caused these three measures to expire; this proposed rule would restore the regulatory requirements. This action is being taken by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

          DATES:
           Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, on August 17, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:

           Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), including the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), for the 2005 specifications are available from: Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. The EA/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at http:/www.nero.noaa.gov.

          Comments on the proposed rule should be sent to: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Regional Office, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. Please mark the envelope, “Comments-2005 MSB Specifications Corrections.” Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 978-281-9135. Comments on the specifications may be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is MSB2005corrections@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: “Comments-2005 MSB Corrections.” Comments may also be submitted via Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal www.regulations.com by following the instructions at that site for submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Don Frei, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9221, fax 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        NMFS published final specifications for the 2005 fishing year for MSB in the
          Federal Register on March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13406), and the measures became effective on April 20, 2005. The final rule included regulatory changes that were meant to be permanent, as well as the MSB specifications which were intended to expire on January 1, 2006. However, in the effective dates section of the final rule, the distinction between the annual specifications and the permanent regulations was not defined and, as a result, all of the measures of the final rule expired on January 1, 2006. This proposed action permanently reestablishes the regulatory measures as intended.
        Proposed Measures
        Illex Moratorium Permits

        Framework 4 to the MSB Fishery Management Plan (FMP) became effective July 1, 2004(69 FR 30839, June 1, 2004), and extended the limited entry program for the Illex squid fishery through July 1, 2009. In a subsequent regulatory action, the text reflecting the extension was, as mentioned above, not identified as a permanent regulation and therefore expired on January 1, 2006. This proposed rule would specify the July 1, 2009, expiration date in the regulatory text.
        Gear Specifications For Otter Trawl Butterfish Trips
        The final rule implementing the 2005 MSB specifications included a 3.0-inch (7.62-cm) minimum codend mesh size requirement for butterfish otter trawl trips of greater than 5,000 lb (2,268 kg). The measure was described in detail in the proposed rule for the 2005 MSB specifications (70 FR 1686, January 10, 2005) and is only summarized here. The purpose of this minimum mesh size requirement is to allow for escapement of unmarketable butterfish and butterfish below the size at which 50 percent are sexually mature. This minimum mesh size requirement reduces discards in the directed fishery, especially of small, sexually immature butterfish, which will increase the chance of successful recruitment and aid in stock rebuilding. This proposed rule would re-establish the minimum mesh size requirements in the regulations.
        Annual Specifications
        The final rule for implementing the 2005 MSB specifications included a clarification to the regulations in § 648.21, removing references to the dates on which the proposed and final rules for the annual specifications must be published by the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), because it is not necessary to specify those dates in regulatory text. This proposed rule would re-instate that clarification by removing the unnecessary dates.
        Classification

        This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. The Council prepared an IRFA for the 2005 MSB specifications, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which describes the economic impacts this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A copy of the IRFA can be obtained from the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES) or via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov. A summary of the analysis follows:
        A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, is contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and the proposed rule for the 2005 MSB specifications and is not repeated here.
        Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply
        The number of potential fishing vessels in the 2005 fisheries were 72 for Illex squid, and 2,119 vessels with incidental catch permits for squid/butterfish, based on vessel permit issuance. There are no large entities participating in this fishery, as defined in section 601 of the RFA. Therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts. Many vessels participate in more than one of these fisheries; therefore, the numbers are not additive.
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        This action does not contain any new collection-of-information, reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
        Minimizing Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities
        The proposed action would implement a 3.0-inch (7.62-cm) minimum codend mesh size requirement for otter trawl trips landing more than 5,000 lb (2,278 kg) of butterfish. During the period 2001-2003, 16,854 trips landed butterfish, based on unpublished NMFS Vessel Trip Report (VTR) data. More than half (57 percent) of the landings of butterfish during 2001-2003 were taken with mesh sizes less than 3.0 inches (7.62-cm). Within this mesh size range, most were taken with mesh sizes between 2.5 inches (6.35-cm) and 3.0 inches (7.62-cm). The trips using this mesh size range (i.e., less than 3.0 inches (7.62-cm))could potentially be affected by the proposed mesh size. However, the proposed 3.0-inch (7.62-cm) mesh requirement would only apply to otter trawl trips landing 5,000 lb (2,278 kg) or more of butterfish. In terms of numerical frequency of trips, the vast majority of trips during 2001-2003 landed less than 5,000 lb (2,278 kg) of butterfish, based on NMFS VTR data. While 57 percent of the landings by weight were taken on trips of greater than 5,000 lb (2,278 kg) during the period, fewer than 1 percent of the trips landing butterfish landed more than 5,000 lb (2,278 kg). Only 26 vessels had trips that included landings of butterfish of 5,000 lb (2,278 kg) or more, and also reported using mesh sizes less than 3.0 inches (7.62 cm) on those trips. Therefore, it is expected that the economic impact of this proposed measure would be negligible, because the vast majority of trips and vessels would not be affected. The costs for those vessels that do land butterfish on trips of more than 5,000 lb (2,278 kg) of butterfish should also be negligible because virtually all of those vessels already possess codends with 3.0- inch (7.62-cm) mesh or greater (because they are fishing for butterfish or in another fishery that uses nets of that size, e.g., whiting). Therefore, they should not incur any additional costs due to the proposed minimum mesh size requirement. When the Council considered implementing a mesh size requirement for butterfish landings, the only alternative to the proposed action considered was not implementing any mesh size requirement.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: July 27, 2006.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons stated 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 § 648.4, the introductory text of paragraph (a)(5)(i) is added to read as follows:

          § 684.4
          Vessel permits.
          (a) * * *

          (5) * * *

            (i) Loligo squid/butterfish and Illex squid moratorium permits (Illex squid moratorium is in effect until July 1, 2009).

