Federal Register Vol. 80, No.236,

On March 31, 2008, the NRC issued a final rule that substantially revised its regulations for fitness-for-duty programs in part 26 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Fitness for Duty Programs.” The 2008 final rule established 10 CFR part 26, subpart I, “Managing Fatigue,” to require that nuclear power plant licensees provide reasonable assurance that the effects of worker fatigue are managed commensurate with maintaining public health and safety. The regulations in 10 CFR part 26 require licensees to manage worker fatigue at reactors that are operating or under construction (no later than the receipt of special nuclear material in the form of fuel assemblies), for all individuals who are granted unescorted access to protected areas of the plant. The regulations also require licensees to control the work hours of those individuals whose work activities have the greatest potential to adversely affect public health and safety or the common defense and security if their performance is degraded by fatigue (e.g., licensed operators, maintenance technicians, security officers).

The Commission's staff requirements memorandum (SRM), SRM-SECY-06-0244, “Final Rulemaking-10 CFR part 26-Fitness-for-Duty Programs,” approving the 2008 final rule directed the NRC staff to ensure that personnel who actually perform independent quality control/quality verification (QC/QV) checks under the licensee's NRC-approved Quality Assurance Program are subject to the same 10 CFR part 26, subpart I, provisions as operating personnel defined in § 26.4(a)(1). The SRM also directed the NRC staff to publish the final rule without the QC/QV provision, if the staff determined that its inclusion would require re-notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946.

Because the NRC staff determined that including the QC/QV provision would require re-noticing of the rule to provide a new opportunity for public comment, the NRC issued the final rule without imposing work hour controls on individuals performing QC/QV activities.1 As directed in the SRM, the NRC staff initiated a new proposed rulemaking to apply the work hour controls for operating personnel to the QC/QV-dedicated personnel who perform QC/QV checks.2

On September 10, 2012, the NRC published the regulatory basis and preliminary proposed rule language in support of the QC/QV proposed rulemaking. Because the documents were made publicly available to provide preparatory material for discussion in future public meetings, a public comment period was not initiated.

The NRC staff held multiple public meetings between December 2011 and February 2014 to discuss the QC/QV rulemaking and other potential changes to 10 CFR part 26, subpart I. The meetings were attended by members of the nuclear power reactor community, organized labor, contractors, and the media. Summaries of these meetings are publicly available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2009-0090.

The NRC received petitions for rulemaking (PRMs) regarding 10 CFR part 26, subpart I, from the Professional Reactor Operator Society (PROS), the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), and Mr. Erik Erb following issuance of the 2008 final rule.

In the SRM to SECY-11-0003/0028, “Status of Enforcement Discretion Request and Rulemaking Activities Related to 10 CFR part 26, subpart I, `Managing Fatigue' and Options for Implementing an Alternative Interim Regulatory Approach to the Minimum Days Off Provisions of 10 CFR part 26, subpart I, `Managing Fatigue,' ” the Commission directed the NRC staff to address these PRMs in a rulemaking effort separate from the alternative to the minimum days off (MDO) rulemaking. The scope of the alternative MDO rulemaking was limited solely to providing an alternative to the then-current requirements for minimum days off in 10 CFR part 26, subpart I. This rulemaking provided a new requirement for working a 54-hour per week average over a rolling period of up to 6 weeks.

On May 16, 2011, the NRC published three documents in the Federal Register (one for each PRM) informing the public that the issues raised in each PRM would be considered in the planned QC/QV rulemaking. The three PRMs are discussed below.

Robert N. Meyer on behalf of PROS, an organization of operations personnel employed at nuclear power plants throughout the United States, submitted a PRM dated October 16, 2009. The petitioner requested that the NRC change the term “unit outage” to “site outage” in 10 CFR part 26 and that the definition of “site outage” read “up to 1 week prior to disconnecting the reactor unit from the grid and up to 75-percent turbine power following reconnection to the grid.” The NRC published a notice of receipt of, and request for public comment on, the PRM on November 27, 2009. The public comment period ended on February 10, 2010, and the NRC received 4 comment letters from NEI, nuclear power plant operators and managers, and a private citizen. The comments generally supported the petition.

Anthony R. Pietrangelo on behalf of NEI, a nuclear power industry trade association, submitted a PRM dated September 3, 2010. The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations regarding fitness-for-duty programs to refine existing requirements based on experience gained since the regulations were last amended in 2008. The NRC published a notice of receipt of, and request for public comment on, the PRM on October 22, 2010. The public comment period ended on January 5, 2011, and the NRC received 39 comment letters from corporations, professional organizations, and private citizens. Of these 39 comment letters, 11 specifically voiced support for the petition, while 13 voiced opposition. Those comment letters that voiced neither support for nor opposition to the petition itself discussed a diverse range of perspectives on the fatigue management provisions contained in 10 CFR part 26, subpart I.

Erik Erb and 91 co-signers submitted a PRM dated August 17, 2010. The NRC published a notice of receipt of, and request for public comment on, the PRM on November 23, 2010. The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its fitness-for-duty regulations to decrease the minimum days off requirement from an average of 3 days per week to 2.5 or 2 days per week for security officers working 12-hour shifts. The public comment period ended on February 7, 2011, and the NRC received 5 comment letters from coroporations, professional organizations, and private citizens. The comments generally supported the petition.

In SECY-15-0074, “Discontinuation of Rulemaking Activity—Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 26, Subpart I, Quality Control and Quality Verification Personnel in Fitness for Duty Program,” the NRC staff requested Commission approval to discontinue the QC/QV rulemaking. This request was based on the following factors: (1) QC/QV inspections are most often performed by maintenance personnel who are already covered by the work hour controls in 10 CFR part 26, subpart I; (2) the few remaining inspections are performed by a small number of QC/QV-dedicated personnel; and (3) backfitting 3 the 10 CFR part 26, subpart I, work hour controls to the QC/QV-dedicated personnel would not result in a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety or common defense and security.

In the SRM to SECY-15-0074, the Commission approved the NRC staff's request to discontinue the QC/QV rulemaking activity. The Commission directed the NRC staff to inform the public that the NRC is no longer pursuing rulemaking in this area and that the three PRMs will be addressed in a separate action.

On April 26, 2011, the NRC published a proposed rule to provide licensees with an option for managing cumulative fatigue that differed from the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d)(3) (76 FR 23208). The NRC received two comment submissions from private citizens on the proposed rule that were determined to be outside of the scope of that limited rulemaking activity. The Commission had previously directed the NRC staff in SRM-SECY-11-0003/0028 to consider in a separate rulemaking activity any comments on the alternative MDO proposed rule that were determined to be outside the limited scope of the rulemaking. Therefore, the Federal Register notice for the final rule stated that public comments outside of the scope of the proposed rule would be considered in the QC/QV rulemaking (76 FR 43534, 43540; July 21, 2011). Because the QC/QV rulemaking is being discontinued, the NRC's responses will be provided here.

