[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 196 (Friday, October 9, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61150-61154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25677]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 680

RIN 0648-BE98


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea 
and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program

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

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the North Pacific Fishery Management 
Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 44 to the Fishery Management 
Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (FMP) for 
review by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). Amendment 44 would 
modify required right of first refusal (ROFR) contract terms that 
provide eligible crab community entities with the opportunity to 
purchase certain processor quota shares and other associated assets 
when they are proposed for sale. Specifically, Amendment 44 would: 
extend the amount of time allowed for eligible crab community entities 
to exercise and perform under a ROFR contract; remove or modify 
provisions that currently allow a ROFR to lapse under specific 
conditions; provide flexibility for eligible crab community entities 
and processor quota shareholders to apply a ROFR to mutually-agreed 
upon assets; and add new reporting requirements for holders of 
processor quota shares subject to a ROFR. Amendment 44 is necessary to 
enhance the ability of eligible crab communities to maintain their 
historical processing interests in the crab fisheries. This action is 
intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the 
FMP, and other applicable laws.

[[Page 61151]]


DATES: Submit comments on or before December 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2013-0057, 
by any one of the following methods.
     Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0057, click the 
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or 
attach your comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant 
Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region 
NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, 
AK 99802-1668.
    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, 
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender 
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter 
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
    Electronic copies of Amendment 44 to the FMP, the Regulatory Impact 
Review (RIR), the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and 
the Categorical Exclusion prepared for this action may be obtained from 
http://www.regulations.gov or from the Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 
RIR, and Social Impact Assessment prepared for the CR Program are 
available from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Baker, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each 
regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan 
amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or 
partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 
also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan 
amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register 
announcing that the amendment is available for public review and 
comment. This notice announces that proposed Amendment 44 to the FMP is 
available for public review and comment.

Background

    NMFS manages the king and Tanner crab fisheries in the exclusive 
economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) under the 
FMP. The Council prepared the FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 
U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR 
part 680.
    NMFS published the final rule to implement the Crab Rationalization 
(CR) Program on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174). Fishing under the CR 
Program started with the 2005/2006 crab fishing year.
    The CR Program is a catch share program for nine BSAI crab 
fisheries that allocates those resources among harvesters, processors, 
and coastal communities. Under the CR Program, NMFS issued quota share 
(QS) to eligible harvesters based on their historical participation 
during a set of qualifying years in one or more of the nine CR Program 
fisheries. QS is an exclusive, revocable privilege allowing the holder 
to harvest a specific percentage of the annual total allowable catch 
(TAC) in a CR Program fishery.
    A QS holder's annual allocation, called individual fishing quota 
(IFQ), is expressed in pounds and is based on the amount of QS held in 
relation to the total QS pool for that fishery. NMFS issues IFQ in 
three classes: Class A IFQ, Class B IFQ, and Class C IFQ. Three percent 
of IFQ is issued as Class C IFQ for captains and crew. Of the remaining 
IFQ, 90 percent is issued as Class A IFQ and 10 percent is issued as 
Class B IFQ.
    NMFS issued processor quota share (PQS) to qualified individuals 
and entities based on processing activities in CR Program fisheries 
during a period of qualifying years. PQS is an exclusive, revocable 
privilege to receive deliveries of a fixed percentage of the annual TAC 
from a CR Program fishery. A PQS holder's annual allocation is known as 
individual processing quota (IPQ). NMFS issues IPQ at a one-to-one 
correlation with the amount of Class A IFQ issued for each CR Program 
fishery. Class A IFQ must be delivered to a processor holding a 
matching amount of IPQ; Class C IFQ and Class B IFQ may be delivered to 
any registered crab receiver.

