        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 20
        [WT Docket No. 01-309; FCC 05-122]
        Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In an Order on Reconsideration, the Commission granted in part and denied in part the petitions for reconsideration of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, which lifted the blanket exemption for digital wireless telephones under the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988 (HAC Act). In this document, in order to ensure that the Commission fully effectuates Congress' requirement that it “establish such regulations as are necessary to ensure reasonable access to telephone service by persons with impaired hearing,” the Commission seeks comment on two issues related to the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before September 26, 2005 and reply comments are due on or before October 25, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 01-309; FCC 05-122, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

          • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

          For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for filing instructions.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Andra Cunningham, Andra.Cunningham@fcc.gov, Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1630 or TTY (202) 418-7233.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Federal Communication Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 05-122, adopted on June 9, 2005, and released on June 21, 2005. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
        1. In the Order on Reconsideration, we clarified that the live, in-store consumer testing requirement applies to all retail outlets owned or operated by wireless carriers or service providers. In addition, we clarified that the de minimis exception, which exempts from the hearing aid compatibility requirements wireless carriers, service providers and handset manufacturers that offer two or fewer digital wireless handset models, applies on a per air interface basis, rather than across an entire product line. As set forth below, we seek comment on: (1) Extending the live, in-store consumer testing requirement to retail outlets that are not directly owned or operated by wireless carriers or service providers, and (2) whether to narrow the de minimis exception.
        2. First, we seek comment on extending the live, in-store consumer testing requirement to retail outlets that are not directly owned or operated by wireless carriers or service providers. Although we clarified today that all retail outlets owned or operated by wireless carriers or service providers must make live, in-store consumer testing available, we are concerned that limiting this requirement to these retail outlets may prevent us from fully effectuating Congress' requirement that we “establish such regulations as are necessary to ensure reasonable access to telephone service by persons with impaired hearing.” Moreover, in its petition, the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) asks the Commission to “clarify whether the [Commission] has legal authority and the scope of that authority to require retail stores to comply” with the live, in-store testing requirement. Accordingly, we seek comment on this CTIA request. If we find that we have the authority explicitly to extend our hearing aid compatibility rules to independent retailers, should we do so?
        3. We also seek comment on the impact that this proposal would have on small business retailers and independent retailers. Would extending this requirement create a more level playing field for different types of retailers? Or, would extending this requirement create an unacceptable burden for independent retailers, small business retailers, or both? For instance, will small business retailers have the physical space to fulfill this requirement? Do small business retailers have the sales volume to support implementation of this requirement? We encourage commenters to be specific as to the impact of this proposed modification.
        4. We note that the relationship between independent retailers, whether large or small, and wireless carriers and service providers could have an impact on enforcement of a live, in-store consumer testing requirement. We further note that independent retailers act as agents for wireless carriers and service providers in selling wireless services. As section 217 of the Communications Act explicitly makes carriers responsible for the acts, omissions, and failures of their agents, among others, we seek comment on the nature of any contract provisions that would require the retailers to provide live, in-store consumer testing. Further, because section 217 does not apply to service providers who are not carriers, we seek comment on, whether under provisions of general agency law and the HAC Act, we could require those service providers, in their contracts with retailers selling their wireless services, to require live, in-store consumer testing. We also seek comment on the extent to which carriers and service providers should be expected to monitor and enforce such contract provisions regarding this testing requirement.

        5. Finally, we seek comment on how many small business and independent retailers have adopted the fourteen-day trial period for new services set forth in the CTIA Voluntary Consumer Information Code (CTIA Code). Which retailers are bound by the CTIA Code and offer a fourteen-day trial period? Are there major independent retailers that do not have a two week return policy? What percentage of carriers' service plans is purchased through independent retailers? Do manufacturers own any retail stores? If so, what percentage of manufacturers' handsets is purchased through an independent retailer? Are independent retailers currently preparing to comport with our hearing aid compatibility rules, specifically with our rules on the number of compliant handsets that must be offered for sale and our live, in-store consumer testing rules? Relatedly, we also seek comment on how parties envision consumers with hearing disabilities will be impacted in instances where independent retailers do not provide live, in-store testing or a thirty-day trial period, which the Commission encourages. If some independent retailers do not engage in practices that comport with our hearing aid compatibility rules, how will this present problems for hearing-impaired consumers? For instance, do parties foresee instances where independent retailers would claim that certain wireless phone models are compliant yet would not allow consumers to return handsets if hearing aid compatibility-related problems arose? Have there already been instances where independent retailers have claimed that certain phone models were hearing aid-compatible but refused to allow consumers to return handsets if hearing aid compatibility-related problems arose? We have determined that the ability to return handsets that do not comply with our rules is not a substitute for an in-store testing requirement for stores owned or operated by wireless carriers or service providers. What characteristics or independent retailers would support a different determination for the application of the in-store testing requirement in their case? Would returning wireless phones that present hearing aid compatibility-related problems be more difficult when handsets are purchased from an independent retailer or a small business retailer? We intend to follow these developments closely after the September 16, 2005, handset deployment date. As noted earlier, we believe that persons with hearing disabilities must have a meaningful opportunity and sufficient time to identify and become familiar with digital wireless phones.
        6. Second, we seek comment on whether to narrow the de minimis exception so as to exempt from the hearing aid compatibility requirements wireless carriers, service providers and handset manufacturers that offer one digital wireless handset model per air interface, or whether we should narrow the de minimis exception in some other way. Specifically, we seek comment on whether the current rule reduces the ability of consumers with hearing aids and cochlear implants to have access to wireless devices. We seek comment on whether any particular modification that would narrow the de minimis exception would increase costs to all consumers, including those with and without hearing disabilities, or discourage market entry by manufacturers. We seek comment on the number of wireless carriers, service providers and manufacturers that would be affected by any such change in the rule, including the impact on small businesses. We encourage commenters to be specific and to provide empirical evidence as to the impact of narrowing the de minimis exception.
        I. Procedural Matters
        A. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding
        7. This is a permit-but-disclose rulemaking proceeding, subject to the “permit-but-disclose” requirements under § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed pursuant to the Commission's rules.
        B. Comment Dates

        8. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments on or before September 26, 2005 and reply comments on or before October 25, 2005. All filings related to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking should refer to WT Docket No. 01-309.

        9. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

        10. Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments.

        11. For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.
        12. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
        13. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
        14. The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
        15. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
        16. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.

        17. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Parties shall also serve one copy with the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, or via e-mail to fcc@bcpiweb.com.

        18. Availability of documents. The public may view the documents filed in this proceeding during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, and on the Commission's Internet Home Page: http://www.fcc.gov. Copies of comments and reply comments are also available through the Commission's duplicating contractor: Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160, or via e-mail at the following e-mail address: http://www.bcpiweb.com. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act

        19. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
        II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

        20. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Written public comments are requested regarding this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM provided in paragraph 77 of the Commission's order. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
        Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
        21. In the Order on Reconsideration, we clarified that the live, in-store consumer testing requirement applies to all carrier-owned and operated retail outlets. In addition, we clarified that the de minimis exception, which exempts from the hearing aid compatibility requirements wireless carriers, service providers and handset manufacturers that offer two or fewer digital wireless handset models, applies on a per air interface basis, rather than across an entire product line.
        22. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission seeks comment on:
        • Extending the live, in-store consumer testing requirement to retail outlets that are not directly owned or operated by wireless carriers or service providers; and
        • Whether to narrow the de minimis exception so as to exempt from the hearing aid compatibility requirements wireless carriers, service providers and handset manufacturers that offer one digital wireless handset model per air interface, as well as other potential ways to narrow the de minimis exception.
        Legal Basis
        23. Authority for issuance of this item is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 7, 10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 303, 308, 309(j), and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 303, 308, 309(j), and 310.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply
        24. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). As of the year 2002, according to SBA data, there were approximately 22.4 million small businesses nationwide.