Comment: One commenter remarked that some duties do not require constant surveillance, so the individuals performing these duties should not be subject to the fatigue management requirements. The commenter also stated that it is more important to have a qualified person performing a task than it is to ensure that the person performing the task complies with the work hour controls. According to the commenter, the fatigue management requirements are too complex and do not guarantee that an individual subject to the work hour requirements will diligently perform his or her duties.

NRC Response: The NRC agrees in part and disagrees in part with the comment. The NRC has consistently held that work conducted within the protected area of a nuclear power plant is of such safety significance that individuals granted unescorted access to those protected areas must be fit for duty, including management of the effects of cumulative and acute fatigue. However, the NRC recognizes the functions that individuals within different job categories perform differ in their potential impact on plant safety and security. Therefore, the NRC has identified specific categories of individuals in § 26.4 who require additional work hour controls due to their job function. This graded approach provides the maximum flexibility for nuclear power plant licensees and individuals while providing reasonable assurance that those individuals granted unescorted access to the protected areas of nuclear power plants are fit to safely and competently perform their duties free from the adverse effects of cumulative and acute fatigue.

Further, the NRC has neither proposed nor finalized fatigue management regulations that require nuclear power plant licensees to choose between having a qualified individual perform a task or having a well-rested individual perform a task. For circumstances outside the licensee's reasonable control in which the potential for such a choice exists, § 26.207, “Waivers and exceptions,” establishes specific conditions in which licensees may waive or exclude personnel from the work hour controls. In addition, licensees have the option to provide an escort to individuals who may be needed for a short period in unusual situations without subjecting them to the work hour controls. On a day-to-day basis, however, licensees need to ensure that personnel meet the applicable qualification requirements for the tasks they are assigned to perform and are fit for duty.

The NRC also disagrees that the fatigue management requirements of 10 CFR part 26, subpart I, including the voluntary alternative to the MDO provisions in § 26.205(d)(3), are too complex. The NRC acknowledges that there are significant administrative requirements that are part of the fatigue management regulations. However, the NRC has sought out opportunities to relieve administrative burden where possible while still maintaining the performance objectives of the rule. For example, the voluntary alternative to the MDO provisions in § 26.205(d)(3) provides a significant reduction in administrative burden as it permits nuclear power plant licensees to manage cumulative fatigue by limiting an individual's work hours to an average of not more than 54-hours per week over a 6-week rolling period.

The NRC agrees, however, that compliance with the fatigue management provisions of 10 CFR part 26, subpart I, does not guarantee that an individual subject to the work hour requirements will diligently perform his or her duties. As stated in the statement of considerations for the 2008 part 26 final rule, compliance with the work hour requirements alone will not ensure proper fatigue management. It remains the responsibility of licensees and individuals granted unescorted access to nuclear power plants to ensure that individuals subject to the fatigue management provisions of 10 CFR part 26, subpart I, are properly rested to safely and competently perform their duties.

Comment: One commenter claimed that the 10 CFR part 26, subpart I, work hour controls do not reduce worker fatigue during outages but can increase fatigue during outages. Specifically, the commenter noted that when an individual works a backshift (i.e., night shift) schedule during outages, taking a 1-day break disrupts that person's sleep pattern. Recovery from this disruption takes several days, therefore inducing fatigue. The commenter concluded that once a person adjusts to the unnatural sleep pattern of the night shift, it is far better to continue that pattern for the duration of the outage. The commenter also stated that the rule has caused a drop in his earnings.

NRC Response: The NRC agrees in part with the comment. Under circumstances postulated by the commenter (i.e., a 1-day break during consecutive night shifts), the adjustment of an individual's sleep-wake cycle to night shift can be affected by cues that influence the sleep-wake cycle, such as exposure to bright sunlight. However, the break and day off requirements of 10 CFR Part 26, subpart I, are minimum requirements (i.e., they do not require a schedule that provides only 1-day off during consecutive night shifts, as described by the commenter), and they are not limited to serve as a means for establishing shift schedules. As stated in Section 2.3.5 of NUREG-1912, “Summary and Analysis of Public Comments Received on Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR part 26—Fitness for Duty Program,” the NRC intends that the maximum work hour and minimum break and day off requirements that are specified in § 26.205(d) be applied to infrequent, temporary circumstances. They should not be used as guidelines or limits for routine work scheduling. In addition, the § 26.205(d) work hour controls do not address several elements of routine schedules that can significantly affect worker fatigue. These include shift length, the number of consecutive shifts, the duration of breaks between blocks of shifts, and the direction of shift rotation. Therefore, § 26.205(c) requires licensees to schedule personnel consistent with preventing impairment from fatigue from these scheduling factors, including periods of high workload during outages.

The rule requires licensees to address scheduling factors, because human alertness and the propensity to sleep vary markedly through the course of a 24-hour period. These circadian variations are the result of changes in physiology outside the control of the individual. Work, with the consequent timing of periods of sleep and wakefulness, may be scheduled in a manner that either facilitates an individual's adaptation to the work schedule or challenges the individual's ability to get adequate rest. Therefore, the duration, frequency, and sequencing of shifts, particularly for personnel who work rotating shifts, are critical elements of fatigue management. The importance of these elements for fatigue management is reflected in guidelines for work scheduling, such as the Electric Power Research Institute's report, EPRI-NP-6748, “Control-Room Operator Alertness and Performance in Nuclear Power Plants,” and in technical reports, such as the NRC's NUREG/CR-4248, “Recommendations for NRC Policy on Shift Scheduling and Overtime at Nuclear Power Plants,” and the Office of Technology Assessment's report, OTA-BA-463, “Biological Rhythms: Implications for the Worker.” Although research provides clear evidence of the importance of these factors in developing schedules that support effective fatigue management, the NRC also recognizes that the complexity of effectively addressing and integrating each of these factors in work scheduling decisions precludes a prescriptive requirement. Therefore, § 26.205(c) establishes a non-prescriptive, performance-based requirement that also applies to shift scheduling during outages.