Right of First Refusal

    The CR Program includes several provisions intended to protect 
specific communities that had historically been active in the 
processing of king and Tanner crab from adverse impacts that could 
result from the CR Program. The CR Program established eligibility 
criteria and regulations at Sec.  680.2 identify the nine communities 
that satisfied the eligibility criteria: Adak, Akutan, Dutch Harbor, 
Kodiak, King Cove, False Pass, St. George, St. Paul, and Port Moller. 
These communities are referred to as ``eligible crab communities'' for 
purposes of the CR Program's community protection measures. Additional 
detail on the rationale and criteria used to establish the eligible 
crab communities can be found in the final rule implementing the CR 
Program (March 2, 2005, 70 FR 10174). Additional information on these 
communities is provided in Section 3.1.4 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for 
this action.
    With the exception of Adak, the CR Program provides eligible crab 
communities, or ECCs, with a right of first refusal (ROFR) on certain 
PQS and IPQ transfers. A ROFR provides an eligible crab community with 
the right to intervene in the sale (i.e., transfer) of PQS, IPQ, and 
``other goods'' (i.e., assets) associated with that community under 
specific conditions. The regulations at Sec.  680.41(l) require an 
eligible crab community to identify an entity to represent it for 
purposes of ROFR. The eight eligible crab communities that have a ROFR, 
and their representative entities are listed in Table 9 of the RIR/
IRFA. The eligible crab community of Adak is not provided a ROFR for 
PQS or IPQ associated with that community because the CR Program 
incorporates other provisions to protect the community of Adak. These 
provisions are described in the final rule implementing the CR Program 
(March 2, 2005, 70 FR 10174).
    Of the eight eligible crab communities, four are community 
development quota (CDQ) communities, and four are non-CDQ communities. 
In the case of eligible crab communities that are also CDQ communities, 
the local CDQ group is the entity that can exercise the ROFR on behalf 
of the community (see Sec.  680.41(l)(2)(i)). For the other four non-
CDQ eligible crab communities, regulations authorize the governing 
bodies of these eligible crab communities to identify the entity that 
can exercise the ROFR on behalf of the community (see Sec.  
680.41(l)(2)(ii)).
    PQS and IPQ from the Bristol Bay red king crab, Bering Sea snow 
crab, Eastern Aleutian Islands golden king crab, St. Matthew Island 
blue king crab, and Pribilof red and blue king crab fisheries are 
subject to a ROFR. Section 3.1.3 of the RIR/IRFA describes the specific 
amounts of PQS and IPQ that were, and are, subject to a ROFR.

[[Page 61152]]

    Under the ROFR, an eligible crab community entity is provided an 
opportunity to meet the same terms and conditions being offered to a 
proposed buyer of a proposed sale of PQS or IPQ. If an eligible crab 
community entity can meet the terms and conditions of a proposed sale, 
then the eligible crab community entity is transferred the PQS, IPQ, 
and any other goods instead of the proposed buyer. For a more detailed 
summary of ROFR, see section 3.1.3 of the RIR/IRFA.
    The CR Program included a ROFR to provide eligible crab communities 
an opportunity to retain crab PQS, IPQ, and other goods before they are 
transferred to another buyer who could then choose to take that PQS, 
IPQ, and other goods out of the community. Such a transfer could 
adversely affect the economic stability of the community. The ROFR is 
intended to strike a balance between the interest of communities 
historically reliant on crab processing to retain that processing 
capacity within their communities, and the interest of PQS or IPQ 
holders to be able to engage in open market transfers of PQS, IPQ, and 
other goods.