        3. In § 648.14, paragraphs (a)(74) and (p)(5) are added and paragraph (p)(11) is added to read as follows:

          § 648.14
          Prohibitions.
          (a) * * *
          (74) Possess nets or netting with mesh not meeting the minimum size requirements of § 648.23, and not stowed in accordance with the requirements of § 648.23, if in possession of Loligo or butterfish harvested in or from the EEZ.
          (p) * * *
          (5) Fish with or possess nets or netting that do not meet the minimum mesh requirements for Loligo or butterfish specified in § 648.23(a), or that are modified, obstructed, or constricted, if subject to the minimum mesh requirements, unless the nets or netting are stowed in accordance with § 648.23(b) or the vessel is fishing under an exemption specified in § 648.23(a).
          (11) Possess 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) or more of butterfish, unless the vessel meets the minimum mesh size requirement specified in § 648.23(a)(2).

        4. In § 648.21, paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:

          § 648.21
          Procedures for determining initial annual amounts.
          (d) Annual fishing measures. (1) The Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee will review the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee. Based on these recommendations and any public comment received thereon, the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee must recommend to the MAFMC appropriate specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded. The MAFMC will review these recommendations and, based on the recommendations and any public comment received thereon, must recommend to the Regional Administrator appropriate specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded. The MAFMC's recommendations must include supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations. The Regional Administrator will review the recommendations and will publish notification in the Federal Register proposing specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded and providing a 30-day public comment period. If the proposed specifications differ from those recommended by the MAFMC, the reasons for any differences must be clearly stated and the revised specifications must satisfy the criteria set forth in this section. The MAFMC's recommendations will be available for inspection at the office of the Regional Administrator during the public comment period. If the annual specifications for squid, mackerel, and butterfish are not published in the Federal Register prior to the start of the fishing year, the previous year's annual specifications, excluding specifications of TALFF, will remain in effect. The previous year's specifications will be superceded as of the effective date of the final rule implementing the current year's annual specifications.

          (2) The Assistant Administrator will make a final determination concerning the specifications for each species and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications contained in the Federal Register notification will not be exceeded. After the Assistant Administrator considers all relevant data and any public comments, notification of the final specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded and responses to the public comments will be published in the Federal Register. If the final specification amounts differ from those recommended by the MAFMC, the reason(s) for the difference(s) must be clearly stated and the revised specifications must be consistent with the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section.

        5. In § 648.23, paragraph (a) is added to read as follows:

          § 648.23
          Gear restrictions.
          (a) Mesh restrictions and exemptions. (1) Vessels subject to the mesh restrictions outlined in this paragraph (a) may not have available for immediate use any net, or any piece of net, with a mesh size smaller than that required.
          (2) Owners or operators of otter trawl vessels possessing 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) or more of butterfish harvested in or from the EEZ may only fish with nets having a minimum codend mesh of 3 inches (76 mm) diamond mesh, inside stretch measure, applied throughout the codend for at least 100 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the net, or for codends with less than 100 meshes, the minimum mesh size codend shall be a minimum of one-third of the net measured from the terminus of the codend to the headrope.

          (3) Owners or operators of otter trawl vessels possessing Loligo harvested in or from the EEZ may only fish with nets having a minimum mesh size of 1 7/8 inches (48 mm) diamond mesh, inside stretch measure, applied throughout the codend for at least 150 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the net, or for codends with less than 150 meshes, the minimum mesh size codend shall be a minimum of one-third of the net measured from the terminus of the codend to the headrope, unless they are fishing during the months of June, July, August, and September for Illex seaward of the following coordinates (copies of a map depicting this area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request):

              Point
              N. Lat.
              W. Long.

              M1
              43 ° 58.0′
              67 ° 22.0′

              M2
              43 °50.0′
              68 °35.0′ ----

              M3
              43 °30.0′
              69 °40.0′

              M4
              43 °20.0′
              70 °00.0′

              M5
              42 °45.0′
              70 °10.0′

              M6
              42 °13.0′
              69 °55.0′- -

              M7
              41 °00.0′
              69 °00.0′

              M8
              41 °45.0′
              68 °15.0′ ---

              M9
              42 °10.0′
              67 °10.0′---

              M10
              41 °18.6′
              66 °24.8′

              M11
              40 °55.5′
              66 °38.0′ ---

              M12
              40 °45.5′
              68 °00.0′-

              M13
              40 °37.0′
              68 °00.0′-

              M14
              40 °30.0′
              69 °00.0′--- -

              M15
              40 °22.7′
              69 °00.0′---

              M16
              40 °18.7′
              69 °40.0′

              M17
              40 °21.0′
              71 °03.0′

              M18
              39 °41.0′
              72 °32.0′---

              M19
              38 °47.0′
              73 °11.0′

              M20
              38 °04.0′
              74 °06.0′

              M21
              37 °08.0′
              4 °46.0′ ---

              M22
              36 °00.0′
              74 °52.0′---

              M23
              35 °45.0′
              74 °53.0′---

              M24
              35 °28.0′
              74 °52.0′---

          (4) Vessels fishing under this exemption may not have available for immediate use, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, any net, or any piece of net, with a mesh size less than 1 7/8 inches (48 mm) diamond mesh or any net, or any piece of net, with mesh that is rigged in a manner that is prohibited by paragraph (c) and (d) of this section, when the vessel is landward of the specified coordinates.

      [FR Doc. E6-12482 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 991207325-9325-01; I.D. 100699A]
        RIN 0648-AJ52
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; A Cost Recovery Program for the Individual Fishing Quota Program; Correction

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

          ACTION:
          Correction.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS is correcting the proposed rule for A Cost Recovery Program for the Individual Fishing Quota Program published December 27, 1999.

