        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 071219865-7563-01]
        RIN 0648-AP60
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Amendment 9

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes regulations to implement measures in Amendment 9 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Amendment 9 was developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) to remedy deficiencies in the FMP and to address other issues that have arisen since Amendment 8 to the FMP became effective in 1999. Amendment 9 would establish multi-year specifications for all four species managed under the FMP (mackerel, butterfish, Illex squid (Illex), and Loligo squid (Loligo)) for up to 3 years; extend the moratorium on entry into the Illex fishery, without a sunset provision; adopt biological reference points recommended by the Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) for Loligo; designate essential fish habitat (EFH) for Loligo eggs based on best available scientific information; and prohibit bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on May 19, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:

          A final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) was prepared for Amendment 9 that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of Amendment 9, including the FSEIS, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. The FSEIS/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov.
          You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AP60, by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal http://www.regulations.gov;

          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Carrie Nordeen;
          • Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on MSB Amendment 9.”

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978- 281-9272, fax 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        This amendment is needed to remedy deficiencies in the FMP and to address other issues that have arisen since Amendment 8 to the FMP (64 FR 57587, October 26, 1999) became effective in 1999. Amendment 8 was only partially approved by NMFS because the amendment inadequately addressed some Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requirements for Federal FMPs. Specifically, the amendment was considered deficient with respect to: Consideration of fishing gear impacts on EFH as they relate to MSB fisheries; designation of EFH for Loligo eggs; and the reduction of bycatch and discarding of target and non-target species in the MSB fisheries.

        An earlier draft of Amendment 9, adopted by the Council on February 15, 2007, contained several management measures intended to address deficiencies in the MSB FMP that relate to discarding, especially as they affect butterfish. Specifically, these management measures would have attempted to reduce finfish discards by MSB small-mesh fisheries through mesh size increases in the directed Loligo fishery, removal of mesh size exemptions for the directed Illex fishery, and establishment of seasonal Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs). However, these specific management alternatives were developed in 2004, prior to the butterfish stock being declared overfished.
        In February 2005, NMFS notified the Council that the butterfish stock was overfished and this triggered Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to implement rebuilding measures for the stock. In response, Amendment 10 to the FMP was initiated by the Council in October 2005. Amendment 10 contains a rebuilding program for butterfish with management measures designed to reduce the fishing mortality on butterfish that occurs through discarding. Management measures that reduce the discarding of butterfish are expected to also reduce the bycatch of other finfish species in MSB fisheries. On June 13, 2007, the Council recommended that all management measures developed as part of Amendment 9 to correct deficiencies in the FMP related to bycatch of finfish, especially butterfish, be considered in Amendment 10. Accordingly, no action is proposed in Amendment 9 to address these issues. Through the development and implementation of Amendment 10, each of the measures to reduce the bycatch of finfish will be given full consideration. Additionally, Amendment 10 will include updated analyses on the effects of the alternatives and, as Amendment 10 is expected to be implemented soon after Amendment 9, no meaningful delay in addressing the bycatch deficiencies in the FMP should occur.

        The final version of Amendment 9 contains alternatives that consider allowing for multi-year specifications and management measures, extending or eliminating the moratorium on entry to the directed Illex fishery, revising the biological reference points for Loligo, designating EFH for Loligo eggs, implementing area closures to reduce gear impacts from MSB fisheries on EFH of other federally-managed species, increasing the incidental possession limit for Illex vessels during a closure of the Loligo fishery, and requiring real-time electronic reporting via vessel monitoring systems in the Illex fishery. The Council held four public meetings on Amendment 9 during May 2007. Following the public comment period that ended on May 21, 2007, the Council adopted Amendment 9 on August 6, 2007.

        This rule proposes management measures that were recommended by the Council as part of Amendment 9. Specifically, this rule proposes measures that would: Allow for multi-year specifications for all four species managed under the FMP (mackerel, butterfish, Illex, and Loligo) for up to 3 years; extend the moratorium on entry into the Illex fishery, without a sunset provision; adopt biological reference points for Loligo recommended by the SARC; designate EFH for Loligo eggs based on best available science information; and prohibit bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons.
        A Notice of Availability (NOA) for Amendment 9 was published on March 25, 2008. The comment period on the NOA ends on May 27, 2008.
        Proposed Measures
        The proposed regulations are based on the description of the measures in Amendment 9; NMFS seeks comments on all of the measures in Amendment 9.
        Multi-Year Specifications and Management Measures for MSB

        Regulations at § 648.21 specify that specifications for mackerel, Illex, and butterfish are recommended to the Council on an annual basis, and that specifications for Loligo may be specified for up to 3 years, subject to annual review. To streamline the administrative and regulatory process involved in setting specifications and management measures, Amendment 9 considered multi-year specifications for all four species: Mackerel, Illex, Loligo, and butterfish. Amendment 9 would not establish any specifications measures; rather it would affect the periodocity for specifying such regulatory measures through future Council actions. If the Council chose to propose multi-year specifications, Amendment 9 would require an annual review of updated information on the fishery by the MSB Monitoring Committee, as is the current practice, during the period of the multi-year specifications. The MSB Monitoring Committee would examine data collected from the fishery and resource surveys and would alert the Council of any changes, including those of stock status, that might require a revision to the specifications before the multi-year period elapses.

        The proposed measure would allow for specifications and management measures for any or all of the four species in the FMP to be set for up to 3 years, subject to annual review. In the past, the specifications and management measures for MSB fisheries have remained fairly constant across years. This proposed measure would still enable the Council to respond to changes in stock status, in any given year, by modifying quotas or management measures. However, if changes were not necessary, the Council and NMFS would not have to recommend and implement annual specifications and management measures. Because this proposed measure is largely administrative, it is not anticipated that there will be effects on the environment. This proposed measure does have the potential to provide MSB fishery participants with an expanded planning horizon for harvesting and processing activities; therefore, it may have positive economic effects for MSB fishery participants.
        Moratorium on Entry into the Illex Fishery

        A fishery is considered overcapitalized when the harvest potential of the fishing fleet exceeds the harvest at optimum yield (OY). Amendment 9 considers the Illex fishery overcapitalized; therefore, this amendment considered alternatives that would limit the potential for increases in the harvest capacity of the large-scale, directed Illex fishery.