ROFR Contract Terms

    The ROFR is administered under the CR Program through contractual 
arrangements between eligible crab community entities and PQS/IPQ 
holders. Persons who hold PQS/IPQ that is subject to a ROFR must enter 
into a contract with the eligible crab community entity eligible to 
exercise a ROFR for those PQS/IPQ shares. The terms required in a ROFR 
contract between an eligible crab community entity and PQS/IPQ holder 
were established with implementation of the CR Program and are set 
forth in Chapter 11 of the FMP.
    ROFR applies to any proposed sale of ``PQS, and sales of IPQ, if 
more than 20 percent of the PQS holders' community based IPQ in the 
fishery were processed outside of the community by another company 
(intra-company transfers within a region are excluded) in three of the 
preceding five years.'' Intra-company transfers within a region are 
exempt from (i.e., do not trigger) the ROFR, and sales of PQS for 
continued use within the community are exempt from ROFR.
    The ROFR contract terms require that in order to complete a 
transfer under a ROFR, an eligible crab community entity must meet 
``the same terms and conditions of the underlying [proposed sale] 
agreement and will include all processing shares and other goods 
included in that agreement.'' The ROFR contract terms also state that 
all terms of any ROFR--and contract entered into, related to ROFR--will 
be enforced through civil law. Additional details on the rationale for 
the civil enforcement of the terms in a ROFR contract are provided in 
the EIS, RIR, and Social Impact Assessment prepared for the CR Program, 
and the final rule implementing the CR Program (March 2, 2005, 70 FR 
10174).
    An eligible crab community entity must meet two important 
requirements to complete a ROFR and receive PQS, IPQ, or other goods 
associated with a proposed sale. The eligible crab community entity 
must: (1) Exercise its ROFR, that is, provide a clear commitment to 
complete a purchase agreement within a specific time frame; and (2) 
perform under the ROFR, that is, meet all of the terms and conditions 
of the underlying agreement for the proposed sale within a specific 
time frame.
    To exercise the ROFR, an eligible crab community entity must 
provide the seller of PQS or IPQ subject to a ROFR with notice of its 
intent to exercise the ROFR and earnest money in the amount of 10 
percent of the contract amount or $500,000, whichever is less, within 
60 days of notice of a sale and receipt of the contract defining the 
sale's terms. To perform the ROFR, the eligible crab community entity 
must meet the terms and conditions of the proposed sale (i.e., complete 
the sale) within 120 days, or within the time specified in the proposed 
sales contract, whichever is longer. If an eligible crab community 
entity does not exercise its ROFR, or it cannot perform under the ROFR 
contract, then the open market sale may proceed.

Revising ROFR Contract Terms

    The CR Program, including the ROFR contract terms, was implemented 
under authority provided at section 313(j)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act. Section 313(j)(3) states that after initial implementation of the 
CR Program, the Council may submit and the Secretary may implement 
changes to conservation and management measures for crab fisheries of 
the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands to achieve on a continuing basis 
the purposes identified by the Council. This provision allows the 
Council to recommend, and NMFS to adopt, revisions to the required 
terms of a ROFR contract. For reasons provided below, the Council 
determined that the modifications to the ROFR contract terms that would 
be made by Amendment 44 would improve the achievement of the purposes 
of ROFR that were identified by the Council when it adopted the CR 
Program.
    In developing the CR Program, the Council and NMFS recognized the 
unique historical relationship between eligible crab communities and 
processors associated with those communities, and established ROFR 
provisions to provide opportunities for eligible crab communities to be 
notified and intervene in sales of crab processing assets important to 
those communities. However, with experience gained from implementation, 
the Council has determined that some of the ROFR contract terms are 
limiting the effectiveness of the ROFR provisions.
    Stakeholders, including representatives from the eight eligible 
crab community entities that can exercise a ROFR, noted concerns with 
several ROFR contract terms that could hinder an eligible crab 
community entity from effectively exercising and performing under a 
ROFR. Holders of PQS/IPQ subject to a ROFR concurred that several 
changes to the ROFR contract terms and notification requirements could 
improve the ability of eligible crab community entities to exercise and 
perform under a ROFR without unduly limiting open market transfers of 
PQS, IPQ, and other goods. The Council reviewed and analyzed these 
concerns in a series of documents that have been consolidated under the 
RIR/IRFA prepared for Amendment 44 (see ADDRESSES). The Council 
recommended the provisions comprising Amendment 44 at its February 2013 
and its October 2014 meetings.