          DATES:
          Effective December 27, 1999.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jay Ginter, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Section 304(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to collect fees to recover actual costs incurred for Federal management of the Individual Fishing Quota Program for fixed gear Pacific halibut and sablefish fisheries in waters in and off of Alaska. NMFS proposed a cost recovery program to collect such fees.
        In the proposed rule, published December 27, 1999 (64 FR 72302), make the following corrections:
        1. On page 72307, in the 2nd column, § 679.4(d)(7), in the 6th line of that paragraph, remove “679.(e)(7)(ii)” and add “679.(l)(7)(ii)” in its place.
        2. On page 72308, in the 3rd column, at § 679.45(a)(2), in the 20th line of that paragraph, remove “§ 675.5(1)(7)(ii)”, and add “§ 675.5(l)(7(ii)” in its place.
        3. On page 72309, in the 2nd column, at § 679.45(d), in the first line of that paragraph, remove the paragraph designation “(i)” and add the paragraph designation “(1)” in its place.
        4. On page 72309, in the 3rd column, at § 679.45(d)(3), in the first line of that paragraph, remove the paragraph designation “(1)”, and add in its place the paragraph designation (i).

          Dated: February 28, 2000.
          Andrew A. Rosenberg,
          Deputy Asst. Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-5221 Filed 3-3-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
        [Docket No. 080229341-8367-01]
        RIN 0648-XF89
        Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat: Notice of Finding on a Petition to List Five Rockfish Species in Puget Sound (Washington) as Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Endangered Species Act

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of finding; request for information, and initiation of status review.

          SUMMARY:

          On October 29, 2007, we, NMFS, received new information and a request to reconsider our “not warranted” finding on a petition submitted in April 2007 to list bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), canary rockfish (S. pinniger), yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus), greenstripe rockfish (S. elongatus) and redstripe rockfish (S. proriger) in Puget Sound (Washington) as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We consider this a new petition and find that this new petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Accordingly, we are initiating a status review of these five rockfish species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based upon the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information regarding the population structure and status of these rockfish species.

          DATES:
          Information and comments on the subject action must be received by May 16, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by the code 0648-XF89, addressed to: Chief, NMFS, Protected Resources Division, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov

          • Facsimile (fax): 503-231-5441
          • Mail: 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon, 97232.
          • Hand delivery: You may hand-deliver written comments to our office during normal business hours at the street address given above.

            Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and may be posted to http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.nwr.noaa.gov without change. All personally identifiable 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. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, Corel WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest Region, (503) 231-2005; or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 713-1401.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On April 9, 2007, we received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright (Olympia, Washington) to list distinct population segments (DPSs) of bocaccio, canary rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, greenstripe rockfish, and redstripe rockfish in Puget Sound as endangered or threatened species under the ESA and to designate critical habitat. We declined to initiate a review of the species' status under the ESA, finding that the petition failed to present substantial scientific or commercial information to suggest that the petitioned actions may be warranted (72 FR 56986; October 5, 2007). On October 29, 2007, we received a letter from Sam Wright presenting information that was not included in the April 2007 petition, and requesting that we reconsider our October 5, 2007, decision not to initiate a review of the species' status. We considered the supplemental information provided in the letter, in addition to the information submitted previously in the April 2007 petition, as a new petition to list bocaccio, canary rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, greenstripe rockfish, and redstripe rockfish and to designate critical habitat. Copies of the April 2007 petition, our October 2007 petition finding, and the October 2007 letter are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES, above).
        ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions
        Section 4(b)(3) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) contains provisions concerning petitions from interested persons requesting the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to list species under the (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). Section 4(b)(3)(A) requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving such a petition, the Secretary make a finding whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Joint NOAA-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ESA implementing regulations define “substantial information” as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). In evaluating a petitioned action, the Secretary considers whether the petition contains a detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, including: past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved, and any threats faced by the species (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii)); and information regarding the status of the species throughout all or a significant portion of its range (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(iii)). In addition to the information presented in a petition, we review other data and publications readily available to our scientists (i.e., currently within agency files) to determine whether it is in general agreement with the information presented in the petition. When it is found that substantial information is presented in the petition, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species concerned. Within 1 year of receipt of the petition, we must make one of the following findings: (1) the petitioned action is not warranted; (2) the petitioned action is warranted, in which case we must promptly publish a propped listing determination; or (3) the petitioned action is warranted but that a proposed listing is precluded by pending rulemaking for other species.
        Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, subspecies, or a DPS of any vertebrate species which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(15)). A joint NOAA-USFWS policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife” (ESA section 3(16)) for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). The joint DPS policy established two criteria that must be met for a population or group of populations to be considered a DPS: (1) the population segment must be discrete in relation to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) the population segment must be significant to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs. A population segment may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) it is markedly separated from other populations of the same biological taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors (quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation); or (2) it is delimited by international governmental boundaries across which there is a significant difference in exploitation control, habitat management, conservation status, or if regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. If a population is determined to be discrete, the agency must then consider whether it is significant to the taxon to which it belongs. Considerations in evaluating the significance of a discrete population include: (1) persistence of the discrete population in an unusual or unique ecological setting for the taxon; (2) evidence that the loss of the discrete population segment would cause a significant gap in the taxon's range; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere outside its historical geographic range; or (4) evidence that the discrete population has marked genetic differences from other populations of the species.
        A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA Sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively).
        Listing Factors and Basis for Determination

        Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species can be determined to be threatened or endangered based on any of the following factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting the species continuing existence. Listing determinations are based solely on the best available scientific and commercial data after taking into account any efforts being made by any state or foreign nation to protect the species.
        Distribution and Life-History Traits of Rockfishes