        In order to prevent excess harvest capacity from developing in the large-scale, directed Illex fishery, a moratorium on new entry into this fishery was established in 1997. In the directed fishery, moratorium-permitted vessels are not subject to any daily Illex possession limit. As such, the maximum potential Illex landings for moratorium-permitted vessels are unlimited until 95 percent of the annual harvest quota has been achieved in any given year. Once 95 percent of the annual quota has been harvested, the possession limit for vessels with Illex moratorium permits becomes 10,000 lb (4.54 mt). The moratorium on new entry was initially scheduled to expire in 2002, but has been extended several times through framework actions. Currently, the moratorium is scheduled to expire in July 2009.

        Throughout the year, a small-scale, incidental catch fishery for Illex is currently provided for through an open-access Federal permit that allows possession of up to 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) of Illex on a single trip. In addition to the 10,000-lb (4.54-mt) trip allowance for Illex, vessels in possession of this permit are also allowed to land 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of Loligo squid and 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of butterfish in a single trip. The Council has not proposed any modifications to this permit in Amendment 9.
        Under the proposed Illex measure, the scheduled expiration of the moratorium would be eliminated. As such, new entry into the directed commercial fishery for Illex would be prohibited indefinitely. The transfer of moratorium permits from one participant to another would only be allowed through the transfer of ownership of a permitted vessel. Since its implementation in 1997, there has been a slight decline in the number of vessels issued an Illex moratorium permit in any given year, from a maximum of 77 in 1998, to 72 in 2003. Under the proposed action, the size of the directed Illex fleet could not expand beyond the number of permitted vessels in the year in which Amendment 9 is implemented, thereby preventing expansion in a fishery that is already overcapitalized and offering the greatest degree of protection to historic participants in the directed Illex fishery.

        The proposed measure is anticipated to have economic benefits for historical participants already possessing Illex moratorium permits and the potential to negatively affect those wanting to become an Illex fishery participant in the future.
        Biological Reference Points for Loligo

        Regulations at § 600.315 state that conservation and management measures should be based upon the best scientific information available, and that FMPs should be amended on a timely basis, as new information indicates the necessity for change in objectives or management measures. Therefore, Amendment 9 considered revising the proxies for target and threshold fishing mortality rates, FTarget and FThreshold, respectively, for Loligo to reflect the analytical advice provided by the most recent Loligo stock assessment review committee (SARC 34). While Amendment 9 considered revising the formulas and values for these reference points, the function of the reference points remains unchanged. FTarget is the basis for determining OY and FThreshold determines whether overfishing is occurring.
        Because Loligo is a sub-annual species (i.e., has a lifespan of less than 1 year), the stock is solely dependent on sufficient recruitment year to year to prevent stock collapse. The status quo proxies for FTarget (75 percent of the fishing morality rate supporting maximum sustainable yield (FMax)) and FThreshold (FMax) may be too liberal and subject the Loligo stock to overfishing. The revised proxies for FTarget and FThreshold proposed in this rule are fixed values based on average fishing mortality rates achieved during a time period when the stock biomass was fairly resilient (1987 - 2000). The revised proxies are calculated as follows: FTarget is the 75th percentile of fishing mortality rates during 1987 - 2000 and FThreshold is the average fishing mortality rates during the same period. The revised proxy for FTarget (0.32 or 0.24 for trimesters and quarters, respectively) would be used as the basis for establishing Loligo OY. However, it should be noted that it is currently not possible to accurately predict Loligo stock biomass because recruitment, which occurs throughout the year, is highly variable inter-annually and influenced by changing environmental conditions.

        Biological reference points that ensure an adequate number of spawners produce adequate recruitment in the subsequent year are considered most appropriate for squid species. However, until such reference points can be reliably estimated for the Loligo stock, the revised reference points in Amendment 9 and proposed in this rule would serve as an intermediate step for calculating harvest levels that are more robust, with respect to stock sustainability, than status quo reference points.
        Designation of EFH for Loligo Eggs
        Amendment 9 considered designating EFH for Loligo eggs in order to bring the FMP into compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement that FMPs describe and identify EFH for each life history stage of a managed species. The MSB FMP currently identifies and describes EFH for all life stages of MSB species for which information is available, with the exception of Loligo eggs. Loligo eggs are found attached to rocks and boulders on sand or mud bottom, as well as attached to aquatic vegetation in coastal and offshore bottom habitats from Georges Bank southward to Cape Hatteras. Generally, the following conditions exist where Loligo egg EFH is found: Bottom water temperatures between 10° C and 23° C; salinities of 30 to 32 ppt; and depths less than 50 m. Locations of fishery interactions with Loligo eggs are reported in Hatfield, E. M. C. and S. X. Cadrin. 2002. Geographic and temporal patterns in size and maturity of the longfin inshore squid (Loligo pealeii) off the northeastern United States. Fish. Bull. 100 (2): 200-213.

        This action proposes to add the above description of EFH for Loligo eggs to the FMP. Some Council members expressed concern that the proposed Loligo egg EFH areas are based on anecdotal information (i.e., interviews with fishermen). Also, they considered it likely that the proposed EFH areas are not constant, but instead shift from year to year. Nevertheless, the information on the locations of Loligo eggs provided in Hatfield and Cadrin (2002) is the best scientific information that is currently available. Additionally, EFH designations are meant to include habitat areas used in different years. Failure to designate EFH for Loligo eggs in Amendment 9 would be inconsistent with the EFH requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

        To the degree that EFH is vulnerable to damage by fishing and/or non-fishing activities, management oversight of these activities in areas designated as EFH for a given life stage of any managed resource will allow for direct and indirect benefits for that resource. That oversight cannot occur, however, without first identifying the geographical locations of EFH. Amendment 9 identifies EFH for Loligo eggs based upon documented observations. By implementing this action, fishing and/or non-fishing activities would not be restricted. However, a requirement would be established whereby NMFS must be consulted to determine whether future Federal non-fishing activities would adversely impact Loligo egg EFH. Also, potential adverse impacts of MSB fisheries on Loligo egg EFH would have to be evaluated in a future management action. A range of habitat protection measures exist that could be implemented if protection of Loligo egg EFH is determined to be necessary. The common feature of these measures is that they conserve or enhance EFH. This could be accomplished by preventing or mitigating non-fishing activities in EFH areas or by reducing fishing effort, or restricting the use of certain gear types or configurations in those areas. Habitat protection provided by these actions would also be extended to other species and ecosystem functions that utilize or are affected by Loligo egg EFH.
        Prohibition on Bottom Trawling to Reduce Gear Impacts on EFH by MSB Fisheries