        25. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed specific definitions for small providers of the industries affected. Therefore, throughout our analysis, unless otherwise indicated, the Commission uses the applicable generic definitions under the SBA rules, and the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) categories. In addition, to facilitate our analysis, we utilize the Commission's report, Trends in Telephone Service (Trends), published annually by the Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau. Below, we further describe and estimate the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
        26. Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications and Paging. The SBA has developed a size standard for wireless small businesses within the two separate categories of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, and Paging. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 975 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless service. Of these 975 companies, an estimated 767 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 208 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, we estimate that a majority of small wireless service providers may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
        27. Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturers. The SBA has established a small business size standard for wireless communications equipment manufacturing. Under the standard, firms are considered small if they have 750 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 1997 indicates that, for that year, there were a total of 1,215 establishments in this category. Of those, there were 1,150 that had employment under 500, and an additional 37 that had employment of 500 to 999. The Commission estimates that the majority of wireless communications equipment manufacturers are small businesses.
        28. Radio, Television, and Other Electronics Stores. “This U.S. industry comprises: (1) Establishments known as consumer electronics stores primarily engaged in retailing a general line of new consumer-type electronic products; (2) establishments specializing in retailing a single line of consumer-type electronic products (except computers); or (3) establishments primarily engaged in retailing these new electronic products in combination with repair services.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of retail store; that size standard is $7.5 or less in annual revenues. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 8,328 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 8,088 firms had annual sales of under $5 million, and an additional 132 had annual sales of $5 million to $9,999,999. Therefore, the majority of these businesses may be considered to be small.

        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
        29. The FNPRM seeks comment on two of the Commission's existing hearing aid compatibility rules. First, all retail outlets owned or operated by wireless carriers or service providers must make live, in-store consumer testing available at this time. The Commission is seeking comment on extending this requirement to additional retail outlets. Second, the de minimis exception currently exempts from the hearing aid compatibility requirements wireless carriers, service providers and handset manufacturers that offer two or fewer digital wireless handset models, and applies on a per air interface basis. The Commission is seeking comment on narrowing the de minimis exception so as to exempt from the hearing aid compatibility requirements wireless carriers, service providers and handset manufacturers that offer one digital wireless handset model per air interface, as well as other potential ways to narrow the de minimis exception.
        30. The proposals set forth in the FNPRM do not entail reporting, recordkeeping, and/or third-party consultation. The FNPRM seeks comment on two of the Commission's existing hearing aid compatibility rules.
        Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
        31. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
        32. The FNPRM seeks comment two of the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules and could impact small entities. As noted in the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, however, the critical nature of hearing aid compatibility with wireless phones limits the Commission's ability to provide small wireless carriers, service providers and handset manufacturers with a substantially less burdensome set of regulations than that placed on larger entities. Nonetheless, as set forth in the Order on Reconsideration and the FNPRM, the Commission continues to recognize that certain manufacturers and service providers, which may have only a small presence in the market, may be impacted by any future actions. We specifically seek comment on alternatives that might lessen any adverse economic impact on small entities, while fulfilling the goals of this proceeding.
        Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules
        33. None.
        III. Ordering Clauses

        34. Pursuant to the authority of sections 1, 4(i), 7, 10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 302, 303, 308, 309(j), 310, and 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 302, 303, 308, 309(j), 310, and 610, this FNPRM is adopted.

        35. It is further ordered that pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before September 26, 2005 and reply comments on or before October 25, 2005.

        36. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20
          Communications common carriers.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 05-14614 Filed 7-26-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        RIN 0648-BD32
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Comprehensive Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability (NOA); request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted three fishery management plans (FMPs) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. If approved by the Secretary of Commerce, the new FMPs (island-based FMPs) would replace the existing U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs and transition the management of Federal fisheries in the U.S. Caribbean exclusive economic zone (EEZ) from a U.S. Caribbean-wide approach to an island-based approach. By developing island-based FMPs, NMFS and the Council would better account for differences among the U.S. Caribbean islands with respect to culture, markets, fishing gear used, seafood preferences, and ecological impacts.

          DATES:
          Written comments on the FMPs must be received by August 25, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the FMPs, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2019-0155”, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0155, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit all written comments to Sarah Stephenson, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 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).
          Electronic copies of the FMPs may be obtained from www.regulations.gov or the Southeast Regional Office website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/sustainable-fisheries/sustainable-fisheries-caribbean. Each FMP includes an environmental assessment (EA), regulatory impact review, and fishery impact statement.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          María del Mar López, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: maria.lopez@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the FMP or amendment is available for review and comment.
        The Council has submitted three FMPs for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. The FMPs are the Comprehensive FMP for the Puerto Rico EEZ (Puerto Rico FMP), the Comprehensive FMP for the St. Thomas and St. John EEZ (St. Thomas and St. John FMP), and the Comprehensive FMP for the St. Croix EEZ (St. Croix FMP). If approved, the island-based FMPs would be implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Background
        Currently, the Council manages fisheries under its authority under four U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs: the FMP for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) (Reef Fish FMP), the FMP for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Rico and the USVI (Spiny Lobster FMP), the FMP for the Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and the USVI (Queen Conch FMP), and the FMP for the Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates of Puerto Rico and the USVI (Coral FMP) through regulations implemented by NMFS at 50 CFR part 622.

        NMFS implemented the Spiny Lobster FMP in 1984 (49 FR 50049, December 26, 1984), the Reef Fish FMP in 1985 (50 FR 34850, August 28, 1985), the Coral FMP in 1995 (60 FR 58221, November 27, 1995), and the Queen Conch FMP in 1996 (61 FR 65481, December 13, 1996). Each FMP has been amended on several occasions. Under these FMPs, the Council and NMFS manage fisheries across the entire U.S. Caribbean. However, the Council applies certain management measures separately within Federal waters of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix based on the availability of island-specific data. For example, the final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Reef Fish FMP and Amendment 2 to the Queen Conch FMP (2010 Caribbean Annual Catch Limit (ACL) Amendment) (76 FR 82404, December 30, 2011) defined the fishery management boundaries of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, and established separate, island-specific ACLs and accountability measures (AM) for species addressed in those FMP amendments.