        Rockfishes are a diverse group of marine fishes (about one hundred and two species worldwide and at least seventy-two species in the northeastern Pacific (Kendall, 1991)), and are among the most common benthic fish on the Pacific coast of North America (Love et al., 2002). Adult rockfish can be the most abundant fish in various coastal benthic habitats such as relatively shallow subtidal kelp forests, rocky reefs, and rocky outcrops in submarine canyons at depths greater than 980 feet (300 m) (Yoklavich, 1998). The life history of rockfish is different than that of most other bony fishes. Whereas most bony fishes fertilize their eggs externally, fertilization and embryo development in rockfishes is internal, and female rockfish give birth to live larval young. Larvae are found in surface waters, and may be distributed over a wide area extending several hundred miles (several hundred kilometers) offshore (Love et al., 2002). Larvae and small juvenile rockfish may remain in open waters for several months being passively dispersed by ocean currents. The dispersal potential for larvae varies by species depending on the length of time larvae remain in the pelagic environment (i.e., “pelagic larval duration”), and the fecundity of females (i.e., the more larval propagules a species produces, the greater the potential that some larvae will be transported long distances). Larval rockfish feed on diatoms, dinoflagellates, tintinnids, and cladocerans, and juveniles consume copepods and euphausiids of all life stages (Sumida and Moster, 1984). Survival and subsequent recruitment of young rockfishes exhibit considerable interannual variability (Ralston and Howard, 1995). New recruits may be found in tide pool habitats, and shallow coastal waters associated with rocky bottoms and algae (Love, 1996; Sauma and Ralston, 1995). Juvenile and subadults may be more common than adults in shallow water, and are associated with rocky reefs, kelp canopies, and artificial structures such as piers and oil platforms (Love et al., 2002). Adults generally move into deeper water as they increase in size and age (Garrison and Miller, 1982; Love, 1996), but generally exhibit strong site fidelity to rocky bottoms and outrcrops (Yoklavich et al., 2000). Adults eat demersal invertebrates and small fishes, including other species of rockfish, associated with kelp beds, rocky reefs, pinnacles, and sharp drop-offs (Love, 1996; Sumida and Moser, 1984). Many species of rockfishes are slow-growing, long-lived (50-140 years; Archibald et al., 1981), and mature at older ages (6-12 yrs; Wyllie-Echeverria, 1987).

          Bocaccio Bocaccio range from Punta Blanca, Baja California, to the Gulf of Alaska off Krozoff and Kodiak Islands (Chen, 1971; Miller and Lea, 1972). They are most common within this range between Oregon and northern Baja California (Love et al., 2002). Bocaccio are most common between 160 and 820 feet (50 and 250 m) depth, but may be found as deep as 1560 feet (475 m) (Orr et al., 2000). Bocaccio larvae have relatively high dispersal potential with a pelagic larval duration of approximately 155 days (Shanks and Eckert, 2005), and fecundity ranging from 20,000 to over 2 million eggs, considerably more than many other rockfish species (Love et al., 2002). Approximately 50 percent of adults mature in 4 to 6 years (MBC, 1987). Adults are difficult to age, but are suspected to live as long as 50 years (Love et al., 2002).

          Canary Rockfish - Canary rockfish range between Punta Colnett, Baja California, and the Western Gulf of Alaska (Boehlert, 1980; Mecklenburg et al., 2002). Within this range canary rockfish are most common off the coast of central Oregon (Richardson and Laroche, 1979). Canary rockfish primarily inhabit waters 160 to 820 feet (50 to 250 m) deep (Orr et al., 2000), but may be found up to 1400 feet (425 m) depth (Boehlert, 1980). Canary rockfish larvae have relatively high dispersal potential with a pelagic larval duration of approximately 116 days (Shanks and Eckert, 2005), and fecundity ranging from 260,000 to 1.9 million eggs, considerably more than many other rockfish species (Love et al., 2002). Approximately 50 percent of adults are mature at 14 inches (35.6 cm) total length (5 to 6 years of age) (Hart, 1973). Canary rockfish can live to be 75 years old (Love, 1996).

          Greenstripe Rockfish - Greenstripe rockfish range from Cedros Island, Baja California, to Green Island in the Gulf of Alaska. Within this range greenstripe rockfish are common between British Columbia and Punta Colnett in Northern Baja California (Eschmeyer et al., 1983; Hart, 1973; Love et al., 2002). Greenstripe rockfish is a deep-water species that can inhabit waters from 170 to 2715 feet (52 to 828 m) in depth, but is most common between 330 and 820 feet (100 and 250 m) depth (Orr et al., 2000). Estimates of pelagic larval duration and fecundity are not available for greenstripe rockfish to infer dispersal potential, although we expect that larval duration would be similar to or lower than that for bocaccio or canary rockfish (116-155 days; Varanasi, 2007). Approximately 50 percent of adults mature at 7 to 7.5 inches (18 to 19 cm) total length (Love et al., 1990). Male greenstripe rockfish can live to approximately 37 years of age, and females to approximately 28 years of age (Love et al., 1990).

          Redstripe Rockfish - Redstripe rockfish occur from southern Baja California to the Bering Sea (Hart, 1973; Love et al., 2002). Redstripe rockfish have been reported between 39 and 1400 feet (12 and 425 m) in depth, but 95 percent occur between 490 and 900 feet (150 and 275 m) (Love et al., 2002). Estimates of pelagic larval duration and fecundity are not available for redstripe rockfish to infer dispersal potential, although we expect that larval duration would be similar to or lower than that for bocaccio or canary rockfish (116-155 days; Varanasi, 2007). Approximately 50 percent of adults mature at 11 to 11.5 inches (28 to 29 cm) total length (Garrison and Miller, 1982), and may reach 55 years of age (Munk, 2001).