        Amendment 9 considered reducing gear impacts on EFH by MSB fisheries in order to bring the FMP into compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. The FMP currently lacks adequate analysis of the effects of MSB fisheries on EFH for federally managed species within the geographic scope of the MSB fisheries. Such an analysis has been conducted as part of Amendment 9, and the results indicate that actions could be taken that would reduce impacts to EFH for federally managed species related to the activities of the MSB fisheries by prohibiting bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels. The proposed action is not intended to minimize adverse impacts to EFH for Loligo, Illex, mackerel, or butterfish, since EFH for the pelagic life stages of these species was determined to be not vulnerable to the effects of fishing.
        This action proposes to prohibit bottom trawling in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons by MSB-permitted vessels. MSB-permitted vessels transiting these canyons would need to stow all bottom trawl gear. While Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons are only minimally used by vessels with bottom trawl gear, this action will prevent future expansion of MSB fisheries into these canyons. This prohibition was determined to be practicable by the Council and is similar to regulations associated with the New England Fishery Management Council's Monkfish FMP (i.e., vessels on a monkfish day-at-sea are prohibited from entering these canyons). Even though this action does not prohibit bottom trawling by other federally permitted vessels in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons, this prohibition would benefit habitat in these canyons by deceasing localized damage from bottom trawling. Decreased fishery interactions with the managed stocks, non-target species, and protected and endangered species in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons are also expected, and this would correspond to localized benefits to these resources. The areas affected by the proposed measure represent 3 percent of the total EFH for juvenile tilefish, but not more than 2 percent for any other species.
        Short-term costs to fishery participants are related to the size of the area where bottom trawling would be prohibited and how frequently those areas are utilized by fishery participants (see IRFA for complete economic analysis). The prohibition of bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons is likely to have a minimal impact on revenues both for vessel owners and ports. Other restricted area alternatives considered by the Council would have provided greater habitat protection, but were not practicable because their potential economic impact would be higher.
        Public comments are being solicited on Amendment 9 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period, May 27, 2008, stated in the NOA for Amendment 9 (73 FR 15716, March 25, 2008). Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by May 27, 2008, the end of the comment period specified in the NOA for Amendment 9, to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by May 27, 2008, whether specifically directed to Amendment 9 or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 9. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove Amendment 9. To be considered, comments must be received by 5 pm, eastern standard time, on the last day of the comment period.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        The Council prepared an FSEIS for Amendment 9; a notice of availability was published on March 28, 2008 (73 FR 16672). The FSEIS describes the impacts of the proposed Amendment 9 measures on the environment. The proposed measures that would allow for multi-year specifications and revised biological reference points for Loligo are largely administrative. However, they will provide for an expanded planning horizon for harvesting and processing activities and a fixed constant as a basis for the fishing target definition, respectively. The measure to designate EFH for Loligo eggs will not directly affect the environment, but it will allow future impacts to EFH for Loligo eggs to be identified and mitigated. Extending the moratorium on entry into the Illex fishery without a sunset provision and prohibiting bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons will have short-term, negative economic impacts, but are expected to have long-term benefits on the biological and physical environment.

        The IRFA for this action is summarized below, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble of this rule. A summary of the IRFA follows:
        Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Would Apply

        There are no large entities participating in this fishery, as none grossed more than 4 million dollars annually, therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts on small entities. The proposed measures in Amendment 9 would affect all MSB-permitted vessels; however, many of the proposed measures (e.g., multi-year specifications, revised biological reference points for Loligo, designation of EFH for Loligo eggs) are not expected to have direct economic impacts. Section 6.5 (Human Communities) in Amendment 9 describes the number of vessels, key ports, and revenue information for each of the MSB fisheries; therefore, that information is not repeated here.
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        This action does not contain any new collection-of-information, reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
        Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action Compared to Significant Non-Selected Alternatives

        As described previously, several of the proposed measures in Amendment 9 are not anticipated to have direct economic effects on MSB fisheries. Implementing multi-year specifications and management measures for all four managed species has the potential to provide MSB fishery participants with an expanded planning horizon for harvesting and processing activities. Therefore, it may have positive economic effects for MSB fishery participants when compared to the non-selected alternative of no action (annual specifications and management measures for mackerel, Illex, and butterfish; multi-year specifications and management measures for Loligo). This could lead to better business plans and ultimately greater economic benefits. Amendment 9 contained two alternatives that would have provided for multi-year specifications and management measures; the proposed action allows for multi-year specifications for up to 3 years, subject to annual review, and a non-selected alternative would have provided for multi-year specifications for up to 5 years, subject to annual review. The 3-year alternative was selected as the proposed action because management based on 3-year stock projections, rather than 5-year stock projections, is likely more appropriate for MSB species, given their relatively brief life spans, but it is difficult to assign a dollar value to this effect.
        The proposed revisions to biological reference points (FTarget and FThreshold) for Loligo are primiarily administrative and are not expected to have direct economic effects on fishery participants. Revising the reference points is consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to use the best scientific information available, as compared to the non-selective alternative of no action (using status quo reference points for FTarget and FThreshold), but the economic impacts of the proposed action are difficult to predict. The revised reference points are not expected to result in an immediate change in the Loligo quota; the annual quota has been set at 17,000 mt each year since 2001. Consumer demand for Loligo will affect Loligo prices, which, in turn, will result in economic impacts on Loligo harvesters, processors, and consumers that are currently unquantifiable. To those consumers for whom Loligo is a desirable food item, increased availability of the resource, if it occurs, would be expected to provide a beneficial effect. If, on the other hand, the Loligo stock size decreases such that harvest costs increase, then Loligo prices would be expected to increase. Because the revised biological reference points are considered more robust, with respect to stock sustainability, than the status quo reference points, it is expected that there would be some long-term economic benefits associated with the revised reference points as compared to benefits associated with the status quo reference points.
        Additionally, the proposed measure of designating EFH for Loligo eggs is not anticipated to have any direct economic effects on MSB participants, when compared to the non-selected alternative of not designating EFH for Loligo eggs. Designating EFH for Loligo eggs does not result in an immediate action that would restrict fishing or non-fishing activities. However, a requirement would be established whereby consultation with NMFS would be required for future Federal fishing and non-fishing activities that may adversely affect Loligo egg EFH. The proposed meaure has the potential to indirectly impact human communities if, at some point in the future, management actions are implemented in order to reduce fishing effort or decrease non-fishing impacts in those EFH areas. Because the specifics of any future actions are speculative at this point, it is unclear what the nature of the impacts on human communities, if any, would be. In the long term, however, protection of habitat needed by Loligo eggs is expected to improve the sustainability of the Loligo resource, and other managed resources that share those habitats, indirectly benefitting human communities dependent on those resources. An analysis of the likely impacts of specific future actions would be required prior to their implementation.