        In 2012, the Council initiated public discussion of an island-based approach to the management of fisheries in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ to address requests from fishermen, fishing community representatives, and the governments of Puerto Rico and the USVI (St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix) that the Council consider the differences among the islands when addressing fisheries management in the U.S. Caribbean. These entities highlighted the unique characteristics of the fishery resources within each island or island group, and the communities that are dependent on those resources. For example, there are different species that are economically or ecologically important in Federal waters around each island or island groups, and the island-based approach provides a better mechanism to identify those species and to establish related management measures for those species (e.g., bag limits, trip limits, closed areas, and closed seasons). By developing island-based FMPs, NMFS and the Council would better account for differences among the U.S. Caribbean islands with respect to culture, markets, fishing gear used, seafood preferences, and the ecological impacts.
        The Council responded to these public requests by deciding to shift from a U.S. Caribbean-wide management approach to an island-based management approach and developing FMPs for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, respectively. The Council's decision was supported by an EA completed in 2014, which analyzed transitioning from U.S. Caribbean-wide to island-based management. The EA evaluated the impact of incorporating the regulations in effect at that time under the U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs into FMPs for different island management areas. For example, the Council evaluated subdividing the island management zones into a two, three, or four island-group approach. The EA provided the public with the expected and potential impacts of such a shift in Federal fisheries management in the U.S. Caribbean. Based on the 2014 EA, the Council decided to develop FMPs for three island areas, the Puerto Rico FMP, the St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and the St. Croix FMP, that are noticed here. Each island-based FMP is analyzed separately in an EA.
        If approved, the Puerto Rico FMP, the St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and the St. Croix FMP, in combination, would replace the existing U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs. Each individual FMP would establish management measures for the EEZ around each island. The U.S. Caribbean EEZ, also referred to as Federal waters, begins 9 nautical miles (nm) from shore off Puerto Rico and 3 nm from shore off the USVI, and the EEZ extends up to 200 nm from shore. Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix are defined as the respective island management areas under the island-based FMPs. Each island-based FMP would retain most of the current management measures established under the U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs that apply to the respective island management area, including seasonal and area closures, minimum size limits, and recreational bag limits. In addition, each island-based FMP would revise other management measures such as the species included for Federal management, and ACLs and AMs. Thus, Federal fisheries within each island management area would be managed by provisions within the respective island-based FMP and fisheries management would be adapted to the individual characteristics of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix.
        Actions Contained in Each FMP
        Each of the FMPs for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix contain an EA that considers whether to make the transition from U.S. Caribbean-wide management to management at the particular island management area level. After deciding to make the transition, each EA considers alternatives for many of the management measures to be applied at the island management area level. The island-based FMPs would incorporate fishery management measures presently included in the current Spiny Lobster, Reef Fish, Queen Conch, and Coral FMPs that are applicable to the EEZ around each of the island management areas and would modify the specific management measures as needed. The island-based FMPs would revise the list of species to be managed and modify the stock or stock complexes under which those species are managed; revise status determination criteria (SDC), management reference points, and AMs; incorporate descriptions of essential fish habitat (EFH) for species new to Federal management; and update FMP framework procedures.
        Each EA associated with an island-based FMP contains the same set of management actions, as described below. For each management action, information applicable to all three island management areas is described first, followed by island area-specific information where applicable.
        Island-Based Management
        For each island management area, the corresponding island-based FMP would replace the four U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs currently in place as they apply to the particular island management area. Management measures within those U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs would be reorganized at the level of each island management area. Each island-based FMP would include only those management measures applicable to that island management area. For example, minimum size limits applicable to the harvest of certain parrotfish species in the St. Croix management area would only be included in the St. Croix FMP.
        Selection of Stocks To Be Managed

        The stocks currently managed in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ under the Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, Queen Conch, and Coral FMPs are composed of 81 species of reef fish, 58 species of aquarium trade fish, spiny lobster, queen conch, 94 genera or species of corals, and 63 genera or species of aquarium trade invertebrates (see Table 1 to appendix A of 50 CFR part 622). For each island management area, the island-based FMPs would designate a unique list of species to be managed based on the specific characteristics of each island management area. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and the District Advisory Panel from each island management area provided input and recommendations on the criteria used for the Council to select the species to be included in each respective FMP. As described in greater detail in the FMPs, the inclusion or exclusion of species for management was determined using five sequential principles applied to species for which landings are available, beginning with those in greatest need of conservation and management (e.g., overfished, prohibited harvest, etc.). Among the species considered for management are those retained from the four U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs as well as non-managed species for which the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) had data indicating that the species had been landed in the particular island area. For all of these species considered for management, the Council used a stepwise application of the five criteria to determine if a species should be included for management in each island-based FMP. Table 2.2.6 in each island-based FMP lists the stocks proposed for Federal management.
        Puerto Rico Stocks for Management

        Following the stepwise species selection process, spiny lobster, queen conch, 63 species of fish, and all species of corals, sea urchins, and sea cucumbers that occur within the Puerto Rico management area are proposed for management in the Puerto Rico FMP. Eighteen fish species would be new to Federal management under the Puerto Rico FMP.
        St. Thomas and St. John Stocks for Management
        Following the stepwise species selection process, spiny lobster, queen conch, 47 species of fish, and all species of corals, sea urchins, and sea cucumbers that occur within the St. Thomas and St. John management area are proposed for management in the St. Thomas and St. John FMP. Three fish species would be new to Federal management under the St. Thomas and St. John FMP.
        St. Croix Stocks for Management
        Following the stepwise species selection process, spiny lobster, queen conch, 43 species of fish, and all species of corals, sea urchins, and sea cucumbers that occur within the St. Croix management area are proposed for management in the St. Croix FMP. Two fish species would be new to Federal management under the St. Croix FMP.
        Stock Complex Organization and Selection of Indicator Stocks
        After establishing the list of species proposed for management under each island-based FMP, the Council determined whether those species would be managed as individual stocks or in stock complexes. For those managed in stock complexes, the Council determined if one or more indicator stocks should be assigned to the stock complex. This action would result in a new organization of stocks, and therefore a new number of stocks and stock complexes would be managed under each island-based FMP relative to the U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs. Table 5.13.3 in each island-based FMP lists the proposed stocks complexes and indicator stocks.
        Puerto Rico Stock Organization
        Species proposed for management under the Puerto Rico FMP would be managed as 18 individual stocks and 19 stock complexes and would include 7 indicator stocks.
        St. Thomas and St. John Stock Organization
        Species proposed for management under the St. Thomas and St. John FMP would be managed as 12 individual stocks and 14 stock complexes and would include 9 indicator stocks.
        St. Croix Stock Organization
        Species proposed for management under the St. Croix FMP would be managed as 13 individual stocks and 13 stock complexes and would include 6 indicator stocks.
        Management Reference Points and Status Determination Criteria
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that FMPs specify a number of reference points for managed fish stocks, including maximum sustainable yield (MSY) or MSY proxy, ACL, as well as stock SDC including overfished and overfishing thresholds. These reference points and SDC, and other provisions from which they are derived, such as acceptable biological catch (ABC), are intended to provide the means to measure the status and performance of fisheries relative to established goals.
        The current SDC and management reference points for stocks managed under the four U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs were established by the final rules for the Caribbean Sustainable Fisheries Act Amendment (70 FR 62073, October 28, 2005), and the ABC control rules included in the 2010 Caribbean ACL Amendment and the final rule implementing Amendment 6 to the Reef Fish FMP, Amendment 5 to the Spiny Lobster FMP, Amendment 3 to the Queen Conch FMP, and Amendment 3 to the Coral FMP (76 FR 82414, December 30, 2011) (2011 Caribbean ACL Amendment).
        The ABC control rules contained in each island-based FMP would replace the current ABC control rules included in the 2010 Caribbean ACL Amendment and 2011 Caribbean ACL Amendment, as applicable. The island-based FMPs would provide a complete revision of reference points and SDC for stocks and stock complexes included for management following a three-step process.
        Step 1 adopts and applies a newly devised, 4-tiered, ABC control rule to specify SDC and ABC recommendations depending on differing levels of data availability. Beginning with Tier 4 and moving up the tier levels (lower tier numbers), successful application of each tier requires an increasing amount of information. Tier 4 is applicable in situations where an accepted quantitative assessment is not available, which is the present case for all stocks proposed for management in the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs. In Tier 4, the most data-limited of the options, an MSY proxy, maximum fishing mortality threshold, and MSST are defined with respect to assumptions about fishing mortality rate and biomass, but cannot be quantified due to data limitations. In addition, Tier 4 introduces a new reference point, the sustainable yield level (SYL). The SYL is a level of landings that can be sustained over the long term. SYL is intended to be used when quantitative guidance with which to set MSY or an MSY proxy is not available. The SYL would serve as a proxy for the OFL and a minimum estimate of MSY where MSY is greater than or equal to SYL, and thus SYL also is an MSY proxy.
        Step 2 establishes a proxy to use when FMSY cannot be determined, as in Tier 4 of the ABC control rule. For all three island management areas, the Council established a proxy equal to 30 percent of the maximum spawning potential of a stock under conditions of no fishing mortality (F30
          %
          SPR).
        Step 3 applies a reduction factor, reflecting the Council's estimate of management uncertainty, to the recommended ABC for each stock or stock complex to specify the ACL for the stock or stock complex. The OY would be set equal to the ACL for each stock or stock complex. All reference points are defined in terms of round weight in pounds.
        The tiered approached to the ABC control rule better positions the Council to take advantage of future improvements in data and analytical methodologies. Revising the reference points and SDC based on recent landings data ensures to the greatest extent practicable that an appropriate period of stable and sustainable landings is identified and used for setting management reference points and SDC.
        Puerto Rico Stock Evaluation