Amendment 44

    Amendment 44 is designed to address four categories of concern that 
stakeholders have for the existing ROFR contract terms. These are: (1) 
Inadequate time for an eligible crab community entity to exercise and 
perform under a ROFR; (2) ROFR contract terms that allow a ROFR to 
lapse; (3) ROFR contract terms that do not allow an eligible crab 
community entity and a PQS/IPQ holder to mutually agree to the specific 
assets subject to a ROFR and to exclude ``other goods'' if desired; and 
(4) the lack of verification that proper notification and reporting of 
proposed sales between PQS/IPQ holders and eligible crab community 
entities has occurred.
    To address these concerns, Amendment 44 would: (1) Extend the 
amount of time allowed for eligible crab community entities to exercise 
and perform a ROFR contract, (2) remove or modify provisions that allow 
the ROFR to lapse under specific conditions, (3) provide flexibility 
for eligible crab community entities and PQS/IPQ

[[Page 61153]]

holders to apply a ROFR only to mutually-agreed upon assets, and (4) 
add contract terms that require PQS holders to provide eligible crab 
community entities with information on pending transfers of PQS or IPQ 
and the use of IPQ. The following paragraphs provide additional detail 
on and rationale for these proposed modifications to required ROFR 
contract terms.

Extending Timelines To Exercise and Perform Under a ROFR Contract

    Amendment 44 would modify the ROFR contract term specifying the 
amount of time to exercise and perform under a ROFR. Amendment 44 would 
increase the time allowed for an eligible crab community entity to 
exercise a ROFR from 60 days to 90 days from receipt of the sales 
contract. This modification would also increase the time allowed for an 
eligible crab community entity to perform under the ROFR from 120 days 
to 150 days. The time period to exercise and the time period to perform 
under a ROFR begin on the date of receipt of the sales contract by the 
eligible crab community entity and run concurrently. The extension of 
both time periods is intended to help accommodate eligible crab 
community entities when deciding whether to exercise their ROFR, but 
also continue to recognize that time may be of the essence for a PQS 
holder or buyer under a contract.
    The current ROFR contract term requires an eligible crab community 
entity to exercise the ROFR within 60 days from receipt of a contract 
defining a transfer from a PQS holder. Within that time period, the 
eligible crab community entity must inform the PQS holder that it is 
exercising its ROFR and provide earnest money equal to 10 percent of 
the transaction amount or $500,000, whichever is less. The 60-day 
period is intended to provide community entities with the opportunity 
to assess the merits of intervening in the transaction. For some 
eligible crab community entities, such as community development quota 
(CDQ) groups, decisions of whether to enter simple, low value, 
transactions may be made expeditiously. However, an eligible crab 
community entity may require more time if the transaction is a larger, 
more complex transaction.
    For each transaction, the eligible crab community entity must 
assess the value of the various items included in the transaction, as 
it may include more than just the PQS. Under the current provisions, 
other items included in the transaction would also be subject to the 
ROFR, which could substantially drive up the transaction costs. If a 
community is considering purchasing the PQS and the associated assets, 
it may need to assess the value of each of the items independently or 
as groups of items. In order to obtain an accurate valuation of the 
items, the community may need to consult experts or conduct its own 
appraisals. Once the valuation has occurred, an eligible crab community 
entity may need to obtain financing, which could take a substantial 
amount of time beyond the 60 days that are currently afforded the 
eligible crab community entity.
    By extending the timeline for exercising the ROFR from 60 days to 
90 days, the eligible crab community entity that holds the ROFR would 
have more time to better evaluate a transaction, access earnest money, 
make preliminary financing arrangements, and make an appropriate 
decision concerning whether to exercise the ROFR. The extension would 
be particularly helpful in situations where public notice and meetings 
are required before deciding on how to proceed with the ROFR.