        Amendment 9 contains two proposed measures that may have economic effects on MSB fisheries. The first of these proposed measures is extending the moratorium on entry into the Illex fishery, without a sunset provision. Because the present fleet is capable of harvesting in excess of the recent Illex quota of 24,000 mt, there is a clear need for a moratorium on entry into the fishery. International market reports suggesting that the world supplies of squid will be tight for several years and, therefore, prices are expected to be high, coupled with the fact that resource productivity is low to moderate, supports making the moratorium permanent. Unfortunately, the benefits and costs of the moratorium options cannot be easily analyzed. The available information suggests that, if the moratorium were terminated (a non-selected alternative) or were allowed to expire in 2009 (a non-selected alternative), and economic and resource conditions remain relatively unchanged from recent levels, there would not be any substantial increase in landings of Illex relative to the landings likely to occur, with or without a moratorium. If, however, economic conditions changed to promote increased activity on Illex as occurred in 2004, landings of Illex would increase. Moratorium alternatives offer protection against risk of an expanding fishery and risk of further depressing the resource. These options, however, do not appear to generate landings, revenue, or potential benefit streams any different that those levels most likely to occur with a removal of the moratorium (given current conditions). Moratorium alternatives (without a sunset provision (proposed action) or without a sunset provision, but allowing new entry through permit transfer (a non-selected alternative)) would impose some short-term costs in that they constrain expansion of the fishery, either until 2009 or permanently. That is, individuals desiring to enter the fishery would be denied the potential revenues that might be realized if they could land more Illex, unless they purchased an Illex permitted vessel (proposed action) or an existing Illex permit (non-selected alternative). Failure to extend the moratorium could result in further overcapitalization of this sector of the fishing industry, which in turn could have negative economic consequences for the vessels and communities that depend upon the Illex resource. Extension of the Illex moratorium program would provide positive benefits to the communities that are dependent on the commercial Illex fishery. The primary ports and surrounding communities where Illex are landed would be the most affected by this action (see Section 6.5.1 of Amendment 9 for information on primary ports).
        The second proposed measure in Amendment 9 that may have economic effects on MSB fisheries is prohibiting bottom trawling in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons by MSB-permitted vessels. The proposed action and non-selected alternatives prohibiting bottom trawling (either at the head of Hudson Canyon or in the tilefish habitat area of particular concern (HAPC)) would benefit habitat in the closed areas by decreasing localized damage from bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels as compared to the no action, non-selected alternative (no new areas closed to bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels). Decreased fishery interactions with the managed stocks, non-target species, and protected and endangered species are also expected to be associated with action alternatives, and this would correspond to localized benefits to these resources.
        Short-term costs to fishery participants are related to the size of the closure area. Analyses of ex-vessel revenues from MSB-permitted bottom trawl vessels were conducted for 2001-2004. The results indicated that closing tilefish HAPC (non-selected alternative) to bottom otter trawling during that period would have reduced annual revenue from bottom otter trawling by 10 percent or more for about 162 MSB-permitted vessels. With regard to port impacts, ex-vessel revenues from MSB-permitted bottom trawling in the tilefish HAPC area represented large percentages of total revenues (30 - 50 percent) from Point Judith, RI; Point Pleasant, NJ; Montauk, NY; Point Lookout, NY; and Hampton Bays, NY. Closing the Head of Hudson Canyon (non-selected alternative) to bottom otter trawling in 2001-2004 would have reduced ex-vessel revenues by 10 percent or more for about 64 MSB-permitted bottom trawl vessels. Ports that would experience the greatest percentage of revenue loss consist of Belford, NJ (13.9 percent); Elizabeth, NJ (16.5 percent); Point Pleasant, NJ (33.6 percent); and Point Lookout, NY (46.6 percent). Geographical analysis of fishing effort reveals minimal use of bottom trawl gear in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons; therefore, the closure of Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons (proposed action) would likely have minimal impacts on revenues both for vessel owners and ports.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

        Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: March 28, 2008.
          James W. Balsiger,
          Acting Assistant Administrator For Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

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

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

          2. In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(5)(i) is revised to read as follows:

            § 648.4
            Vessel permits.

            (a) * * *
            (5) * * *
            (i) Loligo squid/butterfish and Illex squid moratorium permits.

            3. In § 648.14, paragraph (p)(12) is added to read as follows:

            § 648.14
            Prohibitions.

            (p) * * *
            (12) Enter or be in the areas described at § 648.23(a)(5).

            4. In § 648.20, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

            § 648.20
            Maximum optimum yield.

            (b) Loligo - the catch associated with a fishing mortality rate of FThreshold.

            5. In § 648.21, paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) are revised to read as follows:

            § 648.21
            Procedures for determining initial annual amounts.

            (a)* * *

            (1) Initial OY (IOY), including research quota (RQ), domestic annual harvest (DAH), and domestic annual processing (DAP) for Illex squid, which, subject to annual review, may be specified for a period of up to 3 years;
            (2) IOY, including RQ, DAH, DAP, and bycatch level of the total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF), if any, for butterfish, which, subject to annual review, may be specified for a period of up to 3 years;
            (3) IOY, including RQ, DAH, DAP, joint venture processing (JVP), if any, and TALFF, if any, for mackerel, which, subject to annual review, may be specified for a period of up to 3 years. The Monitoring Committee may also recommend that certain ratios of TALFF, if any, for mackerel to purchases of domestic harvested fish and/or domestic processed fish be established in relation to the initial annual amounts.

            (4) Initial OY (IOY), including research quota (RQ), domestic annual harvest (DAH), and domestic annual processing (DAP) for Loligo squid, which, subject to annual review, may be specified for a period of up to 3 years; and

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

            § 648.23
            Gear restrictions.
            (a) * * *
            (5) Mackerel, squid, and butterfish bottom trawling restricted areas-(i) Oceanographer Canyon. No permitted mackerel, squid, or butterfish vessel may fish with bottom trawl gear in the Oceanographer Canyon or be in the Oceanographer Canyon unless transiting. Vessels may transit this area provided the bottom trawl gear is stowed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section. Oceanographer Canyon is defined by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated (copies of a chart depicting this area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request):

              Oceanographer Canyon

                Point
                N. Lat.
                W. Long.