        For the Puerto Rico FMP, sector-specific landings data for Council-managed fish (reef fish, pelagic fish, and rays) were available for the commercial and recreational fishing sectors operating in EEZ waters around Puerto Rico. These landings data were used to determine and establish reference points and SDC for fish stocks and stock complexes (Step 1 of the three-step process used to revise reference points and SDCs described above), and set ACLs by sector with available data (Step 3 of the process described above). For spiny lobster, only commercial landings data are collected as recreational data are not available. Because sector-specific landings data are not available, reference points and SDC for spiny lobster derived in Steps 1 and 3 are based on commercial landings. The SSC determined that some species proposed for management under the Puerto Rico FMP were more vulnerable to overfishing and recommended that the ABC be set at zero (the corresponding ACL and OY would also equal zero). These included queen conch, Nassau grouper, goliath grouper, blue, midnight, and rainbow parrotfishes, giant manta ray, spotted eagle ray, southern stingray, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, and corals. The Council also determined an MSY proxy, MFMT, and MSST based on the fishing mortality rate in Step 2 of the three-step process used to revise reference points and SDCs stated earlier. To determine the ACL for those stocks and stock complexes for which harvest is not prohibited (i.e., for which the ABC is greater than zero), the Council proposed an uncertainty buffer of 0.85 for the angelfish, parrotfish, and surgeonfish stock complexes and an uncertainty buffer of 0.95 for all remaining stocks and stock complexes. The ABC for each of those stocks or stock complexes was multiplied by the buffer to determine the ACL for each stock and stock complex proposed for management. For fish stocks and stock complexes, OY would equal the total (commercial and recreational) ACL when data from both sectors are available. In the event that landings for one sector are not available for the averaging period, the sector would not be managed by a separate sector ACL. The ACL for the sector with available data would be the applicable ACL for the stock or stock complex. For spiny lobster, the OY would equal the commercial ACL, as the ACL is based on commercial landings. This ACL applies to all harvest of spiny lobster, whether commercial or recreational.
        St. Thomas and St. John Stock Evaluation

        For the St. Thomas and St. John FMP, recreational landings data were not available, thus management reference points and SDC (e.g., SYL, ABC, and ACL) for the stocks and stock complexes proposed for management were derived using commercial landings in Steps 1 and 3 of the three-step process used to revise reference points and SDC. The SSC determined that some species proposed for management under the St. Thomas and St. John FMP were more vulnerable to overfishing and recommended that the ABC be set at zero pounds (the corresponding ACL and OY would also equal zero). These included queen conch, Nassau grouper, goliath grouper, blue, midnight, and rainbow parrotfishes, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, and corals. The Council also determined an MSY proxy, MFMT, and MSST based on the fishing mortality rate in Step 2 of the three-step process used to revise reference points and SDCs. To determine the ACL for those stocks and stock complexes for which harvest is not prohibited (i.e., for which the ABC is greater than zero), in Step 3, the Council proposed an uncertainty buffer of 0.85 for the angelfish, parrotfish, and surgeonfish stock complexes, and an uncertainty buffer of 0.95 for all remaining stocks and stock complexes. The ABC for each of those stocks or stock complexes was multiplied by the buffer to determine the ACL for each stock and stock complex proposed for management. For all stocks and stock complexes, OY would equal the ACL.
        St. Croix Stock Evaluation

        For the St. Croix FMP, recreational landings data were not available, thus management reference points and SDC (e.g., SYL, ABC, and ACL) for the stocks and stock complexes proposed for management were derived using commercial landings in Steps 1 and 3 of the three-step process used to revise reference points and SDC. The SSC determined that some species proposed for management under the St. Croix FMP were more vulnerable to overfishing and recommended that the ABC be set at zero (the corresponding ACL would also equal zero). These species would include Nassau grouper, goliath grouper, blue, midnight, and rainbow parrotfishes, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, and corals. The SSC also recommended an ABC of 50,000 lb (22,680 kg) for queen conch in the St. Croix EEZ. The Council also determined an MSY proxy, MFMT, and MSST based on the fishing mortality rate in Step 2 of the three-step process used to revise reference points and SDCs. To determine the ACL for each stock and stock complex proposed for management for the stocks and stock complexes in which the ABCs were not equal to zero, in Step 3, the Council proposed an uncertainty buffer of 0.85 for the angelfish, parrotfish, and surgeonfish stock complexes, an uncertainty buffer of 0.95 for spiny lobster and all other fish stocks and stock complexes, and no uncertainty buffer for queen conch, as management uncertainty was accounted for when setting the ABC, thus no additional reduction from the ABC to the ACL was necessary or appropriate. The ABC for each of those stocks or stock complexes was multiplied by the buffer to determine the ACL for each stock and stock complex proposed for management. For all stocks and stock complexes, OY would equal the ACL.
        Accountability Measures
        Under the current AMs, reef fish and spiny lobster landings data for each island management area are evaluated relative to the applicable ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, using the most recent, complete three years of landings data available. For reef fish species or species groups in the EEZ around Puerto Rico, ACLs are specific by sector and NMFS applies AMs on a sector-specific basis to the sector that exceeded its ACL if both the sector-specific ACL and total ACL (commercial and recreational) is exceeded. For reef fish species or species groups in the EEZ around the USVI and for spiny lobster in all management areas, if NMFS determines that the applicable ACL for a particular stock or stock complex was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts instead of an increase in catch, NMFS will not reduce the length of the applicable fishing season the following fishing year. For reef fish species or species groups in the EEZ around Puerto Rico, if either the sector ACL or the total ACL is exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts instead of an increase in catch, NMFS will not reduce the length of the applicable sector fishing season the following fishing year. However, if landings exceed the applicable ACL for a species or species group and this exception does not apply, NMFS will reduce the length of the fishing season by the amount necessary to ensure that landings do not exceed the applicable ACL in the following fishing year for that species or species group. Additionally, any fishing season reduction is applied starting from September 30 and earlier toward the beginning of the fishing year. If the length of the required fishing season reduction exceeds the time period of January 1 through September 30, any additional fishing season reduction will be applied in the same fishing year from October 1 and later toward the end of the fishing year.
        For most stocks and stock complexes in each island-based FMP, the AMs proposed would be triggered if landings of a stock or stock complex exceed the respective ACL. The proposed AMs were selected to ensure that, if an ACL for a particular stock or stock complex is exceeded, it will not be exceeded in the year following the ACL overage determination, or for pelagic stocks, that landings can be controlled at or below the ACL.