          Yelloweye Rockfish - Yelloweye rockfish range from northern Baja California to the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, but are most common from central California northward to the Gulf of Alaska (Clemens and Wilby, 1961; Eschmeyer et al., 1983; Hart, 1973; Love, 1996). Yelloweye rockfish occur in waters 80 to 1560 feet (25 to 475 m) deep (Orr et al., 2000), but are most commonly found between 300 to 590 feet (91 to 180 m) depth (Love et al., 2002). Approximately 50 percent of adults are mature by 16 inches (41 cm) total length (about 6 years) (Love, 1996). Estimates of pelagic larval duration are not available for yelloweye rockfish, although we expect that it would be similar to or lower than that for bocaccio or canary rockfish (116-155 days; Varanasi, 2007). Fecundity ranges from 1.2 to 2.7 million eggs, considerably more than many other rockfish species (Love et al., 2002). Yelloweye rockfish are among the longest lived of rockfishes, living to be at least 118 years old (Love, 1996; Love et al., 2002; O'Connell and Funk, 1986).
        Previous Rockfish Petitions and Status Review

        In February 1999 we received a petition from Mr. Wright to list 18 species of marine fishes in Puget Sound under the ESA, including 14 species of rockfish. We issued a positive 90-day finding on June 21, 1999 (64 FR 33037), and initiated ESA status reviews for seven of the petitioned species, including three rockfish species (copper, brown and quillback rockfishes). For the remaining 11 petitioned rockfish species, which included the five rockfish species that are the subject of this notice, we found that there was insufficient information concerning stock structure, status and trends. Consequently, for these 11 species, we found that the petition failed to present substantial information to suggest that listing these species in Puget Sound may be warranted.

        In 2001 we convened a Biological Review Team (BRT) to evaluate the population structure and biological status of the three rockfish species for which we initiated status reviews. The BRT concluded that the brown, copper and quillback rockfishes in Puget Sound Proper (defined as east of Deception Pass and to the south and east of Admiralty Head, encompassing southern Puget Sound, Whidbey Basin, Hood Canal, and the main Basin) constitute DPSs for consideration as “species” under the ESA (Stout et al., 2001). On April 3, 2001, we concluded that these DPSs did not warrant listing as threatened or endangered species (66 FR 17659). Although these DPSs had experienced declines over the last 40 years, likely due to overharvest, we noted that the populations appeared stable over the most recent 5 years.
        In September 2006, we received another petition from Mr. Wright to list the Puget Sound DPSs of copper and quillback rockfishes as endangered or threatened species under the ESA. The petition did not include new data or information regarding the abundance, trends, productivity, or distribution for these species. The petitioner criticized the risk assessment methods of the 2001 BRT and disagreed with our conclusion that the two DPSs did not warrant listing. We determined that the September 2006 petition from Mr. Wright failed to present substantial scientific and commercial information to suggest that the ESA listing of copper and quillback rockfishes in Puget Sound may be warranted (72 FR 2863; January 23, 2007).
        Analysis of Mr. Wright's New Petition
        We reviewed the information from Mr. Wright's April 2007 petition, the supplemental information provided in his October 2007 letter, as well as other information readily available to our scientists (i.e., currently within our files), to determine if the new petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Specifically, we evaluated whether: (1) the 5 rockfish species may warrant delineation into one or more DPSs; and (2) the 5 species, or putative DPSs, may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range.
        Information Regarding the DPS Structure of the Five Rockfish Species in Puget Sound

        Under the 1996 joint DPS policy, a population or group of populations is considered a DPS if it is “discrete” and “significant” to the remainder of the species to which it belongs (51 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). The petitioner contends that the five petitioned species likely warrant delineation as Puget Sound DPSs based on: (1) relatively closed oceanographic circulation patterns in the Puget Sound area (see Stout et al., 2001, at p. 75) that should promote the retention of rockfish larvae originating within Puget Sound, and limit the delivery of larvae from sources external to Puget Sound; and (2) NMFS' finding in 2001 that brown, copper, and quillback rockfishes in Puget Sound respectively warranted delineation as DPSs (Stout et al., 2001; 66 FR 17659, April 3, 2001). Although the five petitioned rockfish species may be considered to have high dispersal “potential” due to their long pelagic larval duration and high fecundity, their realized larval dispersal is determined to a large extent by local oceanographic patterns and larval behavior (Varanasi, 2007). Since the larvae of these rockfish species are generally associated with surface waters during the pelagic dispersal phase, we agree with the petitioner that the relatively closed circulation patterns of surface waters in Puget Sound lends support to the “discreteness” of these species in Puget Sound. Although, as the petitioner acknowledges, there are no population genetic studies of the five petitioned species that include samples from Puget Sound, the available studies of West Coast rockfish suggest that it is reasonable to suspect that there are genetically discrete Puget Sound population segments for these species. There are examples of rockfish populations exhibiting genetic differences in relation to circulation patterns and biogeographic barriers, many of which are probably less restrictive to trans-boundary larval dispersal than the entrance to Puget Sound (Sekino et al., 2001; Varanasi, 2007). Even on the open coast where one might expect oceanographic patterns to result in considerable larval exchange and strong genetic similarities among stocks, the available genetic studies indicate that rockfish species exhibit some level of genetic population structure (Buonaccorsi et al., 2002, 2005; Cope, 2004; Rocha-Olivares and Vetter, 1999). One of the petitioned species, bocaccio, also exhibits genetic population structure on the open coast (Matala et al., 2004), and it is reasonable to assume the it would also show some genetic isolation within Puget Sound relative to other areas (Varanasi, 2007). Genetic studies that include samples from Puget Sound have found that rockfish populations in Puget Sound are generally distinct from populations sampled in other geographic areas (Buonaccorsi et al., 2002, 2005). Based on the above information, we find that the new petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the five petitioned DPSs may satisfy the “discreteness” criterion under the joint DPS policy (Varanasi, 2007).

        However, “discreteness” does not necessarily indicate that a population group may also be “significant” and hence a DPS for listing consideration. As noted above, the petitioner contends that the 5 petitioned rockfish species are likely DPSs based on our 2001 DPS delineations for brown, copper, and quillback rockfishes in Puget Sound (Stout et al., 2001). These three “discrete” population segments were found to be “significant” under the DPS policy because the environmental, geological, and biogeographic characteristics of Puget Sound represent “an ecological setting that is unusual or unique for the taxon.” These characteristics unique to the Puget Sound are reflected in likely adaptive life-history differences (e.g., coloration patterns, mating behaviors, or timing of reproduction) for the respective species in Puget Sound relative to elsewhere in their range (Stout et al., 2001). These same characteristics that established the uniqueness of the Puget Sound ecosystem also apply to the 5 petitioned rockfish species in Puget Sound (Varanasi, 2007). It is likely that “discrete” population segments for the 5 species would be “significant” under the DPS policy as Puget Sound represents an ecological setting that is unusual or unique for the taxon. We find that the new petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the five petitioned rockfish species in Puget Sound may satisfy the “significance” criterion under the joint DPS policy, and thus may warrant delineation as DPSs for listing consideration under the ESA.