Further, the NRC disagrees that the requirements of 10 CFR part 26, subpart I, have resulted in a pay cut for the commenter and notes that the work hour requirements require licensees to manage fatigue, in part, by limiting work hours, not compensation. Furthermore, the work hour controls provide licensees with a significant amount of flexibility when establishing schedules, and those work hour controls continue to allow for overtime. One objective of the NRC's fitness-for-duty program is to “provide reasonable assurance that the effects of fatigue and degraded alertness on individuals' abilities to safely and competently perform their duties are managed commensurate with maintaining public health and safety.” Therefore, the NRC's focus and mission is on safety, not compensation and wages.

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.

The NRC may post materials related to this document on the Federal rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2009-0090. The Federal rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2009-0090); (2) click the “Sign up for Emails Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

The NRC is discontinuing the QC/QV rulemaking activity for the reasons previously stated. This rulemaking will no longer be reported in the NRC's portion of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. Should the NRC determine to pursue rulemaking in this area in the future, NRC will inform the public through a new rulemaking entry in the Unified Agenda. While the three notices in the Federal Register published on May 16, 2011, stated that the PRM dockets are closed, the NRC will issue a subsequent action on the determination of these PRMs.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-7205; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-025-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

On May 30, 1996, we issued AD 96-12-12, Amendment 39-9654 (61 FR 28732, June 6, 1996) (“AD 96-12-12”), for certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-31, PA-31-300, PA-31-325, and PA-31-350 airplanes. AD 96-12-12 requires a one-time inspection of the bulkhead assembly at fuselage station (FS) 317.75 for cracks and the installation of one of two reinforcement kits, determined by whether cracks were found during the inspection. AD 96-12-12 resulted from cracks found in the FS 317.75 upper bulkhead. We issued AD 96-12-12 to prevent structural failure of the vertical fin forward spar caused by cracks in the FS 317.75 upper bulkhead, which could lead to loss of control.

Since we issued AD 96-12-12, cracks were found on the bulkhead assembly of airplanes in compliance with AD 96-12-12 and on additional airplanes not affected by AD 96-12-12 but of a similar type design. Piper Aircraft, Inc. has issued new service information that gives instructions for repair of the cracks and instructions for the installation of a reinforcement modification to prevent cracks from developing.

We reviewed Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1273A, dated October 22, 2015. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting the bulkhead assembly at FS 317.75, repairing any cracks found, and installation of a reinforcement modification to prevent cracks from developing. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would retain none of the requirements of AD 96-12-12. This NPRM would add airplanes to the Applicability, paragraph (c) of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Airplanes in compliance with AD 96-12-12 must be re-inspected, repaired if necessary, and modified following the new service information.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 977 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-4474; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-34-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this NPRM.

We propose to adopt a new AD for certain PW PW4000-94 inch turbofan engines with HPC 10th stage disk, part number (P/N) 51H710 or 53H976-06, installed and certain PW4000-100 inch turbofan engines with HPC 10th stage disk, P/N 53H976-06, installed. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a crack find in the HPC 10th stage disk. The root cause of the crack was a manual polishing procedure, previously used during manufacture, that caused surface scratches on the disk. This proposed AD would require a USI or ECI of the HPC 10th stage disk. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC 10th stage disk, which could lead to an uncontained disk release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

We reviewed PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. PW4G-100-A72-255, dated August 31, 2015 and PW ASB No. PW4ENG A72-833, dated August 20, 2015. The ASBs provide lists of affected HPC disks and describe procedures for USI and ECI of the HPC 10th stage disk. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

We are proposing this NPRM because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This NPRM would require performing a USI or ECI of the HPC 10th stage disk.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 763 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 12 hours per engine to do the inspection. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $778,260.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-4076; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-30-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2015-0187, dated September 9, 2015 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

RR introduced a modified LPT support roller bearing that can withstand greater loads when an LPT turbine blade release occurs, thereby preventing LPT rotor movement. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4076.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the United Kingdom, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require removal from service of the affected LPT support bearings.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 9 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate it would take 0 hours to comply with this proposed AD since the proposed actions required by the AD would be performed during a shop visit, when major engine flanges are separated, which requires the removal of the LPT support roller bearing. Therefore, no additional time is needed to remove it. Parts would cost about $8,184 per engine. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $73,656.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is arranged as follows:

On July 2, 2012, EPA approved Ohio's Regional Haze SIP (77 FR 39177). Ohio's Regional Haze SIP included the applicability of BART to the State's only non-utility BART source, Glatfelter, in Chillicothe, Ohio. The BART requirement specified that two of the coal fired boilers at this facility, No. 7 and No. 8, install control technology to limit the amount of SO2 emissions from the boilers. The compliance date for BART emission reductions was scheduled to be December 31, 2014. The compliance date was aligned with Glatfelter's expected compliance date for the Industrial Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) requirements finalized by EPA in May, 2011 (76 FR 28862).

On February 6, 2014, Ohio EPA received a request from Glatfelter to extend the original compliance date to January 31, 2017. The extension request is based on the litigation, revision and new compliance date associated with the Industrial Boiler MACT. Under EPA regulations (40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv)), BART is to be implemented “as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 5 years after approval of the implementation plan revision.” The required compliance date is July 2, 2017.

This rulemaking addresses an April 14, 2014, submission supplemented on July 27, 2015, from the Ohio EPA to extend the compliance date from December 31, 2014, to January 31, 2017. One of the requests within the April 14, 2014, SIP revision includes “the requirement that P.H. Glatfelter submit an application for modification of the federally enforceable permit (that will include a compliance date outlining, at a minimum, the specific, selected control technologies and methods of compliance) from December 31, 2013, to requiring the submittal provide for sufficient time for Ohio EPA to include these requirements, along with any appropriate monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements, in the federally enforceable permit by no later than January 31, 2017.”

Ohio EPA supplemented their original submittal on July 27, 2015, with a revised federally enforceable permit for Glatfelter that included the new compliance date. Ohio EPA made the federally enforceable permit available for public comment on June 6, 2015, and comments were accepted through July 7, 2015. The Ohio EPA consulted the Federal Land Managers and included them in the public comment process. Two comments were received and those comments, along with Ohio EPA's responses were included in the July 27, 2015, submittal.

The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule require BART controls to be installed as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than five years after approval of the Regional Haze implementation plan revision. As discussed in greater detail in section I of this proposed rulemaking, our proposed extension of the compliance date by 25 months, from December 31, 2014, to January 31, 2017, is consistent with the CAA and the Regional Haze Rule. The extension is justified by an expeditious schedule for the installation of multiple control technologies to meet the Boiler MACT.

EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Ohio SIP submitted by the State of Ohio on April 14, 2014, supplemented on July 27, 2015, related to BART requirements for Glatfelter. Specifically, EPA is proposing to extend the compliance date for the SO2 emission limits applicable to Boilers No. 7 and No. 8 at Glatfelter by 25 months from December 31, 2014, to January 31, 2017.