        For each reef fish stock and stock complex where harvest is allowed, and for spiny lobster in the respective island management areas, each island-based FMP proposes to specify an AM that would be triggered if the ACL for the stock or stock complex has been exceeded based on a moving multi-year average of landings as described in the FMP. If the ACL is exceeded, the length of the fishing season for the affected stock or stock complex in the fishing year following an ACL overage determination would be reduced by the amount needed to prevent such an overage from occurring again. If the NMFS SEFSC determines that the overage occurred because of improved data collection and monitoring rather than because catches actually increased, then the AMs would not be applied. Additionally, the Regional Administrator in consultation with the Council may deviate from the specific time sequences of landings based on data availability. Any fishing season reduction would be applied from September 30 and earlier toward the beginning of the fishing year. If the length of the required fishing season reduction exceeds the time period of January 1 through September 30, any additional fishing season reduction would be applied from October 1 forward, toward the end of the fishing year.
        For the pelagic stocks and stock complexes, all of which would be new to Federal management within each island-based FMP, an annual catch target (ACT) would be specified as a percentage of the ACL (ACT equals 90 percent of ACL) that would serve as the AM trigger. An AM would be triggered if the landings for a stock or stock complex exceed its ACT based on a moving multi-year average of landings as described in the FMP. The Regional Administrator in consultation with the Council may deviate from the specific time sequences of landings based on data availability. If an AM was triggered, the Council in consultation with the SEFSC would determine whether corrective action is needed.
        For stocks with harvest prohibitions in each island management area, those prohibitions would serve as the AMs. No additional or unique AMs are proposed for St. Thomas and St. John.
        Puerto Rico Stock AMs

        For reef fish stocks and stock complexes in the Puerto Rico management area, the default process discussed for AMs above would be modified by the Puerto Rico FMP to reflect sector-specific management. Where sector-specific ACLs were determined, landings would be evaluated relative to the applicable commercial or recreational ACL, depending on data availability. An AM would be triggered if a sector's landings exceeded the respective sector ACL and the total landings (commercial plus recreational) exceeded the total ACL (commercial plus recreational) for a specific stock or stock complex. The AM would be applied only for the particular sector that exceeded its ACL. NMFS would not apply an AM if the NMFS SEFSC determines that either ACL overage (sector-specific or total ACL) occurred because data collection or monitoring improved rather than because catch increased. However, as described above, if landings for one sector are not available for the averaging period, then that sector would not be managed by a separate sector ACL. The ACL for the sector with available data would be the ACL for that stock or stock complex and would apply to the application of AMs. Landings would be evaluated relative to the ACL. The AM would operate to reduce the length of the fishing season for all sectors by the amount necessary to ensure to the greatest practicable extent that landings do not again exceed the ACL in the year of application. For spiny lobster, only commercial harvest data are collected as recreational landings are not available. However, the ACL and AM for spiny lobster would apply to commercial and recreational harvest. For all stock and stock complexes, any fishing season reduction resulting from an AM application would be applied during the fishing year after the overage is detected in the same manner as stated earlier, i.e., from September 30 and earlier in the fishing year.
        St. Croix Stock AMs
        For St. Croix, the general process described above applies, with modifications for queen conch. The St. Croix FMP would continue to allow queen conch harvest from the EEZ east of 64°34′ W longitude during the open fishing season. The rest of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ would continue to be closed to the harvest of queen conch. The proposed AM for queen conch would be applied if, based on in-season monitoring, NMFS determines its ACL is reached or is projected to be reached prior to the end of the fishing season. If the AM is applied, the Regional Administrator would close the St. Croix management area to the harvest and possession of queen conch. During any such closure, no person would be allowed to fish for or possess a Caribbean queen conch in or from Federal waters.
        Essential Fish Habitat
        The EFH designations for species and species groups that are currently managed under the U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs and are proposed for management under the Puerto Rico FMP, St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and St. Croix FMP would remain as currently described in the Sustainable Fisheries Act Amendment (70 FR 62073, October 28, 2005). For species new to Federal management, each island-based FMP proposes to describe and identify EFH according to functional relationships between life history stages of the species and marine and estuarine habitats, based on best scientific information available from the literature, landings data, fishery-independent surveys, and expert opinion.
        Framework Procedures
        The current framework procedures for the Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, Queen Conch, and Coral FMPs provide the Council and NMFS the flexibility to more expeditiously adjust management options to respond to changing fishery conditions or new scientific information. Each island-based FMP proposes to update the framework procedures to expand or modify the range of existing management measures that can be implemented by the Council without going through a full FMP amendment process. The proposed framework procedures for each island-based FMP are identical and future proposed actions could be implemented either by an open abbreviated framework, an open standard framework, or through a closed framework procedure. Some of the management measures proposed to be adjusted through framework procedures include re-specification of management reference points and SDCs, and modification of seasonal, year-round, or area closures, commercial trip limits, recreational bag and possession limits, size limits, and fishing gear modifications.
        Proposed Rule for the Island-based FMPs

        A proposed rule that would implement the island-based FMPs is being drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. 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 has submitted the Puerto Rico FMP, St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and St. Croix FMP for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments on any of the FMPs must be received by August 25, 2020. Comments received during the respective comment periods, whether specifically directed to any or all of the FMPs or to the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in the decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the island-based FMPs. Comments received after the comment period will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on an island-based FMP or the proposed rule during the comment period will be addressed in the final rule.