        Information Regarding the Extinction Risk of the Five Rockfish Species in Puget Sound
        The petitioner stresses the importance of age structure, longevity, and the maternal-age effect in evaluating the extinction risk of rockfish populations. (The reader is referred to our earlier petition finding (72 FR 2865; January 23, 2007) for further discussion of the maternal-age effect and related scientific publications.) The importance of this maternal-age effect in the wild depends upon the age structure and age-at-maturity of the specific populations under consideration (72 FR 2865; January, 23, 2007). However, the necessary data are not available to evaluate the actual importance of the maternal-age effect for the five recently petitioned rockfish species.
        The April 2007 petition provides recreational catch data for the five petitioned species spanning approximately 12 years from the mid-1970s to mid-1990s. These data suggest possible declines for three of the species (bocaccio, greenstripe, and red stripe rockfishes) and no decline for the other two species (canary and yelloweye rockfish). In our October 2007 finding we noted that the support for making any inferences regarding population status was weak, given that the petition did not include information regarding the level or distribution of fishery effort, changes in fisheries practices, or changes in regulations governing fisheries in which the petitioned species are taken as bycatch (72 FR 56986; October 5, 2007). We concluded that without this additional information it was not possible to determine whether the recreational catch data reflect population status. We concluded that the recreational catch and other anecdotal information in the petition do not represent “substantial scientific or commercial” information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the status of the petitioned species may be at risk.
        In his October 29, 2007, letter the petitioner presents supplemental information necessary for determining whether the recreational catch data provided in the April 2007 petition are valid reflections of population status for the petitioned species. Specifically, the petitioner provides the information regarding fishery effort, changes in fisheries practices, and changes in fishery regulations that we found lacking in the April 2007 petition.
        The petitioner explains that there are three possible explanations that might account for a decline in the recreational catch data: (1) That there was a change in the distribution of fishery effort or a change in the distribution of the petitioned species; (2) that there was a change in angler behavior or fishery regulations resulting in decline in overall fishery effort; or (3) that the recreational catch data indeed reflect declining trends in the species' abundance. The petitioner notes that the petitioned species are non-migratory, so a change in the stocks' distribution is not a valid explanation for the observed declining trends in catch for bocaccio, redstripe rockfish and greenstripe rockfish. Moreover, there is no information to suggest that the spatial distribution of fishery effort changed appreciably over the time period to explain the observed trends in the recreational catch data. The petitioner also concludes that the observed trends are not explainable by declining fishery effort due to changes in angler behavior or fishery regulations.

        During the 12-year period for which there is recreational fishery data, anglers began to directly target rockfish species to compensate for the reduced availability of salmonids for harvest, and anglers were also able to target rockfish aggregations more efficiently and at much greater depths due to rapid advances in fish-finding technology. The petitioner concludes that these changes in angler effort and of rockfish harvest should have led to an increase in total catch. Given this expectation, the petitioner is particularly concerned that observed declines in the catch data for bocaccio, redstripe rockfish, and greenstripe rockfish likely reflect severe declines in the abundance of these stocks. The petitioner further suspects that the increasing fishery effort and efficiency likely masked declining trends in abundance for canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish stocks. In support of his qualitative inferences from changes in angler behavior and efficiency, the petitioner provides data for overall fishery effort (measured in the number of angler boat trips) and catch per unit effort over the 12-year period of recreational catch data. Over this period the number of angler trips increased substantially, and there was a decline in the average number of rockfish caught per trip (Palsson et al., 1997; Palsson and Pacunski, 1998; West, 1997).
        The fishery effort and catch per unit effort data support the petitioner's conclusions that the recreational catch data reflect severe declines in stock abundance for bocaccio, redstripe rockfish, and greenstripe rockfish, and that increasing fishery effort and efficiency over the time period likely masked declines in stock abundance for canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish. Finally, the petitioner concludes that the observed declining trends in the recreational catch data cannot be explained by a reduction in catch due to changing fishery regulations. Changes in rockfish catch regulations (e.g., reductions in the daily bag limit) and large scale closures in salmonid fisheries in which rockfish are taken as bycatch did not occur until 1994, well after the period covered by the recreational catch data (1975-1986). Based on the supplemental information, the petitioner concludes that the most parsimonious explanation for the observed trends in the recreational catch data is that they reflect actual declines in the abundance of the five petitioned species in Puget Sound.
        Petition Finding
        After reviewing the information contained in the April 2007 petition, the supplemental information contained in the petitioner's October 2007 letter, and other information readily available in our files, we determine that the new petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned actions may be warranted. In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we will commence a review of the status of the five species concerned and make a determination within 12 months of receiving the new petition (i.e., by October 29, 2008) whether the petitioned action is warranted.
        Information Solicited
        DPS Structure and Extinction Risk

        To ensure that the updated status review is complete and based on the best available and most recent scientific and commercial data, we solicit data, information, and comments (see DATES and ADDRESSES) concerning the status of bocaccio, canary rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, greenstripe rockfish, and redstripe rockfish. We solicit pertinent information such as: (1) biological or other data pertinent to determining the DPS structure of these 5 rockfish species (e.g., age structure, genetics, migratory patterns, morphology, physiology); (2) historical trends and current abundance and distribution of these rockfish stocks in Puget Sound; (3) natural and human-influenced factors that cause variability in their survival, distribution, and abundance; and (4) current or planned activities and their possible impact on these rockfish species (e.g., harvest measures and habitat actions).