In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Permit Number 0671010028—Final Division of Air Pollution Control Permit to Install for P.H. Glatfelter Company—Chillecothe facility, effective July 20, 2015. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

NMFS manages the GOA groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the GOA under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). The Council prepared the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600, 679, and 680.

The FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS, after consultation with the Council, to specify the total allowable catch (TAC) for each target species, the sum of which must be within the optimum yield (OY) range of 116,000 to 800,000 metric tons (mt). Section 679.20(c)(1) further requires NMFS to publish and solicit public comment on proposed annual TACs, Pacific halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) limits, and seasonal allowances of pollock and Pacific cod. The proposed harvest specifications in Tables 1 through 19 of this document satisfy these requirements. For 2016 and 2017, the sum of the proposed TAC amounts is 590,161 mt.

Under § 679.20(c)(3), NMFS will publish the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications after (1) considering comments received within the comment period (see DATES), (2) consulting with the Council at its December 2015 meeting, (3) considering information presented in the 2015 SIR that assesses the need to prepare a Supplemental EIS (see ADDRESSES) and, (4) considering information presented in the final 2015 SAFE report prepared for the 2016 and 2017 groundfish fisheries.

At its June 2013 meeting, the Council took final action to establish a temporary process to permanently remove catch limits, known as sideboard limits, for Pacific cod that are applicable to certain hook-and-line catcher/processors (C/Ps) in the Central and Western GOA regulatory areas. This action is known as Amendment 45 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Amendment 45). The final rule implementing the regulations associated with Amendment 45 was published on May 19, 2015 (80 FR 28539).

If all persons holding a license limitation program license with endorsements that allow directed fishing for Pacific cod as a hook-and-line C/P in the Central or Western GOA sign and submit to NMFS an affidavit affirming that all eligible participants in that regulatory area recommend removal of the Crab Rationalization Program GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit, then NMFS would not establish Crab Rationalization Program GOA Pacific cod sideboard limits for the hook-and-line C/P sector through the annual harvest specification process. All eligible fishery participants submitted affidavits as described above for the Western GOA and Central GOA; therefore NMFS will not establish 2016 and 2017 Pacific cod sideboard limits for hook-and-line C/Ps. These sideboard limits have been removed from Table 15 of this proposed rule.

In December 2014, the Council took final action to reduce the maximum retainable amount (MRA) for skates in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). Per the Council's recommendation, NMFS developed and published a proposed rule to modify regulations that specify the MRA for skates in the GOA (80 FR 39734, July 10, 2015). An MRA is expressed as a percentage and is the maximum amount of a species closed to directed fishing (i.e., skate species) that may be retained on board a vessel relative to the retained amount of other groundfish species or halibut open for directed fishing (basis species). An MRA serves as a management tool to slow the harvest rates of incidental catch species and limit retention up to a maximum percentage of the amount of retained groundfish or halibut on board the vessel. NMFS has established a single MRA percentage for big skate (Raja binoculata), longnose skate (Raja rhina), and for all remaining skate species (Bathyraja spp.). The proposed rule would reduce the MRA for skates in the GOA from 20 percent to 5 percent. The reduced MRA would apply to all vessels directed fishing for groundfish or halibut in the GOA. NMFS anticipates that the proposed regulatory revisions associated with the skate MRA reduction will be effective in 2016.

In October 2015, the Council, its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and its Advisory Panel (AP) reviewed the most recent biological and harvest information about the condition of groundfish stocks in the GOA. This information was compiled by the GOA Groundfish Plan Team (Plan Team) and presented in the final 2014 SAFE report for the GOA groundfish fisheries, dated November 2014 (see ADDRESSES). The SAFE report contains a review of the latest scientific analyses and estimates of each species' biomass and other biological parameters, as well as summaries of the available information on the GOA ecosystem and the economic condition of the groundfish fisheries off Alaska. From these data and analyses, the Plan Team estimates and the SSC sets an overfishing level (OFL) and ABC for each species or species group. The amounts proposed for the 2016 and 2017 OFLs and ABCs are based on the 2014 SAFE report. The AP and Council recommended that the proposed 2016 and 2017 TACs be set equal to proposed ABCs for all species and species groups, with the exception of the species categories further discussed below. The proposed OFLs, ABCs, and TACs could be changed in the final harvest specifications depending on the most recent scientific information contained in the final 2015 SAFE report. The draft stock assessments that will comprise, in part, the 2015 SAFE report are available at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/REFM/stocks/plan_team/draft_assessments.htm.

In November 2015, the Plan Team updated the 2014 SAFE report to include new information collected during 2015, such as NMFS stock surveys, revised stock assessments, and catch data. The Plan Team compiled this information and produced the draft 2015 SAFE report for presentation at the December 2015 Council meeting. At that meeting, the Council will consider information in the draft 2015 SAFE report, recommendations from the November 2015 Plan Team meeting and December 2015 SSC and AP meetings, public testimony, and relevant written public comments in making its recommendations for the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications. Pursuant to Section 3.2.3.4.1 of the FMP, the Council could recommend adjusting the TACs if “warranted on the basis of bycatch considerations, management uncertainty, or socioeconomic considerations; or if required in order to cause the sum of the TACs to fall within the OY range.”

In previous years, the OFLs and ABCs that have had the most significant changes (relative to the amount of assessed tonnage of fish) from the proposed to the final harvest specifications have been for OFLs and ABCs that are based on the most recent NMFS stock surveys. These surveys provide updated estimates of stock biomass and spatial distribution, and changes to the models used for producing stock assessments. NMFS scientists presented updated and new survey results, changes to assessment models, and accompanying stock estimates at the September 2015 Plan Team meeting, and the SSC reviewed this information at the October 2015 Council meeting. The species with possible model changes are Pacific cod, rex sole, and rock sole. In November 2015, the Plan Team considered updated stock assessments for groundfish, which are included in the draft 2015 SAFE report.

If the draft 2015 SAFE report indicates that the stock biomass trend is increasing for a species, then the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for that species may reflect an increase from the proposed harvest specifications. Conversely, if the draft 2015 SAFE report indicates that the stock biomass trend is decreasing for a species, then the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications may reflect a decrease from the proposed harvest specifications.