                OC1
                40°10.0′
                68°12.0′

                OC2
                40°24.0′
                68°09.0′

                OC3
                40°24.0′
                68°08.0′

                OC4
                40°10.0′
                67°59.0′

                OC1
                40°10.0′
                68°12.0′

            (ii) Lydonia Canyon. No permitted mackerel, squid, or butterfish vessel may fish with bottom trawl gear in the Lydonia Canyon or be in the Lydonia Canyon unless transiting. Vessels may transit this area provided the bottom trawl gear is stowed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section. Lydonia Canyon is defined by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated (copies of a chart depicting this area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request):

              Lydonia Canyon

                Point
                N. Lat.
                W. Long.

                LC1
                40°16.0′
                67°34.0′

                LC2
                40°16.0′
                67°42.0′

                LC3
                40°20.0′
                67°43.0′

                LC4
                40°27.0′
                67°40.0′

                LC5
                40°27.0′
                67°38.0′

                LC1
                40°16.0′
                67°34.0′

      [FR Doc. E8-7025 Filed 4-3-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 09-415; MB Docket No. 09-7; RM-11424]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; McNary, AZ

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This document requests comments on a petition for rulemaking filed on behalf of William S. Konopnicki, requesting the allotment of Channel 249C1 at McNary, Arizona. Channel 249C1 can be allotted to McNary consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's Rules with the imposition of a site restriction located 0.3 kilometers (0.2 miles) northeast of the community using reference coordinates 34-04-30 NL and 109-51-15 WL.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before June 29, 2009, and reply comments on or before July 13, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner as follows: Jeffrey D. Southmayd, Esq., c/o William S. Konopnicki, Southmayd & Miller, 1220 19th Street, NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 09-7, adopted February 18, 2009, and released February 20, 2009. An Erratum, DA 09-1087 was released on May 19, 2009, changing the comments and reply comments dates in this proceeding. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or via e-mail http://www.BCPIWEB.com. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed 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).
        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Arizona, is amended by adding McNary, Channel 249C1.

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

      [FR Doc. E9-12534 Filed 5-28-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 191008-0058]
        RIN 0648-BJ17
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagics Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; Control Date

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

          ACTION:
          Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking; consideration of a control date.

          SUMMARY:
          This document announces the establishment of a control date of March 7, 2019, for the commercial sector of Spanish mackerel. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council) may use the control date if it decides to create restrictions limiting participation in the commercial sector for Spanish mackerel. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) would also need to approve any restrictions to the Federal commercial Spanish mackerel permit. Anyone entering the sector after the control date would not be assured of future access should a management program that limits participation in the sector be prepared and implemented. This announcement is intended, in part, to promote awareness of the potential eligibility criteria for future access to discourage speculative entry into the Spanish mackerel commercial sector while the South Atlantic Council and NMFS consider whether and how access to the sector should be further controlled.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by November 14, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2019-0083” by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0083, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Nikhil Mehta, 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).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Nikhil Mehta, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: nikhil.mehta@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The coastal migratory pelagic (CMP) fishery in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic regions is managed jointly by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils). The Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP) includes king mackerel and Spanish mackerel, and cobia in the Gulf of Mexico. The FMP was prepared by the Councils and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
        Spanish mackerel is not currently overfished or undergoing overfishing. However, as a result of increased commercial effort and exceedance of the commercial annual catch limit in recent years, the South Atlantic Council requested at their June 2019 meeting that NMFS publish a control date of March 7, 2019, for the Spanish mackerel commercial permit. The final rule for Amendment 2 to the FMP (52 FR 23836; June 25, 1987), established an open access Federal commercial permit for both Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico migratory groups of Spanish mackerel. The control date enables the South Atlantic Council to inform current and potential participants that it is considering creating restrictions that may limit participation in the Spanish mackerel commercial sector. The South Atlantic Council may consider creating a limited access permit system for the Spanish mackerel commercial sector where the number of participants could be restricted through permit limitations to control the amount of effort. Other options may include, but are not limited to, a limited access gillnet endorsement in the Atlantic southern zone (North Carolina/South Carolina boundary to the Miami-Dade/Monroe County, Florida, boundary), and collaboration with state agencies.
        This document informs participants who enter the commercial sector for Spanish mackerel after March 7, 2019, that they may not be ensured participation under future management of this portion of the CMP fishery. If the South Atlantic Council decides to restrict participation in the Spanish mackerel commercial sector in relation to this control date, an amendment to the FMP with analysis of specific biological, economic, and social effects will be prepared at that time. Any future amendment addressing modifications to the Spanish mackerel commercial permit in relation to this control date would require approval by both Councils.

        In addition to an amendment to the FMP, implementation of any such changes would require publication of a notice of availability and proposed rule in the Federal Register with public comment periods, and, if approved by the Secretary of Commerce, issuance of a final rule.
        Fishermen are not guaranteed future participation in a fishery or sector regardless of their entry date or intensity of participation in the fishery or sector before or after the control date under consideration. The South Atlantic Council subsequently may choose a different control date or a different management program without using a control date. The South Atlantic Council also may choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the Spanish mackerel commercial sector.
        NMFS invites comments on the establishment of this control date. This notification also gives the public notice that interested participants should locate and preserve records that substantiate and verify their participation in the Spanish mackerel commercial sector.

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

          Dated: October 8, 2019.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2019-22317 Filed 10-11-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 04-963; MB Docket No. 04-113, RM-10923, RM-10898; MB Docket No. 04-114, RM-10924, 10925; MB Docket No. 04-115, RM-10926; MB Docket No. 04-116, RM-10927; MB Docket No. 04-117, RM-10928; MB Docket No. 04-118, RM-10929; MB Docket No. 04-119, RM-10930; MB Docket No. 04-120, RM-10931, MB Docket No. 04-121, RM-10932; MB Docket No. 04-122, RM-10933, RM-10934; MB Docket No. 04-123, RM-10935; MB Docket No. 04-124, RM-10936, RM-10937, RM-10938, RM-10939; MB Docket No. 04-125, RM-10940]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Amherst, NY, Berthold, ND, Cordell, OK, Dallas, OR, Dillsboro, NC, Hubbardston, MI, Huntsville, MO, Laurie, MO, Madison, MO, Madras, OR, Weatherford, OK, West Tisbury, MA, Wynnewood, OK