        Efforts Being Made to Protect Puget Sound Rockfish
        Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary to make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of a species and after taking into account efforts being made to protect the species. Therefore, in making its listing determinations, we first assess the status of the species and identify factors that have led to the decline. We then assess conservation measures to determine whether they ameliorate a species' extinction risk (50 CFR 424.11(f)). In judging the efficacy of conservation efforts, NMFS considers the following: the substantive, protective, and conservation elements of such efforts; the degree of certainty that such efforts will reliably be implemented, and the degree of certainty that such efforts will be effective in furthering the conservation of the species (68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003); and the presence of monitoring provisions that track the effectiveness of recovery efforts, and that inform iterative refinement to management as information is accrued. In some cases, conservation efforts may be relatively new or may not have had sufficient time to demonstrate their biological benefit. In such cases, provisions of adequate monitoring and funding for conservation efforts are essential to ensure that the intended conservation benefits are realized. We also encourage all parties to submit information on ongoing efforts to protect these 5 rockfish stocks in Washington, as well as information on recently implemented or planned activities and their likely impact(s).
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references is available upon request from the Protected Resources Division of the NMFS Northwest Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

          Dated: March 11, 2008.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E8-5309 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        RIN 0648-BJ35
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Modifying Seasonal Allocations of Pollock and Pacific Cod for Trawl Catcher Vessels in the Central and Western Gulf of Alaska

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

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

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council submitted Amendment 109 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP) to the Secretary of Commerce for review. If approved, Amendment 109 would reduce operational and management inefficiencies in the Central Gulf of Alaska and Western Gulf of Alaska trawl catcher vessel Pacific cod fisheries by changing seasonal Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod apportionments to allow greater harvest opportunities earlier in the year. Amendment 109 is necessary to provide participants in the fisheries an opportunity to more fully harvest the total allowable catch of Pacific cod, increase management flexibility, and potentially decrease prohibited species catch while not redistributing fishing opportunities between management areas or harvesting sectors. Amendment 109 is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the GOA FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before April 6, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by docket number NOAA-NMFS-2019-0125, by either of the following methods:
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0125, 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. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

            Instructions: NMFS may not consider comments if they are sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the comment period ends. All comments received are a part of the public record, and NMFS will post the comments 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 is publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of Amendment 109 to the GOA FMP, the draft Environmental Assessment and the Regulatory Impact Review (collectively referred to as the “Analysis”) prepared for this proposed rule may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joseph Krieger, 907-586-7228 or joseph.krieger@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) at section 304(a) requires that each regional fishery management council submit an amendment to a fishery management plan (FMP) for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). The Magnuson-Stevens Act at section 304(a) also requires that the Secretary, upon receiving an amendment to a FMP, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. FMP amendments and regulations developed by the Council may be implemented by NMFS only after approval by the Secretary.

        The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 109 to the GOA FMP (Amendment 109) to the Secretary for review. This notice announces that proposed Amendment 109 is available for public review and comment.

        NMFS manages U.S. groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone under the GOA FMP. The Council prepared, and the Secretary approved, the GOA FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the GOA FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. In June 2019, the Council adopted Amendment 109. If approved, Amendment 109 would change the Central Gulf of Alaska (CGOA) and Western Gulf of Alaska (WGOA) Pacific cod seasonal apportionments to increase the trawl catcher vessel (CV) sector's A season total allowable catch (TAC) while proportionally decreasing the sector's B season TAC. In recommending Amendment 109, the Council intends to increase fishery yield, increase management flexibility, and potentially decrease prohibited species catch (PSC) in the CGOA and WGOA trawl CV Pacific cod fisheries.
        Amendment 109 would amend the trawl CV seasonal apportionments of Pacific cod in the table in Section 3.2.3.4.3.3.2 of the GOA FMP. The WGOA trawl CV A season would change from 72.3 percent to 82.1 percent, and the B season would change from 27.7 percent to 17.9 percent. The CGOA trawl CV A season would change from 50.8 percent to 60.8 percent, and the B season would change from 49.2 percent to 39.2 percent.
        At the same time the Council took action to adopt Amendment 109, the Council also adopted a regulatory amendment that would change the seasons for, and seasonal apportionments of, pollock in the CGOA and WGOA. The proposed rule to implement Amendment 109 will propose regulations to implement the regulatory amendment for GOA pollock seasons and seasonal apportionments.
        Background
        The trawl groundfish fisheries in the GOA include fisheries for pollock, sablefish, several rockfish species, numerous flatfish species, Pacific cod, and other groundfish. Trawl gear captures groundfish by towing a net above or along the ocean floor. Amendment 109 would affect the trawl CV fisheries for Pacific cod in two specific areas of the GOA: (1) The CGOA regulatory area, and (2) the WGOA regulatory area. These specific regulatory areas are defined at § 679.2.
        NMFS annually establishes Pacific cod TACs for these two regulatory areas. NMFS apportions the annual WGOA and CGOA Pacific cod TACs across two seasons. NMFS apportions 60 percent of the annual WGOA and CGOA Pacific cod TACs to the A season, and apportions 40 percent of the annual WGOA and CGOA Pacific cod TACs to the B season. For vessels deploying trawl gear, the A season occurs from January 20 through June 10, and the B season occurs from September 1 through November 1.
        Since the implementation of Amendment 83 to the GOA FMP in 2012 (76 FR 74670, December 1, 2011), NMFS, after subtracting a set-aside for the jig gear sector, also allocates the annual WGOA and CGOA Pacific cod TACs between five sectors in the WGOA and six sectors in the CGOA. Each sector's allocation is apportioned between the A and B seasons in each area, and the ratio for each sector's seasonal apportionment is not required to be a 60 percent: 40 percent ratio. However, for all gear (trawl and non-trawl) and operational-type (CV and catcher/processors (C/Ps)) sectors, the total of A season sector apportionments in each area equals 60 percent of the annual Pacific cod TAC, and the total of B season sector apportionments in each area equals 40 percent of the annual Pacific cod TAC.
        Regulations at § 679.20(a)(12)(i) and Tables 2-2 and 2-3 in the Analysis show the seasonal percentage allocations for each sector. These tables illustrate that no sector, in isolation, experiences a 60 percent: 40 percent seasonal TAC split. For example, the CGOA trawl CV sector is currently allocated 21.1 percent of the annual CGOA Pacific cod TAC in the A season and 20.5 percent of the annual CGOA Pacific cod TAC in the B season. Those two figures are at a 51 percent: 49 percent ratio to each other. The WGOA trawl CV sector is allocated 27.7 percent of the annual WGOA Pacific cod TAC in the A season TAC and 10.7 percent of the annual WGOA Pacific cod TAC in the B season, which results in a 72 percent: 28 percent seasonal ratio. The WGOA trawl CVs receive a relatively greater proportion of their annual Pacific cod TAC allocation in the A season, as they do not target Pacific cod in the fall (B season). The sectors that receive a small percentage of the annual TAC tend to be those that encounter Pacific cod as incidental catch that must be retained (as an Improved Retention/Improved Utilization Program (IR/IU) species), but do not conduct directed fishing for Pacific cod.