The proposed 2016 and 2017 OFLs, ABCs, and TACs are based on the best available biological and socioeconomic information, including projected biomass trends, information on assumed distribution of stock biomass, and revised methods used to calculate stock biomass. The FMP specifies the formulas, or tiers, to be used to compute OFLs and ABCs. The formulas applicable to a particular stock or stock complex are determined by the level of reliable information available to the fisheries scientists. This information is categorized into a successive series of six tiers to define OFL and ABC amounts, with Tier 1 representing the highest level of information quality available and Tier 6 representing the lowest level of information quality available. The Plan Team used the FMP tier structure to calculate OFLs and ABCs for each groundfish species. The SSC adopted the proposed 2016 and 2017 OFLs and ABCs recommended by the Plan Team for all groundfish species. The Council adopted the SSC's OFL and ABC recommendations and the AP's TAC recommendations. These amounts are unchanged from the final 2016 harvest specifications published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2015 (80 FR 10250).

The Council recommended proposed 2016 and 2017 TACs that are equal to proposed ABCs for all species and species groups, with the exceptions of shallow-water flatfish in the Western GOA, arrowtooth flounder, flathead sole in the Western and Central GOA, “other rockfish” in Southeast Outside (SEO) District, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod. The shallow-water flatfish, arrowtooth flounder, and flathead sole TACs are set to allow for harvest opportunities while conserving the halibut PSC limit for use in other fisheries. The “other rockfish” TAC is set to reduce the potential amount of discards in the SEO District. The Atka mackerel TAC is set to accommodate incidental catch amounts of this species in other directed fisheries.

The proposed 2016 and 2017 Pacific cod TACs are set to accommodate the State's guideline harvest levels (GHLs) for Pacific cod in State waters in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas, as well as in Prince William Sound (PWS). The Plan Team, SSC, AP, and Council recommended that the sum of all State and Federal water Pacific cod removals from the GOA not exceed ABC recommendations. Accordingly, the Council reduced the proposed 2016 and 2017 Pacific cod TACs in the Eastern, Central, and Western Regulatory Areas to account for State GHLs. Therefore, the proposed 2016 and 2017 Pacific cod TACs are less than the proposed ABCs by the following amounts: (1) Eastern GOA, 707 mt; (2) Central GOA, 15,330 mt; and (3) Western GOA, 11,611 mt. These amounts reflect the sum of the State's 2016 and 2017 GHLs in these areas, which are 25 percent of the Eastern and Central and 30 percent of the Western GOA proposed ABCs.

The ABC for the pollock stock in the combined Western, Central, and West Yakutat Regulatory Areas (W/C/WYK) includes the amount for the GHL established by the State for the PWS pollock fishery. The Plan Team, SSC, AP, and Council recommended that the sum of all State and Federal water pollock removals from the GOA not exceed ABC recommendations. Based on genetic studies, fisheries scientists believe that the pollock in PWS is not a separate stock from the combined W/C/WYK population. Since 1996, the Plan Team has had a protocol of recommending that the GHL amount be deducted from the GOA-wide ABC. For 2016 and 2017, the SSC recommended and the Council approved the W/C/WYK pollock ABC including the amount to account for the State's PWS GHL. At the November 2015 Plan Team meeting, State fisheries managers recommended setting the PWS GHL at 2.5 percent of the annual W/C/WYK pollock ABC. Accordingly, the Council recommended adopting a W/C/WYK pollock ABC that has been reduced to account for the State's PWS GHL. For 2016 and 2017, the proposed PWS pollock GHL is 6,271 mt, as recommended by State fisheries managers. The proposed 2016 and 2017 ABC is 263,449 mt, and the proposed TAC is 257,178 mt.

The Council has adopted the SSC's 2014 recommendation to revise the terminology used when apportioning pollock in the W/C/WYK. The SSC recommended describing apportionments of pollock to the W/C/WYK as “apportionments of annual catch limit (ACLs)” rather than “ABCs.” The SSC noted that describing subarea apportionments as “apportionments of the ACL” more accurately reflects that such apportionments address management, rather than biological or conservation, concerns. In addition, apportionments of the ACL in this manner allow NMFS to balance any transfer of TAC from one area to another pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B) to ensure that the area-wide ACL and ABC are not exceeded. The SSC noted that this terminology change is acceptable for pollock in the W/C/WYK only. Further information about the rationale to adopt this terminology is in the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for GOA groundfish (80 FR 10250, February 25, 2015).

NMFS' proposed apportionments for groundfish species are based on the distribution of biomass among the regulatory areas under which NMFS manages the species. Additional regulations govern the apportionment of Pacific cod, pollock, and sablefish. Additional detail on these apportionments are described below, and briefly summarized here.

NMFS proposes pollock TACs in the W/C/WYK and the SEO District of the GOA (see Table 1). NMFS also proposes seasonal apportionment of the annual pollock TAC in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA among Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630 divided equally among each of the following four seasons: the A season (January 20 through March 10), the B season (March 10 through May 31), the C season (August 25 through October 1), and the D season (October 1 through November 1) (§ 679.23(d)(2)(i) through (iv), and § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(A) and (B)). Additional detail is provided below; Table 2 lists these amounts.

NMFS proposes Pacific cod TACs in the Western, Central, and Eastern GOA (see Table 1). NMFS also proposes seasonal apportionment of the Pacific cod TACs in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas. Sixty percent of the annual TAC is apportioned to the A season for hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear from January 1 through June 10, and for trawl gear from January 20 through June 10. Forty percent of the annual TAC is apportioned to the B season for jig gear from June 10 through December 31, for hook-and-line or pot gear from September 1 through December 31, and for trawl gear from September 1 through November 1 (§§ 679.23(d)(3) and 679.20(a)(12)). The Western and Central GOA Pacific cod gear and sector apportionments are discussed in detail below; Table 3 lists these amounts.

The Council's recommendation for sablefish area apportionments takes into account the prohibition on the use of trawl gear in the SEO District of the Eastern Regulatory Area and makes available 5 percent of the combined Eastern Regulatory Area TACs to trawl gear for use as incidental catch in other directed groundfish fisheries in the WYK District (§ 679.20(a)(4)(i)). Additional detail is provided below; Tables 4 and 5 list these amounts.

The sum of the proposed TACs for all GOA groundfish is 590,161 mt for 2016 and 2017, which is within the OY range specified by the FMP. The sums of the proposed 2016 and 2017 TACs are higher than the final 2015 TACs currently specified for the GOA groundfish fisheries (80 FR 10250, February 25, 2015). The proposed 2016 and 2017 TACs for pollock, Pacific ocean perch, and rougheye rockfish are higher than the final 2015 TACs for these species. The proposed 2016 and 2017 TACs for sablefish, shallow-water flatfish, deep-water flatfish, rex sole, flathead sole, northern rockfish, and dusky rockfish are lower than the final 2015 TACs for these species. The proposed 2016 and 2017 TACs for the remaining species are equal to the final 2015 TACs.