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

          Dated: June 23, 2020.
          Jennifer M. Wallace,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2020-13823 Filed 6-25-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 210826-0168]
        RIN 0648-BK56
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Biennial Specifications; 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 Specifications for Pacific Mackerel

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement allowable catch levels, an overfishing limit, an allowable biological catch, and an annual catch limit for Pacific mackerel in the U.S. exclusive economic zone off the West Coast (California, Oregon and Washington) for the fishing seasons 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. This proposed rule is pursuant to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan. The proposed harvest guideline and annual catch target for the 2021-2022 fishing season are 8,323 metric tons (mt) and 7,323 mt, respectively. The proposed harvest guideline and annual catch target for the 2022-2023 fishing season are 5,822 mt and 4,822 mt, respectively. If the fishery attains the annual catch target in either fishing season, the directed fishery will close, reserving the 1,000-mt difference between the harvest guideline and annual catch target as a set-aside for incidental landings in other Coastal Pelagic Species fisheries and other sources of mortality. This document is intended to conserve and manage the Pacific mackerel stock off the U.S. West Coast.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by October 1, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2021-0066, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-2021-0066 in the Search box. Click on the “Comment” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method 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).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Taylor Debevec, West Coast Region, NMFS, (562) 619-2052, Taylor.Debevec@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., NMFS manages the Pacific mackerel fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the West Coast in accordance with the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set annual harvest specifications for the Pacific mackerel fishery based on the annual specification framework and control rules in the FMP. The Pacific mackerel fishing season runs from July 1 to June 30. The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement these harvest specifications, which include allowable harvest levels (i.e., annual catch target (ACT) and harvest guideline (HG)), an annual catch limit (ACL), and annual catch reference points (i.e., overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC)). The uncertainty surrounding the current biomass estimates for Pacific mackerel for the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 fishing seasons was taken into consideration in the development of these harvest specifications. Any Pacific mackerel harvested between July 1, 2021, and the effective date of the final rule would count toward the 2021-2022 ACT and HG.

        During public meetings each year, the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) presents biomass estimates for Pacific mackerel to the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) CPS Management Team (CPSMT), the Council's CPS Advisory Subpanel (CPSAS) and the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and the biomass estimates and the status of the fisheries are reviewed and discussed. The CPSMT, CPSAS, and SSC then provide recommendations and comments to the Council regarding the calculated OFL, ABC, ACL, HG and ACT. Following Council review and after hearing public comment, the Council adopts biomass estimates and makes its harvest specification recommendations to NMFS. Biennial specifications published in the Federal Register establish these allowable harvest levels (i.e., ACT/HG) as well as OFL, ABC, and ACL for the upcoming two Pacific mackerel fishing seasons.
        The control rules in the CPS FMP include the HG control rule, which, in conjunction with the OFL and ABC rules, are used to manage Pacific mackerel. According to the FMP, the quota for the principal commercial fishery, the HG, is determined using the FMP-specified HG formula. The HG is based, in large part, on the estimate of stock biomass for the fishing year. The biomass estimate is an explicit part of the various harvest control rules for Pacific mackerel, and as the estimated biomass decreases or increases from one year to the next, the resulting allowable catch levels similarly trend. The harvest control rule in the CPS FMP is HG = [(Biomass-Cutoff) * Fraction * Distribution] with the parameters described as follows:
        1. Biomass. The estimated stock biomass of Pacific mackerel for the 2021-2022 management season is 57,832 metric tons (mt). The estimated stock biomass of Pacific mackerel for the 2022-2023 management season is 45,925 mt.
        2. Cutoff. This is the biomass level below which no commercial fishery is allowed. The FMP established this level at 18,200 mt.
        3. Fraction. The harvest fraction is the percentage of the biomass above 18,200 mt that may be harvested. This is set in the FMP at 30 percent.
        4. Distribution. Pacific mackerel range from Mexico to Alaska and regularly migrate between Mexico and the U.S. West Coast. Because some of the Pacific mackerel stock exists outside of U.S. waters, the Distribution parameter is used to estimate the proportion of the total biomass in U.S. waters and to calculate U.S. catch limits. The average portion of the total Pacific mackerel biomass estimated in the West Coast U.S. EEZ is set in the FMP at 70 percent. The 70 percent distribution estimate is based on the average historical larval distribution obtained from scientific cruises and the distribution of the resource according to the logbooks of aerial fish-spotters.
        The Council has recommended, and NMFS is proposing, Pacific mackerel harvest specifications for both the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 fishing seasons. For the 2021-2022 Pacific mackerel fishing season these include an OFL of 12,145 mt, an ABC and ACL of 9,446 mt, a HG of 8,323 mt, and an annual ACT of 7,323 mt. For the 2022-2023 Pacific mackerel fishing season these include an OFL of 9,644 mt, and ABC and ACL of 7,501 mt, a HG of 5,822 mt, and an ACT of 4,822 mt. These catch specifications are based on the control rules established in the CPS FMP and biomass estimates of 57,832 mt (2021-2022) and 45,925 mt (2022-2023). The biomass estimates are the result of a catch-only stock assessment the NMFS SWFSC completed in June 2021. The Council's SSC and the Council approved this stock assessment and resulting biomass estimates as the best scientific information available for management at the June 2021 Council meeting.
        Under this proposed action, in the unlikely event that catch reaches the ACT in either fishing season, directed fishing would close, reserving the difference between the HG and ACT (1,000 mt) as a set-aside for incidental landings in other fisheries and other sources of mortality.1
           For the remainder of the fishing season, incidental landings in CPS fisheries would be constrained to a 45-percent incidental catch allowance (in other words, no more than 45 percent by weight of the CPS landed per trip may be Pacific mackerel); and in non-CPS fisheries, up to 3 mt of Pacific mackerel may be landed incidentally per fishing trip. The incidental set-aside is intended to allow continued operation of fisheries for other stocks, particularly other CPS stocks that may school with Pacific mackerel.

            1 Directed fishing for live bait and minor directed fishing is allowed to continue during a closure of the directed fishery.

        The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the date of any closure of directed fishing (when harvest levels reach or exceed the ACT). Additionally, to ensure the regulated community is informed of any closure, NMFS will also make announcements through other means available, including email to fishermen, processors, and state fishery management agencies.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, for the following reasons:
        For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are those vessels that harvest Pacific mackerel as part of the West Coast Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) purse seine fleet and are all considered small businesses under the above size standards.
        The CPS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its implementing regulations requires the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to set an overfishing limit (OFL), acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limit (ACL), harvest guidelines (HG) and annual catch target (ACT) for the Pacific mackerel fishery based on the harvest control rules in the FMP. These specific harvest control rules are applied to the current stock biomass estimate to derive these catch specifications, which are used to manage the commercial take of Pacific mackerel. A component of these control rules is that as the estimated biomass decreases or increases from one year to the next, so do the applicable quotas.

        Pacific mackerel harvest is one component of CPS fisheries off the U.S. West Coast, which also includes the fisheries for Pacific sardine, northern anchovy and market squid. Pacific mackerel are principally caught off southern California within the limited entry portion (south of 39 degrees N latitude; Point Arena, California) of the fishery. Currently there are 53 vessels permitted in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California. The average annual per vessel revenue in 2020 for vessels that landed Pacific mackerel was well below the threshold level of $11 million; therefore, all of these vessels are considered small businesses under the RFA. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed rule is considered to equally affect all of these small entities in the same manner. Therefore, this rule would not create disproportionate costs between small and large vessels/businesses.
        NMFS used the ex-vessel revenue information for a profitability analysis, as the cost data for the harvesting operations of CPS finfish vessels was limited or unavailable. For the 2019-2020 fishing year, the HG was 11,109 mt with an ACT of 10,109 mt and an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt. Approximately 3,840 mt of Pacific mackerel were harvested in the 2019-2020 fishing year with an estimated ex-vessel value of approximately $1,299,153.