        Regulations at 50 CFR 679.20(a)(12)(ii) describe the reallocation of sector allocations “if [. . . NMFS] determines that a sector will be unable to harvest the entire amount of Pacific cod allocated to [a] sector.” NMFS publishes these reallocations as inseason actions in the Federal Register and posts them on the NMFS Alaska Region website as Information Bulletins. Regulations at 50 CFR 679.20(a)(12)(ii) also state that NMFS should take into account “the capability of a sector [. . .] to harvest the remaining Pacific cod TAC.” There are no set dates upon which reallocations should occur; NMFS relies on its management expertise as well as communication with the fleets about their expected levels of activity or encounter rates of Pacific cod. In practice, NMFS reallocates Pacific cod that it projects will go unharvested by a sector. The regulations provide a hierarchy that guides preference in reallocations if there are competing needs for additional TAC. The regulations at § 679.20(a)(12)(ii)(B) state that NMFS should consider reallocation to CV sectors first, then reallocation to the combined CV and C/P pot sector, and then to any of the other C/P sectors (trawl and hook-and-line). NMFS provides a record of inseason Pacific cod TAC reallocations on its website. Since 2012, almost all inseason reallocations have occurred during the B season, and most reallocations flowed from the trawl CV sector; no reallocations have been made to the trawl CV sector.
        In recent years, trawl CVs in the GOA Pacific cod fishery only conduct directed fishing for B season Pacific cod in the CGOA. The WGOA trawl CV sector receives 10.7 percent of the annual WGOA Pacific cod TAC in the B season (see Table 2-2 in the Analysis) but it goes largely unharvested by trawl vessels except as incidental catch during the C and D seasons in the pollock trawl fishery. In the CGOA, where the trawl CV fishery is prosecuted, harvest of Pacific cod in the B season lags A season harvest by a significant margin in percentage terms. Table 3-4 in the Analysis shows that harvest of CGOA B season Pacific cod TAC was typically below 50 percent and began to fall precipitously in the years leading up to the 2018 reduction in ABC. While industry participants have reported that fish size and flesh quality can be better in the fall B season than in the late-winter A season due to the length of time removed from spawning activity, GOA Pacific cod do not tend to aggregate in the fall in a manner that lends itself to efficient harvest with trawl gear. As a result, a significant portion of the GOA Pacific cod B season TAC is left unharvested by trawl CVs, while the A season TAC is more fully prosecuted by trawl CVs.

        The Council acknowledged that trawl CVs in the GOA have only directed fished for Pacific cod in the CGOA during the B season in recent years and that WGOA Pacific cod TAC goes largely unharvested. The Council also acknowledged that in the CGOA, where the trawl CV fishery is prosecuted, harvest of Pacific cod in the B season lags A season harvest by a significant margin in percentage terms, which also results in unharvested Pacific cod TAC. To address these concerns, the Council adopted Amendment 109. Amendment 109 would increase trawl CV allocations of Pacific cod TAC in the CGOA and WGOA during the A season while proportionally decreasing trawl CV allocations of Pacific cod TAC in the CGOA and WGOA during the B season. Specifically, 25.29364 percent of the annual CGOA Pacific cod TAC would be allocated to the trawl CV sector during the A season and 16.29047 percent would be allocated to the B season. Additionally, 31.54 percent of the annual WGOA Pacific cod TAC would be allocated to the trawl CV sector during the A season and 6.86 percent would be allocated to the B season. Sections 2.3, 2.6 and 4.6.4 of the Analysis describe the range of alternative Pacific cod TAC allocations considered by the Council and summarizes the Council's rationale for the proposed allocations.
        Before adopting its preferred alternatives for Amendment 109, the Council considered a range of alternatives and options (see Sections 2 and 4.6 of the Analysis for more detail on alternatives and options). The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that Amendment 109 will reduce operational and management inefficiencies in the CGOA and WGOA trawl CV Pacific cod fisheries by changing seasonal Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod apportionments to allow greater harvest opportunities earlier in the year.

        NMFS is soliciting public comments on proposed Amendment 109 through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish in the Federal Register and seeks public comment on the proposed rule that would implement Amendment 109 following NMFS's evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

        Respondents do not need to submit the same comments on Amendment 109 and the proposed rule. All relevant written comments received by the end of the comment period for Amendment 109, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in the approval/disapproval decision for Amendment 109 and addressed in the response to comments in the final decision. Comments received after the end of the comment period for Amendment 109 will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 109. To be considered, comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day of the comment period (see DATES).

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

          Dated: February 3, 2020.
          Jennifer M. Wallace,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2020-02372 Filed 2-5-20; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P