For 2016 and 2017, the Council recommends and NMFS proposes the OFLs, ABCs, and TACs listed in Table 1. The proposed ABCs reflect harvest amounts that are less than the specified overfishing levels. Table 1 lists the proposed 2016 and 2017 OFLs, ABCs, TACs, and area apportionments of groundfish in the GOA. These amounts are consistent with the biological condition of groundfish stocks as described in the 2014 SAFE report, and adjusted for other biological and socioeconomic considerations, including maintaining the total TAC within the required OY range. These proposed amounts and apportionments by area, season, and sector are subject to change pending consideration of the draft 2015 SAFE report and the Council's recommendations for the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications during its December 2015 meeting.

Section 679.20(b)(2) requires NMFS to set aside 20 percent of each TAC for pollock, Pacific cod, flatfish, sculpins, sharks, squids, and octopuses in reserves for possible apportionment at a later date during the fishing year. In 2015, NMFS apportioned all of the reserves in the final harvest specifications. For 2016 and 2017, NMFS proposes reapportionment of all the reserves for pollock, Pacific cod, flatfish, sculpins, sharks, squids, and octopuses in anticipation of the projected annual catch of these species. The TACs in Table 1 reflect the apportionment of reserve amounts for these species and species groups. Each proposed TAC for the above mentioned species categories contains the full TAC recommended by the Council, since none of the relevant species and species groups' TACs contributed to a reserve that could be used for future reapportionments.

In the GOA, pollock is apportioned by season and area, and is further allocated for processing by inshore and offshore components. Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the annual pollock TAC specified for the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA is apportioned into four equal seasonal allowances of 25 percent. As established by § 679.23(d)(2)(i) through (iv), the A, B, C, and D season allowances are available from January 20 through March 10, March 10 through May 31, August 25 through October 1, and October 1 through November 1, respectively.

Pollock TACs in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA are apportioned among Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630, pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(A). In the A and B seasons, the apportionments have historically been based on the proportional distribution of pollock biomass based on the four most recent NMFS winter surveys. In the C and D seasons, the apportionments are in proportion to the distribution of pollock biomass based on the four most recent NMFS summer surveys. However, for 2016 and 2017, the Council recommends, and NMFS proposes, averaging the winter and summer distribution of pollock in the Central Regulatory Area for the A season instead of using the distribution based on only the winter surveys. This combination of summer and winter distribution has been used for area apportionments since 2002. The average is intended to reflect the best available information about migration patterns, distribution of pollock, and the performance of the fishery in the area during the A season. For the A season, the apportionment is based on the proposed adjusted estimate of the relative distribution of pollock biomass of approximately 8 percent, 67 percent, and 25 percent in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630, respectively. For the B season, the apportionment is based on the relative distribution of pollock biomass of approximately 8 percent, 83 percent, and 9 percent in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630, respectively. For the C and D seasons, the apportionment is based on the relative distribution of pollock biomass of approximately 27 percent, 32 percent, and 41 percent in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630, respectively.

Within any fishing year, the amount by which a seasonal allowance is underharvested or overharvested may be added to, or subtracted from, subsequent seasonal allowances in a manner to be determined by the Regional Administrator (§ 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B)). The rollover amount is limited to 20 percent of the unharvested seasonal apportionment for the statistical area. Any unharvested pollock above the 20-percent limit could be further distributed to the other statistical areas, in proportion to the estimated biomass in the subsequent season in those statistical areas (§ 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B)). The proposed 2016 and 2017 pollock TACs in the WYK District of 6,187 mt and SEO District of 12,625 mt are not allocated by season.

Section 679.20(a)(6)(i) requires the allocation of 100 percent of the pollock apportionments in all regulatory areas and all seasonal allowances to vessels catching pollock for processing by the inshore component after subtraction of pollock amounts projected by the Regional Administrator to be caught by, or delivered to, the offshore component incidental to directed fishing for other groundfish species. Thus, the amount of pollock available for harvest by vessels harvesting pollock for processing by the offshore component is that amount that will be taken as incidental catch during directed fishing for groundfish species other than pollock, up to the maximum retainable amounts allowed under § 679.20(e) and (f). At this time, these incidental catch amounts of pollock are unknown and will be determined as fishing activity occurs during the fishing year by the offshore component.

Table 2 lists the proposed 2016 and 2017 seasonal biomass distribution of pollock in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas, area apportionments, and seasonal allowances. The amounts of pollock for processing by the inshore and offshore components are not shown.

Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(12)(i), NMFS proposes allocations for the 2016 and 2017 Pacific cod TACs in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA among gear and operational sectors. Pursuant § 679.20(a)(6)(ii) NMFS proposes the allocation of the Pacific cod TAC between the inshore and offshore components in the Eastern Regulatory Area of the GOA. In the Central GOA, the Pacific cod TAC is apportioned seasonally first to vessels using jig gear, and then among catcher vessels (CVs) less than 50 feet in length overall using hook-and-line gear, CVs equal to or greater than 50 feet in length overall using hook-and-line gear, C/Ps using hook-and-line gear, CVs using trawl gear, C/Ps using trawl gear, and vessels using pot gear. In the Western GOA, the Pacific cod TAC is apportioned seasonally first to vessels using jig gear, and then among CVs using hook-and-line gear, C/Ps using hook-and-line gear, CVs using trawl gear, and vessels using pot gear. The overall seasonal apportionments in the Western and Central GOA are 60 percent of the annual TAC to the A season and 40 percent of the annual TAC to the B season.

Under § 679.20(a)(12)(ii), any overage or underage of the Pacific cod allowance from the A season will be subtracted from, or added to, the subsequent B season allowance. In addition, any portion of the hook-and-line, trawl, pot, or jig sector allocations that is determined by NMFS as likely to go unharvested by a sector may be reapportioned to other sectors for harvest during the remainder of the fishery year.

Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(12)(i)(A) and (B), a portion of the annual Pacific cod TACs in the Western and Central GOA will be allocated to vessels with a federal fisheries permit that use jig gear before TAC is apportioned among other non-jig sectors. In accordance with the FMP, the annual jig sector allocations may increase up to 6 percent of the annual Western and Central GOA Pacific cod TACs depending on the annual performance of the jig sector. If such allocation increases are not harvested by the jig sector, then the annual jig sector allocations may subsequently be reduced (See Table 1 of Amendment 83 to the FMP for a detailed discussion of the jig sector allocation process (76 FR 74670, December 1, 2011)). NMFS proposes that the jig sector receive 3.5 percent of the annual Pacific cod TAC in the Western GOA. This includes a base allocation of 1.5 percent and an additional 2.0 percent because this sector harvested greater than 90 percent of its initial 2012 and 2014 allocations in the Western GOA. NMFS also proposes that the jig sector would receive 1.0 percent of the annual Pacific cod TAC in the Central GOA. This includes a base allocation of 1.0 percent and no additional performance increase. However, allocation increases to the jig sector are established for a minimum of 2 years. NMFS will re-evaluate the annual 2014 and 2015 harvest performance of each jig sector when the 2015 fishing year is complete to determine whether to change the jig sector allocations proposed by this action in conjunction with the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications.

Based on the current catch (through November 2015) by the Western GOA jig sector, the Pacific cod allocation percentage to this sector would not change in 2016. Similarly, the current catch by the Central GOA jig sector indicates that this sector's Pacific cod allocation percentage would not change in 2016. The jig sector allocations are further apportioned between the A (60 percent) and B (40 percent) seasons.

Table 3 lists the seasonal apportionments and allocations of the proposed 2016 and 2017 Pacific cod TACs.

Sections 679.20(a)(4)(i) and (ii) require allocations of sablefish TACs for each of the regulatory areas and districts to hook-and-line and trawl gear. In the Western and Central Regulatory Areas, 80 percent of each TAC is allocated to hook-and-line gear, and 20 percent of each TAC is allocated to trawl gear. In the Eastern Regulatory Area, 95 percent of the TAC is allocated to hook-and-line gear and 5 percent is allocated to trawl gear. The trawl gear allocation in the Eastern GOA may only be used to support incidental catch of sablefish in directed fisheries for other target species (§ 679.20(a)(4)(i)).

In recognition of the prohibition against trawl gear in the SEO District of the Eastern Regulatory Area, the Council recommended and NMFS proposes the allocation of 5 percent of the combined Eastern Regulatory Area sablefish TAC to trawl gear in the WYK District, making the remainder of the WYK sablefish TAC available to vessels using hook-and-line gear. NMFS proposes to allocate 100 percent of the sablefish TAC in the SEO District to vessels using hook-and-line gear. This action results in a proposed 2016 allocation of 199 mt to trawl gear and 1,353 mt to hook-and-line gear in the WYK District, and 2,436 mt to hook-and-line gear in the SEO District. Table 4 lists the allocations of the proposed 2016 sablefish TACs to hook-and-line and trawl gear. Table 5 lists the allocations of the proposed 2017 sablefish TACs to trawl gear.

The Council recommended that the hook-and-line sablefish TAC be established annually to ensure that the sablefish Individual Fishery Quota (IFQ) fishery is conducted concurrent with the halibut IFQ fishery and is based on recent survey information. The Council also recommended that only the trawl sablefish TAC be established for 2 years so that retention of incidental catch of sablefish by trawl gear could commence in January in the second year of the groundfish harvest specifications. Since there is an annual assessment for sablefish and the final harvest specifications are expected to be published before the IFQ season begins (typically, in early March), the Council recommended that the sablefish TAC be set on an annual basis, rather than for 2 years, so that the best available scientific information could be considered in establishing the ABCs and TACs. With the exception of the trawl allocations that are provided to the Rockfish Program cooperatives (see Table 28c to part 679), directed fishing for sablefish with trawl gear is closed during the fishing year. Also, fishing for groundfish with trawl gear is prohibited prior to January 20. Therefore, it is not likely that the sablefish allocation to trawl gear would be reached before the effective date of the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications.

These proposed 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for the GOA include the fishery cooperative allocations and sideboard limitations established by the Rockfish Program. Program participants are primarily trawl CVs and trawl C/Ps, with limited participation by vessels using longline gear. The Rockfish Program assigns quota share and cooperative quota to participants for primary and secondary species, allows a participant holding a license limitation program (LLP) license with rockfish quota share to form a rockfish cooperative with other persons, and allows holders of C/P LLP licenses to opt out of the fishery. The Rockfish Program also has an entry level fishery for rockfish primary species for vessels using longline gear.

Under the Rockfish Program, rockfish primary species (Pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, and dusky rockfish) in the Central GOA are allocated to participants after deducting for incidental catch needs in other directed groundfish fisheries. Participants in the Rockfish Program also receive a portion of the Central GOA TAC of specific secondary species (Pacific cod, rougheye rockfish, sablefish, shortraker rockfish, and thornyhead rockfish).

Additionally, the Rockfish Program establishes sideboard limits to restrict the ability of harvesters operating under the Rockfish Program to increase their participation in other, non-Rockfish Program fisheries. Besides groundfish species, the Rockfish Program allocates a portion of the halibut PSC limit (191 mt) from the third season deep-water species fishery allowance for the GOA trawl fisheries to Rockfish Program participants. (Rockfish Program sideboards and halibut PSC limits are discussed below.)

Section 679.81(a)(2)(ii) requires allocations of 5 mt of Pacific ocean perch, 5 mt of northern rockfish, and 30 mt of dusky rockfish to the entry level longline fishery in 2016 and 2017. The allocation for the entry level longline fishery would increase incrementally each year if the catch exceeds 90 percent of the allocation of a species. The incremental increase in the allocation would continue each year until it is the maximum percentage of the TAC for that species. In 2015, the catch did not exceed 90 percent of any allocated rockfish species. Therefore, NMFS is not proposing an increase to the entry level longline fishery 2016 and 2017 allocations in the Central GOA. The remainder of the TACs for the rockfish primary species would be allocated to the CV and C/P cooperatives. Table 6 lists the allocations of the proposed 2016 and 2017 TACs for each rockfish primary species to the entry level longline fishery, the incremental increase for future years, and the maximum percent of the TAC for the entry level longline fishery.

Section 679.81(a)(2) requires allocations of rockfish primary species among various components of the Rockfish Program. Table 7 lists the proposed 2016 and 2017 allocations of rockfish in the Central GOA to the entry level longline fishery and other participants in the Rockfish Program, which include CV and C/P cooperatives. NMFS also proposes setting aside incidental catch amounts (ICAs) for other directed fisheries in the Central GOA of 2,000 mt of Pacific ocean perch, 250 mt of northern rockfish, and 250 mt of dusky rockfish. These amounts are based on recent average incidental catches in the Central GOA by other groundfish fisheries.

Allocations between vessels belonging to CV or C/P cooperatives are not included in these proposed harvest specifications. Rockfish Program applications for CV cooperatives and C/P cooperatives are not due to NMFS until March 1 of each calendar year; therefore, NMFS cannot calculate 2016 and 2017 allocations in conjunction with these proposed harvest specifications. NMFS will post these allocations on the Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/rockfish/ after March 1.