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          This document sets forth thirteen reservation proposals requesting to amend the FM Table of Allotments by reserving certain vacant FM allotments for noncommercial educational use in Amherst, NY, Berthold, ND, Cordell, OK, Dallas, OR, Dillsboro, NC, Hubbardston, MI, Huntsville, MO, Laurie, MO, Madison, MO, Madras, OR, Weatherford, OK, West Tisbury, MA, Wynnewood, OK. The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed Starboard Media Foundation, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 282A at West Tisbury, MA, vacant Channel 237A at Dillsboro, NC, and Channel 264C at Berthold, ND for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *282A at West Tisbury are 41-22-52 North Latitude and 70-40-30 West Longitude. The reference coordinates for Channel *237A at Dillsboro are 35-15-56 North Latitude and 89-9-16 West Longitude. The reference coordinates for Channel *264C at Berthold are 48-18-54 North Latitude and 101-44-22 West Longitude. The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by Living Proof, Inc. and Lansing Community College proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 279A at Hubbardston, MI. The reference coordinates for Channel *279A at Hubbardston are 43-5-53 North Latitude and 84-51-54 West Longitude. See
            SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, infra.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before June 7, 2004, and reply comments on or before June 22, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, his counsel, or consultant, as follows: Mark Follett, Starboard Media Foundation, Inc., 2300 Riverside Drive, Green Bay, WI 54301; Harry C. Martin, Esq. and Lee G. Petro, Esq., c/o Living Proof, Inc., Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth PLC, 1300 North 17th Street, 11th Floor, Arlington, VA 22209; John Crigler, c/o Lansing Community College, Garvey Schubert Barer, 1000 Potomac Street, NW., Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20007; Patrick J. Vaughn, General Counsel, American Family Association, Post Office Drawer 2440, Tupelo, MS 38803; Arthur H. Harding, Esq., Christopher G. Wood, Esq., Mark B. Denbo, Esq., c/o Youngshine Media, Inc., Fleischman and Walsh, L.L.P., 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20006; Russell C. Powell, Esq., c/o Great Plains Christian Radio, Inc., Taylor & Powell, LLP, 908 King Street, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314; Todd D. Gray, Esq., Margaret L. Miller, Esq. and Barry S. Persh, Esq., c/o University of Oklahoma, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC, 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036; Jeffrey D. Southmayd, Esq., c/o Sister Sherry Lynn Foundation, Inc., Southmayd & Miller, 1220 19th Street, NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036; Betty McArdle, Vice-President/Treasurer, Northwest Community Radio Project, 3740 SW Comus Street, Portland, OR 97219; Donald E. Martin, Esq., c/o Dallas, Oregon Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Donald E. Martin, P.C., P.O. Box 8433, Falls Church, VA 22041, William J. Byrnes, Esq., c/o Radio Bilingue, Inc., 7921 Old Falls Road, McLean, VA 22102; David A. O'Connor, Esq., c/o Lifetime Ministries, Inc., Holland & Knight LLP, 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20006.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket Nos. 04-113, 04-114, 04-115, 04-116, 04-117, 04-118, 04-119, 04-120, 04-121, 04-122, 04-123, 04-124, 04-125 adopted April 12, 2004 and released April 14, 2004. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

        The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by American Family Association proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 278C2 at Huntsville, MO, vacant Channel 265C3 at Laurie, MO, and vacant Channel 247C3 at Madison, MO for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *278C2 at Huntsville are 39-29-45 North Latitude and 92-25-5 West Longitude. The reference coordinates for Channel *265C3 at Laurie are 38-8-30 North Latitude and 92-50-37 West Longitude. The reference coordinates for Channel *247C3 at Madison are 39-24-37 North Latitude and 92-10-58 West Longitude.
        The Audio Division requests comment on a petition filed by Youngshine Media, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 221A at Amherst, NY for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *221A at Amherst are 42-58-42 North Latitude and 78-48-0 West Longitude.
        The Audio Division requests comment on a petition filed by Great Plains Christian Radio, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 229A at Cordell, OK for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *229A at Cordell are 35-17-24 North Latitude and 98-59-24 West Longitude.
        The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by Great Plains Christian Radio, Inc. and University of Oklahoma proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 286A at Weatherford, OK for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *286A at Weatherford are 35-33-2 North Latitude and 98-43-59 West Longitude.
        The Audio Division requests comment on a petition filed by Sister Sherry Lynn Foundation, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 283A at Wynnewood, OK for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *283A at Wynnewood are 34-38-42 North Latitude and 97-10-0 West Longitude.
        The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by Northwest Community Radio Project, Dallas, Oregon Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Radio Bilingue, Inc., and Lifetime Ministries, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 252C3 at Dallas, Oregon for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *252C3 at Dallas are 44-55-6 North Latitude and 123-19-0 West Longitude.
        The Audio Division request comment on a petition filed by Radio Bilingue, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 251C1 at Madras, Oregon for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *251C1 at Madras are 44-50-2 NL and 120-45-55 WL. Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Massachusetts, is amended by adding Channel *282A and by removing Channel 282A at West Tisbury.
            3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Michigan, is amended by adding Channel *279A and by removing Channel 279A at Hubbardston.
            4. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Missouri, is amended by adding Channel *278C2 and by removing Channel 278C2 at Huntsville; by adding Channel *265C3 and by removing Channel 265C3 at Laurie; by adding Channel *247C3 and by removing Channel 247C3 at Madison.
            5. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under North Carolina, is amended by adding Channel *237A and by removing Channel 237A at Dillsboro.
            6. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under North Dakota, is amended by adding Channel *264C and by removing Channel 264C at Berthold.
            7. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under New York, is amended by adding Channel *221A and by removing Channel 221A at Amherst.
            8. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Oklahoma, is amended by adding Channel *229A and by removing Channel 229A at Cordell; by adding Channel *286A and by removing Channel 286A at Weatherford; by adding Channel *283A and by removing Channel 283A at Wynnewood.
            9. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Oregon, is amended by adding Channel *252C3 and by removing Channel 252C3 at Dallas; and by adding Channel *251C1 and by removing Channel 251C1 at Madras.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            Peter H. Doyle,
            Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 04-10681 Filed 5-11-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 0908131233-91234-01]
        RIN 0648-XQ14
        Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries; 2009-10 Main Hawaiian Islands Bottomfish Total Allowable Catch

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed specification; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to specify establish a total allowable catch (TAC) for the 2009-10 fishing year of 254,050 lb (115,235 kg) of Deep 7 bottomfish in the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI). The TAC would be set in accordance with regulations established to support long-term sustainability of Hawaii bottomfish in the Hawaiian Archipelago.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by September 8, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on this proposed specification, identified by 0648-XQ14, may be sent to either of the following addresses:

          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov; or
          • Mail: William L. Robinson, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd, Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700.

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (if you wish to remain anonymous, enter “NA” in the required name and organization fields). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of the Fishery Management Plan for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Bottomfish FMP) and the related Environmental Impact Statement are available from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, or www.wpcouncil.org.