Removing or Modifying Provisions That Cause a ROFR to Lapse

    Amendment 44 would amend the FMP to remove or modify contract terms 
that allow a ROFR to lapse. First, Amendment 44 would remove the ROFR 
contract term that allows a ROFR to lapse if the IPQ derived from the 
PQS subject to ROFR was processed outside the community of origin for a 
period of three consecutive years. Removal of this contract term would 
allow a ROFR to stay in place regardless of whether the IPQ is being 
used outside the community. However, if approved, Amendment 44 would 
not reinstate a ROFR that lapsed prior to implementation of Amendment 
44. This change would strengthen the connection between PQS and the 
community that holds the ROFR for that PQS by maintaining the ROFR and 
elevating the interests of the eligible crab community entity that 
holds the ROFR over those of the community where the IPQ was being 
processed.
    Amendment 44 also would remove the ROFR contract term that states 
that a ROFR will lapse if an eligible crab community entity fails to 
exercise its ROFR after it is triggered by a transfer of PQS and 
replace it with a ROFR contract term that would require the recipient 
of a PQS transfer (i.e., buyer) to enter into a new ROFR contract with 
an eligible crab community entity of the buyer's choosing in the 
designated region of the PQS. This amendment would ensure that an 
eligible crab community entity within the designated region of the PQS 
retains a ROFR on that PQS even if the original eligible crab community 
entity chooses not to exercise a ROFR.
    The modification would allow the new PQS holder to designate the 
original ROFR holder or a new eligible crab community entity within the 
PQS-designated region. This would only happen in the event that ROFR is 
triggered by the PQS transfer and the community that currently holds 
the ROFR chooses not to exercise its ROFR. Since use of the shares 
would be at the discretion of the PQS holder, both NMFS and the Council 
believe that the PQS holder should be best situated for identifying the 
community that would hold the ROFR.
    This modification is intended to strengthen the ROFR program by 
maintaining a link between PQS and eligible crab communities in 
perpetuity. In addition, the proposed modification may provide the 
original eligible crab community entity that is not able to exercise a 
ROFR with another opportunity to use ROFR at some point in the future, 
should it be triggered again through a proposed sale of the PQS.

Flexibility To Apply a ROFR to Mutually-Agreed Upon Assets

    One ROFR contract term currently requires that the ROFR apply to 
all terms and conditions of the underlying sale agreement, including 
all processing shares and other goods included in the agreement. 
Amendment 44 would revise this ROFR contract term to specify that, 
``Any right of first refusal must be on the same terms and conditions 
of the underlying agreement and will include all processing shares and 
other goods included in this agreement, or to any subset of those 
assets, as otherwise agreed to by the PQS holder and the community 
entity.'' The proposed addition of the last clause in this sentence 
would allow a PQS holder and an eligible crab community entity to 
negotiate what assets may be subject to a ROFR. This would provide PQS 
holders and eligible crab community entities with more flexibility 
compared to the status quo. For example, it would allow an eligible 
crab community entity to reach an agreement with the PQS holder that 
the ROFR would only apply to the PQS, and not to any other goods 
associated with a proposed sale.
    The Council determined this flexibility was necessary to increase 
the opportunities for eligible crab communities to exercise and perform 
a ROFR. The current requirement for ROFR to apply to all terms and 
conditions of the underlying sale

[[Page 61154]]