        The HG for the 2021-2022 Pacific mackerel fishing season is 8,323 mt, with an ACT of 7,323 mt and an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt. The HG for the 2022-2023 Pacific mackerel fishing season is 5,822 mt with an ACT of 4,822 mt and an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt. The proposed ACTs for these fishing years are lower than the prior two fishing years (i.e., 10,109 mt for 2019-2020 and 6,950 mt for 2020-2021). However, Pacific mackerel landings in the U.S. over the last ten management seasons (2009-2010 through 2019-2020) have averaged only about 3,790 mt. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the ACTs proposed in this rule will limit the potential profitability to the fleet from catching Pacific mackerel compared to last season or recent catch levels. Accordingly, vessel income from fishing is not expected to be altered as a result of this rule as it compares to recent catches in the fishery, including under the previous season's regulations.
        Based on the disproportionality and profitability analysis above, the proposed action, if adopted, will not have adverse or disproportional economic impact on these small business entities. As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.
        This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: August 26, 2021.
          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 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

        2. In § 660.511, revise paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as follows:

          § 660.511
          Catch restrictions.

          (i) The following harvest specifications apply for Pacific mackerel:
          (1) For the Pacific mackerel fishing season July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022, the harvest guideline is 8,323 mt and the ACT is 7,323 mt; and
          (2) For the Pacific mackerel fishing season July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, the harvest guideline is 5,822 mt and the ACT of 4,822 mt.

          (j) When an ACT in paragraph (i) of this section has been reached or exceeded, then for the remainder of the Pacific mackerel fishing season, Pacific mackerel may not be targeted and landings of Pacific mackerel may not exceed: 45 percent of landings when Pacific mackerel are landed in CPS fisheries (in other words, no more than 45 percent by weight of the CPS landed per trip may be Pacific mackerel), or up to 3 mt of Pacific mackerel when landed in non-CPS fisheries. The Regional Administer shall announce in the Federal Register the date that an ACT is reached or exceeded, and the date and time that the restrictions described in this paragraph go into effect.

      [FR Doc. 2021-18851 Filed 8-31-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [I.D. 101901E]
        Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Hearings

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to prepare a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS); request for comments; notice of public hearings.

          SUMMARY:
          The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) intends to prepare a DSEIS to assess the impacts on the natural and human environment of the management measure proposed in its draft Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (FMP).  The purpose of this document is to solicit public comments on the scope of the issues to be addressed in the DSEIS and to provide information on the Council's intended schedule for hearings for completing the DSEIS and submitting it to NMFS for filing with the Environmental Protection Agency for publication of a notice-of-availability for public comment.

          DATES:

          The two public hearings will be held on Monday, November 26, 2001; see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.  Written comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in the DSEIS will be accepted through November 26, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments should be sent to Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico  00918-1920, telephone: 787-766-5926; fax: 787-766-6239; or you can send comments by e-mail to: Miguel.A.Rolon@noaa.gov or Graciela.Garcia-Moliner@noaa.gov.  Copies of the draft Amendment 2 and the preliminary DSEIS may be obtained by contacting the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico  00918-2577, phone:  787-766-5926. Public hearings will meet at Puerto Rico, and St. Thomas, VI; for specific locations, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico  00918-2577, phone:  787-766-5926, or Dr. Peter J. Eldridge, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL  33702, phone:  727-570-5305; fax:  727-570-5583; e-mail:  Peter.Eldridge@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The FMP was prepared by the Council and approved and implemented by NMFS under procedures of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  The FMP’s management measures for queen conch apply in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the U.S. Caribbean.  For the purposes of the FMP and its implementing regulations, the U.S. Caribbean consists of the Federal waters beyond the 9 nautical mile boundary in Puerto Rico, and beyond the 3 nautical mile boundary in St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.  The FMP currently establishes the following management measures for queen conch: (1) A 9-inch overall minimum size limit, or a 3/8-inch shell-lip thickness limitation on the possession of queen conch; (2) a requirement that all species in the management unit be landed in the shell, and that the sale of undersized queen conch and queen conch shells be prohibited; (3) a bag limit of three queen conch/day for recreational fishers, not to exceed 12 per boat, and 150 queen conch/day for licensed commercial fishers; (4) the closure of the harvest season from July 1 through September 30 of each consecutive year; and (5) the prohibition of harvesting queen conch by HOOKAH gear in the EEZ.
        The Council is preparing draft FMP Amendment 2.  The objectives of Amendment 2 are to address NMFS’ determination that queen conch is overfished and is undergoing overfishing.  Amendment 2, in addressing these issues, proposes to prohibit the harvest and possession of queen conch in the Caribbean EEZ.  The Council is preparing a DSEIS as an integrated part of Amendment 2.  The DSEIS will describe the amendment's proposed management measure and reasonable alternatives and will assess the environmental impacts of the proposed and alternative measures.  The Council is requesting written comments on the scope of the issues to be addressed in the DSEIS.  Based on input received during eight public hearings held previously in July 2000 (see notice of these hearings at 65 FR 40600), the Council intends to revise draft Amendment 2, as appropriate, and to finalize the DSEIS.  At the July 2000 hearings, the Council changed the number of the Amendment from Amendment 1 to Amendment 2.  The proposed management measure has not been included in a previous FMP amendment.   -
        The Council intends that the public hearings scheduled for November 26, 2001, supplement, for scoping purposes, the eight public hearings that the Council conducted from July 10, 2000, through July 26, 2000, on a preliminary draft of Amendment 2 and associated preliminary DSEIS.  The Council also invites the public to comment on the scope of the issues to be addressed by Amendment 2 and its DSEIS and on the types of environmental impacts associated with alternative management measures, including the proposed measure discussed above.    -

        Once the Council completes the DSEIS, it will submit it to NMFS for filing with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  EPA will publish in the Federal Register a notice of availability of the DSEIS for public comment.  This procedure is pursuant to regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and to NOAA's Administrative Order 216-6 regarding NOAA's compliance with NEPA and the CEQ regulations. -

        The Council intends to consider public comments received on the DSEIS before adopting final management measures for a final Amendment 2 and to prepare a final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) in support of its final Amendment 2.  The Council would then submit the final Amendment 2 and supporting FSEIS to NMFS for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  NMFS will announce availability of Amendment 2 for public review during the Secretarial review period though notice published in the Federal Register.  During Secretarial review, NMFS will also file the FSEIS with EPA for a final public comment period on the FSEIS.  This comment period will be concurrent with the Secretarial review period and will end prior to final agency action to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 2.  All public comment periods on Amendment 2, its proposed implementing regulations, and its associated FSEIS will be announced through notice published in the Federal Register.  NMFS will consider all public comments received during the Secretarial review period for Amendment 2 (60-day period), whether they are on the amendment, the FSEIS, or the proposed regulations, prior to final agency action.
        Time and Location for Public Hearings
        Both hearings are scheduled on, Monday, November 26, 2001, at the following times and locations.   -
        1.  Puerto Rico, Pierre Hotel, De Diego Avenue, Condado, Puerto Rico, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. -
        2.  US Virgin Islands, Windward Passage Holiday Inn Hotel, Veterans Drive, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, VI, from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m..  Written comments will be accepted through November 26, 2001. -
        Special Accommodations

        These hearings are physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) by November 16, 2001.