          An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared that describes the impact on the human environment that would result from this proposed action. This action, specification of a TAC, is exempt from the procedures of E.O. 12866 because this action contains no implementing regulations and therefore a Regulatory Impact Review was not prepared. Based on the environmental impact analyses presented in the EA, NMFS prepared a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the proposed action. Copies of the EA and FONSI are available from www.regulations.gov, or the Council (see ADDRESSES).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, 808-944-2108.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This Federal Register document is available at www.gpoaccess.gov/fr.

        The bottomfish fishery in Federal waters around Hawaii is managed under the Bottomfish FMP, developed by the Council and implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing bottomfish fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the Bottomfish FMP appear at 50 CFR part 665 and subpart H of 50 CFR part 600. Currently, bottomfish stocks in the Hawaiian Archipelago are not experiencing overfishing, and efforts to minimize localized stock depletion in the MHI Management Subarea are precautionary. The MHI Management Subarea refers to the portion of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone around the Hawaiian Archipelago lying to the east of 161° 20' long.

        Pursuant to regulations at § 665.72, NMFS must is directed to specify a TAC limit for Deep 7 bottomfish in the MHI for the fishing year, based on a recommendation from the Council, considering the best available scientific, commercial, and other information, and taking into account the associated risk of overfishing. The Deep 7 bottomfish are onaga (Etelis coruscans), ehu (E. carbunculus), gindai (Pristipomoides zonatus), kalekale (P. sieboldii), opakapaka (P. filamentosus), lehi (Aphareus rutilans), and hapu‘upu‘u (Epinephelus quernus).
        When the TAC for the year is projected to be reached, NMFS will close the non-commercial and commercial fisheries until the end of the fishing year (August 31). During a fishery closure for Deep 7 bottomfish, no person may fish for, possess, or sell any of these fish in the MHI, except as otherwise authorized by law. Specifically, fishing for, and the resultant possession or sale of, Deep 7 bottomfish by vessels legally registered to Mau Zone, Ho‘omalu Zone, or Pacific Remote Island Areas bottomfish fishing permits, and conducted in compliance with all other laws and regulations, are not affected by the closure. There is no prohibition on fishing for or selling other non-Deep 7 bottomfish species throughout the year.
        For the Last year (2008-09 fishing year), the TAC was of 241,000 lb (109,316 kg) of Deep-7 bottomfish in the MHI (74 FR 6998; February 12, 2009). Monitoring of the commercial fishery indicated that the TAC for the 2008-09 fishing year was projected to be reached by on or before July 6, 2009, and, in accordance with the regulations at § 665.72, NMFS published a temporary rule closing the non-commercial and commercial MHI bottomfish fisheries on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 27253; June 9, 2009). The fishery is scheduled to re-open on September 1, 2009.
        At its 145th meeting in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, held July 20-25, 2009, the Council reviewed a background document and an preliminary initial EA that which incorporated data from an updated March 2009 bottomfish stock assessment published by NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC). These documents were available at the Council's 145th meeting. After considering the information in the initial EA, risks of overfishing, and recommendations from the Council's Science and Statistical Committee, and input from the public, the Council recommended a TAC of 254,050 lb (115,235 kg) of MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for the 2009-2010 fishing year.Language from FONSI inserted here (Subject to Change):
        Based on the updated March 2009 bottomfish stock assessment prepared by NMFS PIFSC, the proposed 2009-10 TAC is associated with a zero percent risk of overfishing of Hawaiian archipelagic bottomfish stocks, ; and between 39- and 44 percent risk of localized depletion (or excess fishing mortality) of the MHI management subarea bottomfish stocks. These risk values are similar to those estimated by PIFSC for the 2008 - 2009 fishing year (i.e., zero and 40 percent, respectively)(74 FR 6998; February 12, 2009).

        NMFS will consider the Council's recommendation, potential environmental and economic affects of the proposed TAC, and comments received during the public comment period for this proposed specification, and will announce the final TAC specification in the Federal Register. To be considered, comments on this proposed specification must be received by September 8, 2009, not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.
        Regardless of the final TAC specification, all other management measures will continue to apply in the MHI bottomfish fishery. The MHI bottomfish fishery is scheduled to re-open on September 1, 2009, and will continue until August 31, 2010, unless the fishery is closed prior to August 31 as a result of the TAC being reached.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that this proposed specification is consistent with the Bottomfish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson- Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities
        The Chief Council for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Council 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.

          Language from SBA Letter (Drafted by M. Razin):A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule. There are approximately 380 vessels engaged in the commercial harvest of MHI bottomfish. Average gross receipts per vessel for the 2008-2009 fishery was $3,577.00, based on a price of $5.64 per lb and a harvest of the 2008-2009 TAC specification of 241,000 lb. In general, the relative importance of MHI bottomfish to commercial participants as a percentage of overall fishing (or household) income is unknown, as the total suite of fishing (or other income-generating) activities undertaken by individual operations across the year has not been examined, to date. The majority of the 380 vessels comprising the affected universe were under 30 ft (9.1 m) in length overall.

          Based on all available information, NMFS has determined that all vessels in the current fishery are small entities under the Small Business Administration definition of a small entity, i.e., they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, are independently owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $4 million. Therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Furthermore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of vessels based on gear, home port, or vessel length. Assuming an average price of $ 5.64 per lb, the proposed TAC specification of 254,050 lbs (115,235 kg) is expected to yield $1,432,842.00 in total revenue, or an average of $3,770.00 in revenue per vessel, compared to $3,577.00 per vessel for the 2008-2009 fishery. This is resulting in an expected five 5 percent increase in revenue per vessel from implementing the proposed specification. Even though there would be a substantial number of vessels, i.e., 100 percent of the bottomfish fleet, affected by this specification, there would be no significantly adverse economic impact to individual vessels resulting from the implementation of this specification. Therefore, pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), NMFS has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        This action is exempt from review under the procedures of E.O. 12866 because this action contains no implementing regulations.

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

          Dated: August 19, 2009.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E9-20327 Filed 8-21-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [I.D. 020107A]
        RIN 0648-AT55
        Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; Management Measures for Bigeye Tuna Pacific-Wide and Yellowfin Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of Fishery Management Plan (FMP) amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS announces the availability, for public review and comment, of proposed Amendment 14 to the FMP for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Pelagics FMP). The amendment responds to the Secretary of Commerce's determination that overfishing is occurring on bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) Pacific-wide, and on yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) in the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). The measures in the amendment are designed to end overfishing of bigeye tuna Pacific-wide and yellowfin tuna in the WCPO, as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Amendment 14 would establish Federal permitting and reporting requirements for all U.S. Hawaii-based small boat commercial pelagic fishermen. Internationally, Amendment 14 would establish for the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) an internal protocol related to its role in managing pelagic fish stocks that are managed internationally, including its participation in U.S. delegations to meetings of regional fishery management organizations (RFMOs). This amendment also recommends that NMFS and the Department of State work through the RFMOs to immediately end overfishing of bigeye tuna Pacific-wide and WCPO yellowfin tuna, focusing on fisheries with the greatest impact on Pacific bigeye tuna and WCPO yellowfin tuna, i.e., longline and purse seine fisheries.