agreement may inhibit some eligible crab community entities from 
exercising and performing a ROFR because the terms of the underlying 
agreement may include a variety of assets, including processing 
equipment and real estate. Some of these assets may have no connection 
to the crab fisheries or the represented community. In these instances, 
a community entity may be unable to effectively use its ROFR if it 
cannot obtain financing or if the entity has no interest in acquiring 
the assets that are unrelated to the community it represents. The 
following example demonstrates the flexibility the proposed revision 
would create. A PQS holder has processing plants and equipment in 
communities A, B, and C, along with PQS currently used in community A. 
The entity representing community A holds a ROFR that is triggered if 
the PQS holder decides to transfer the PQS for use outside of community 
A. No processing currently takes place in communities B and C, but the 
PQS holder owns processing assets in those communities. If the PQS 
holder decides to sell the PQS that is used in community A and the 
assets it owns in communities A, B, and C, to a buyer who would use the 
PQS outside of community A, the proposed sale would trigger the ROFR. 
Under the current ROFR contract terms, to exercise its ROFR, the entity 
representing community A would be required to purchase the PQS and the 
processing assets in all three communities (A, B, and C), even though 
the eligible crab community entity may only be interested in purchasing 
the PQS and the processing assets in community A.
    Under the flexibility provided by the revised contract term, the 
entity representing community A, which holds the ROFR, would have the 
option to reach an agreement with the PQS holder that the ROFR only 
apply to the PQS and the processing assets in community A. The PQS 
holder would maintain the option to sell the assets in communities B 
and C without triggering community A's ROFR. The additional flexibility 
would benefit community entities because they would not be required to 
purchase assets that they might not have an interest in or be able to 
finance in order to maintain crab processing activities in their 
community, if the entity can reach an agreement with the PQS holder. 
Instead, communities would be able to purchase a previously agreed upon 
subset of the PQS holder's assets. The purchase price of the subset of 
assets may be less than the purchase price of all assets included in 
the underlying agreement. Therefore, community entities may be more 
likely to exercise ROFR if it only applies to those assets of interest 
to the community. For additional information on this proposed ROFR 
contract term, see section 3.2.6 of the RIR/IRFA.

Adding Requirements for PQS Holders To Report to Eligible Crab 
Community Entities

    Amendment 44 would establish two new ROFR contract terms that 
require PQS holders to provide community entities holding ROFRs with 
information on transfers of IPQ or PQS and use of IPQ. These new ROFR 
contract terms would ensure that the eligible crab community entity has 
adequate information to track the use of IPQ and transfers of PQS, as 
needed, to protect the community's interests under the ROFR. Currently, 
eligible crab community entities have little information on the use of 
IPQ or transfers of PQS that are subject to the ROFR.
    To address these issues, Amendment 44 would add a ROFR contract 
term that requires the PQS holder to notify the eligible crab community 
entity of any proposed transfer of IPQ or PQS, regardless of whether 
the PQS holder believes the transfer triggers the right. Second, 
Amendment 44 would add a ROFR contract term that requires the PQS 
holder to annually notify the eligible crab community entity of the 
location at which IPQ derived from PQS subject to a ROFR was used and 
whether the IPQ was used by the PQS holder. Both of these proposed 
notifications would allow the eligible crab community entity to be more 
aware of what is occurring with the PQS for which they hold a ROFR.
    The Council determined that while these notices would impose a 
small burden on the PQS holder, they would ensure that the eligible 
crab community entities and the communities they represent would have 
better information concerning the status of the ROFR. For additional 
detail on these notices, see section 3.2.5 of the RIR/IRFA.
    In recommending Amendment 44, the Council largely intended to 
assist communities in maintaining historical processing interests in, 
and revenues from, the crab fisheries. These actions create community 
benefits that are expected to be relatively small but positive. The 
regional economic stability, equity, and community welfare benefits of 
these actions outweigh the possible production efficiency losses, 
transaction costs, and administrative expenditures arising from 
implementation of these actions.
    Public comments are solicited on proposed Amendment 44 to the FMP 
through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to 
publish in the Federal Register and seek public comment on a proposed 
rule that would implement the accompanying regulations for Amendment 
44, following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by 
the end of the comment period on Amendment 44 to be considered in the 
approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 44. All comments received by 
the end of the comment period on Amendment 44, whether specifically 
directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered 
in the FMP amendment approval/disapproval decision. Comments received 
after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval 
decision on the amendment. To be considered, comments must be received, 
not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day of the 
comment period.

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

    Dated: October 5, 2015.
Emily H. Menashes,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-25677 Filed 10-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P