          Dated:  October 30, 2001.
          Bruce Morehead,
          Acting Director Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-27723 Filed 10-31-01; 4:27 pm]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 030320066-3066-01; I.D. 022103D]
        RIN 0648-AQ78
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Delay of Full Retention and Utilization Requirements for Rock Sole and Yellowfin Sole

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 75 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP).  This amendment would delay the effective date of requirements for 100-percent retention and utilization of rock sole and yellowfin sole from January 1, 2003, until June 1, 2004.  The purpose of Amendment 75 is to provide the Council and the affected industry with additional time to develop and assess alternatives to address groundfish discards in the groundfish fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI).  An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared to examine the effects of Amendment 75 on small entities.  The purpose of this notice is to provide the affected public an expanded summary of the IRFA so that members of the public may provide more effectively comments on the effects of Amendment 75 on small entities.

          DATES:
          Comments on the IRFA must be received by May 12, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments on the IRFA may be mailed to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn:  Lori Durall.  Hand delivery or courier delivery of comments may be sent to the NMFS, Alaska Region, 709 West 9th St., Room 453, Juneau, AK, 99801.  Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to (907) 586-7557.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.  Copies of Amendment 75 and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action are available from NMFS at the above address, or by calling Lori Durall, Alaska Region, NMFS at (907) 586-7228.  The EA/RIR/IRFA is also available online at: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/analyses/2003.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sue Salveson, (907) 586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Council prepared an IRFA for Amendment 75 that describes the economic impacts this proposed amendment and implementing regulations, 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 in the proposed rule to implement Amendment 75 (68 FR 15144, March 28, 2003).  This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.  No new reporting or recordkeeping requirements are contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action.  A total of 176 small entities (all catcher vessels) and 34 large entities (6 catcher vessels, 24 head and gut catcher/processors, and 4 surimi catcher/processors) are active in the BSAI groundfish fisheries.  Because individual vessel costs are not available for these vessels, individual vessel profitability could not be estimated.  Therefore, changes in gross revenue of the 176 vessels are used as a proxy for changes in individual vessel profitability.  Furthermore, assumptions are made that revenue losses and gains are shared equally among these vessels and that discards represent a displacement of revenue tonnage if hold space is limited.  The delay in implementing IR/IU flatfish retention rules for rock sole and yellowfin sole in the BSAI will prevent decreases in the profitability of small vessels while having little impact on the large vessels that participate in these fisheries.  A summary of the analysis follows:
        The preferred alternative would delay implementation of IR/IU flatfish regulations in the BSAI fisheries through June 2004.  The economic impact of the preferred alternative on individual vessels is expected to be minimal.  It is expected to provide industry and management agencies an additional 17 months before implementation to develop measures that could meet bycatch reduction goals, while allowing the industry to continue to operate effectively.  The Council and NMFS are currently analyzing alternative approaches to IR/IU flatfish regulations that could be implemented in June 2004.  The alternatives currently under consideration for future action by the Council are designed to achieve the management objective of reducing bycatch in a less economically burdensome manner.
        Alternative 1, which represents a 100 percent retention standard, could lead to decreases in gross revenue for the affected fisheries and could yield substantial decreases in gross revenue associated with rock sole in the Pacific cod fishery.  Assuming hold space is limited, the additional flatfish retained would displace fish of higher value, thereby decreasing per trip revenues.  Many of the catcher vessels may experience a problem with damaged non-flatfish, such as Pacific cod, by mixing rough-scaled flatfish and soft-fleshed roundfish in the hold.  This problem may be avoided if flatfish are segregated in a separate hold.  However, most catcher vessels are unlikely to be able to dedicate an entire hold to the relatively small amount of flatfish that are likely to be taken.  Furthermore, it is generally reported that many (perhaps most) of these catcher vessels do not have the capacity to sort their catch at sea, under any circumstances.
        Historical catches and discards of IR/IU flatfish by trawl catcher vessels are highest in the BSAI Pacific cod fishery, both in terms of volume and percent by weight of retained groundfish.  During the 1992-2000 period, discards of rock sole and yellowfin sole were 12.6 percent of the total amount of groundfish retained.  Over 75 percent of trawl catcher vessel gross revenue was generated from landings of pollock and 20 percent was generated in Pacific cod fisheries. Only 3 percent of trawl catcher vessel gross revenue was generated from landings of flatfish.  Moreover, since 1998, flatfish have accounted for only 1 percent of total gross revenue.  Clearly, pollock and Pacific cod are the mainstays of trawl catcher vessels, and because bottom trawling for pollock was prohibited in 1999, IR/IU flatfish regulations are likely to affect only those trawl catcher vessels that participate in Pacific cod fisheries.

        Alternative 2 would allow some discards of the IR/IU flatfish species.  The percent retention requirement would be set independently for each species and would range from 50 percent to 90 percent.  The analysis of the effects of alternative retention requirements on catcher vessels shows that virtually 100 percent of the catch of rock sole and yellowfin sole is discarded in all the fisheries in which rock sole and yellowfin sole are caught.  Consequently, any retention requirement for rock sole and yellowfin sole would be expected to result in adverse economic and operational impacts.  This measure can be interpreted as a displacement of revenue tonnage.  A full retention requirement for rock sole would have the greatest effect, and this requirement would result in less than a five percent displacement in revenue tonnage for all catcher vessel classes.
        Alternative 3 would delay implementation of IR/IU flatfish rules for up to 3 years.  Delaying implementation will postpone the economic consequences discussed under Alternative 1 and will allow the benefits of the economic activity associated with the operation of these vessels to accrue to vessel operators for the period of the delay.  A delay in implementation could also provide time for assessment of the potential for rationalization within the IR/IU flatfish fisheries.  These fisheries are characterized by a “race for fish” mode of operation that exacerbates the economic impacts of the IR/IU rules.  Rationalization may ease some aspects of the “race for fish”, but may not eliminate all aspects because IR/IU flatfish are targeted during specific roe seasons and times of highest quality.  However, possibilities for fleet consolidation or cooperative operations that might ease the economic burden of IR/IU flatfish rules could be explored during a delay in implementation.  In the past several years, discards of yellowfin sole have been trending downward. Industry sources indicate that they have been doing all that they can to utilize all the IR/IU flatfish that they harvest and are actively attempting to develop markets for smaller fish.
        Alternative 4 exempts fisheries from IR/IU flatfish regulations if flatfish discards are less than 5 percent of total groundfish catch.  This analysis used two different estimates of the discard rates for determination of the IR/IU exemption.  One estimate is based on a weighted average discard rate for 1995-2001, and a second estimate is based on a weighted average discard rate for 1999-2001.  Discards exceed 5 percent in most flatfish fisheries and in Pacific cod trawl fisheries in the BSAI.  The revenue reductions of this alternative are similar to those of Alternative 1.

          Dated:  April 15, 2003.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-9618 Filed 4-17-03; 4:46 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S