          DATES:
          Comments on the amendment must be received by April 16, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on Pelagics Amendment 14, identified by AT55Tuna, may be sent to any of the following addresses:
          • E-mail: AT55Tuna@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier “AT55Tuna.” Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10 megabyte file size.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: William L. Robinson, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd, Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700.
          An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for this amendment. Copies of the Pelagics FMP and Amendment 14 (containing the EA) may be obtained from Kitty M. Simonds, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Bob Harman, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2271.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Pelagics FMP Amendment 14, developed by the Council, has been submitted to NMFS for review under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. This notice announces that the amendment is available for public review and comment for 60 days. NMFS will consider public comments received during the comment period in determining whether to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 14.
        On December 15, 2004, NMFS notified the Council that overfishing was occurring on bigeye tuna Pacific-wide. On March 16, 2006, NMFS notified the Council that overfishing was occurring on western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) yellowfin tuna. As required by the MSA, the Council was requested to take appropriate action to end overfishing. Pelagics FMP Amendment 14 contains the Council's recommended actions to end overfishing for both stocks.
        Bigeye and yellowfin tuna are highly migratory species, and occur in the waters of multiple nations and the high seas. Consequently, they are targeted by fishing fleets of several nations, including the United States of America. Until recently, the majority of bigeye tuna in the Pacific Ocean was caught by longliners, primarily for the Japanese sashimi market. During the last 10 years, however, catches of bigeye tuna by purse seiners have increased considerably. Purse seine-caught bigeye tuna are taken primarily when purse seiners targeting skipjack and yellowfin tuna set their nets around fish aggregating devices (FADs). Smaller amounts are also taken by handline and troll vessels. Yellowfin tuna in the WCPO are caught primarily by purse seiners. WCPO longline, pole-and-line, handline and troll fisheries also catch substantial amounts of yellowfin tuna.

        According to the guidelines for National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (50 CFR 600.310), fishery stock status is assessed with respect to two status determination criteria, one of which is used to determine whether a stock is “overfished,” and the second of which is used to determine if the stock is subject to “overfishing.” A stock is considered to be overfished if its biomass falls below the minimum stock size threshold (MSST). Overfishing means that fishing is occurring at a rate or level that jeopardizes the capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY) on a continuing basis. When a stock is not in an overfished condition, the maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) is equal to the fishing mortality associated with MSY (FMSY). The latest stock assessments for bigeye tuna in the Pacific and WCPO yellowfin tuna have concluded that the biomass of neither stock is below their respective MSST. However, the assessments used as a basis for the overfishing determinations (conducted in 2003 and 2004 for Pacific bigeye tuna and 2005 and 2006 for WCPO yellowfin tuna) indicated that the then-current level of fishing mortality did exceed the stocks' respective MFMTs. Consequently, NMFS determined that overfishing was occurring on the Pacific-wide stock of bigeye tuna and on the WCPO stock of yellowfin tuna.
        At its 133rd meeting in June, 2006, the Council took action to recommend several management measures that would be established by Pelagics FMP Amendment 14. The Council's management recommendations would constitute a foundation plan for the Council, NMFS, and the Department of State to end overfishing of bigeye tuna Pacific-wide and WCPO yellowfin tuna.
        Pelagics FMP Amendment 14 calls for NMFS to enhance data quality for U.S. Hawaii-based small boat pelagic fisheries through mandatory Federal permits and data-collection programs (logbooks) for commercial small-boat fisheries, and improved surveys and voluntary reporting for recreational fisheries.

        Pelagics FMP Amendment 14 acknowledges that the Council recommended a control date of June 2, 2005, for entry into the small boat commercial pelagic fisheries in U.S. EEZ waters around Hawaii. On August 15, 2005, NMFS published a notice of this control date (70 FR 47781). The amendment also acknowledges that the Council recommended a control date of June 2, 2005, for entry into domestic longline and purse seine fisheries in U.S. EEZ waters in the western Pacific. On August 15, 2005, NMFS published a notice of this control date (70 FR 47782). These control dates were implemented to notify the public that future participation in these fisheries was not guaranteed if the Council and NMFS developed and implemented limited access programs for the fisheries. Establishment of these control dates does not, however, commit the Council or NMFS to any particular management regime or criteria for entry into these fisheries.
        The international scope of the overfishing situation, and measures to meaningfully address the problem, must be addressed through RFMOs, such as the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Internationally, Pelagics FMP Amendment 14 contains several proposed non-regulatory measures and recommendations, including the establishment for the Council an internal protocol related to its role in managing pelagic fish stocks that are managed internationally (including steps the Council would take to monitor the status of internationally managed fish stocks, participate in U.S. delegations in meetings with RFMOs, and follow the activities of RFMOs). The Council also recommends that NMFS and the Department of State work through RFMOs to immediately end overfishing of bigeye tuna Pacific-wide and WCPO yellowfin tuna, focusing on fisheries with the greatest impact on Pacific bigeye tuna and WCPO yellowfin tuna, i.e., longline and purse seine fisheries. Specific international recommendations include plans for reducing longline fishing capacity, reducing purse seine fishing capacity and restrictions on the use of FADs while purse seine fishing, establishment and gradual reduction of national quotas, and other measures.
        Bigeye tuna is also a management unit species under the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP). The Pacific Council has worked with the Western Pacific Council to develop a response to the determination of overfishing on bigeye tuna Pacific-wide. Amendment 1 to the Pacific Council's HMS FMP is consistent with relevant elements of Pelagics FMP Amendment 14 to end overfishing of bigeye tuna.

        Public comments are being solicited on Pelagics FMP Amendment 14. A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 14 may be published in the Federal Register for public comment, following evaluation by NMFS under the Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures, and other applicable laws. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 14 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision for the amendment. All comments received by the end of the comment period for Amendment 14, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision; comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision for the FMP/amendment. To be considered, comments must be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period; that does not mean postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.

          Dated: February 09, 2007.
          James P. Burgess,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E7-2677 Filed 2-14-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S