Section 679.81(c) requires allocations of rockfish secondary species to CV and C/P cooperatives in the GOA. CV cooperatives receive allocations of Pacific cod, sablefish from the trawl gear allocation, and thornyhead rockfish. C/P cooperatives receive allocations of sablefish from the trawl allocation, rougheye rockfish, shortraker rockfish, and thornyhead rockfish. Table 8 lists the apportionments of the proposed 2016 and 2017 TACs of rockfish secondary species in the Central GOA to CV and C/P cooperatives.

Section 679.21(d) establishes annual halibut PSC limit apportionments to trawl and hook-and-line gear, and authorizes the establishment of apportionments for pot gear. Amendment 95 to the FMP (79 FR 9625, February 20, 2014) implemented measures establishing GOA halibut PSC limits in Federal regulations and reducing the halibut PSC limits in the GOA trawl and hook-and-line groundfish fisheries. These reductions are incorporated into the halibut PSC limits that are proposed by this action. For most gear and operational types, the halibut PSC limit reductions are phased-in over 3 years, beginning in 2014 and ending in 2016.

In 2015, the trawl halibut PSC limit was reduced by 12 percent from the 2013 limit. Under Amendment 95 and § 679.21(d)(3)(i), the initial trawl halibut PSC limit is reduced by an additional 3 percent in 2016. This results in a total reduction of 15 percent in 2016 as compared to the 2013 halibut PSC limit. The reduced PSC limit will remain in effect each year thereafter.

In addition, under Amendment 95 and § 679.21(d)(2)(iv), the initial hook-and-line PSC for the other hook and-line CV sector was reduced 7 percent in 2014 and an additional 5-percent in 2015. This action implements an additional 3-percent reduction in 2016 for a total reduction of 15 percent from the 2013 limit. The PSC limit for the hook-and-line C/P sector was reduced by 7 percent in 2014 and thereafter.

In October 2015, the Council recommended halibut PSC limits that reflect the reductions implemented under Amendment 95 of 1,706 mt for trawl gear, 256 mt for hook-and-line gear, and 9 mt for the demersal shelf rockfish (DSR) fishery in the SEO District for the 2016 groundfish fisheries.

The DSR fishery in the SEO District is defined at § 679.21(d)(2)(ii)(A). This fishery is apportioned 9 mt of the halibut PSC limit in recognition of its small-scale harvests of groundfish. NMFS estimates low halibut bycatch in the DSR fishery because (1) the duration of the DSR fisheries and the gear soak times are short, (2) the DSR fishery occurs in the winter when less overlap occurs in the distribution of DSR and halibut, and (3) the directed commercial DSR fishery has a low DSR TAC. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game sets the commercial GHL for the DSR fishery after deducting (1) estimates of DSR incidental catch in all fisheries (including halibut and subsistence) and (2) the allocation to the DSR sport fish fishery. Of the 225 mt TAC for DSR in 2015, 83 mt were available for the DSR commercial directed fishery, of which 36 mt were harvested.

The FMP authorizes the Council to exempt specific gear from the halibut PSC limits. NMFS, after consultation with the Council, proposes to exempt pot gear, jig gear, and the sablefish IFQ hook-and-line gear fishery categories from the non-trawl halibut PSC limit for 2016 and 2017. The Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, these exemptions because (1) pot gear fisheries have low annual halibut bycatch mortality, (2) IFQ program regulations prohibit discard of halibut if any halibut IFQ permit holder on board a CV holds unused halibut IFQ (§ 679.7(f)(11)), (3) sablefish IFQ fishermen typically hold halibut IFQ permits and are therefore required to retain the halibut they catch while fishing sablefish IFQ, and (4) NMFS estimates negligible halibut mortality for the jig gear fisheries. NMFS estimates halibut mortality is negligible in the jig gear fisheries given the small amount of groundfish harvested by jig gear, the selective nature of jig gear, and the high survival rates of halibut caught and released with jig gear.

The best available information on estimated halibut bycatch consists of data collected by fisheries observers during 2015. The calculated halibut bycatch mortality through October 31, 2015, is 1,324 mt for trawl gear and 185 mt for hook-and-line gear for a total halibut mortality of 1,509 mt. This halibut mortality was calculated using groundfish and halibut catch data from the NMFS Alaska Region's catch accounting system. This account system contains historical and recent catch information compiled from each Alaska groundfish fishery.

Section 679.21(d)(4)(i) and (ii) authorizes NMFS to seasonally apportion the halibut PSC limits after consultation with the Council. The FMP and regulations require that the Council and NMFS consider the following information in seasonally apportioning halibut PSC limits: (1) Seasonal distribution of halibut, (2) seasonal distribution of target groundfish species relative to halibut distribution, (3) expected halibut bycatch needs on a seasonal basis relative to changes in halibut biomass and expected catch of target groundfish species, (4) expected bycatch rates on a seasonal basis, (5) expected changes in directed groundfish fishing seasons, (6) expected actual start of fishing effort, and (7) economic effects of establishing seasonal halibut allocations on segments of the target groundfish industry. Based on public comment and the information presented in the final 2015 SAFE report, the Council may recommend or NMFS may make changes to the seasonal, gear-type, or fishery category apportionments of halibut PSC limits for the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications.

The final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications (80 FR 10250, February 26, 2015) summarized the Council's and NMFS' findings with respect to halibut PSC for each of these FMP considerations. The Council's and NMFS' findings for 2016 are unchanged from 2015. Table 9 lists the proposed 2016 and 2017 Pacific halibut PSC limits, allowances, and apportionments. The halibut PSC limits in these tables reflect the halibut PSC reductions implemented in accordance with Amendment 95 (79 FR 9625, February 20, 2014) and § 679.21(d)(3)(i). Sections 679.21(d)(4)(iii) and (iv) specify that any underages or overages of a seasonal apportionment of a PSC limit will be deducted from or added to the next respective seasonal apportionment within the fishing year.

Section 679.21(d)(3)(ii) authorizes further apportionment of the trawl halibut PSC limit as bycatch allowances to trawl fishery categories. The annual apportionments are based on each category's proportional share of the anticipated halibut bycatch mortality during a fishing year and optimization of the total amount of groundfish harvest under the halibut PSC limit. The fishery categories for the trawl halibut PSC limits are (1) a deep-water species fishery, composed of sablefish, rockfish, deep-water flatfish, rex sole, and arrowtooth flounder; and (2) a shallow-water species fishery, composed of pollock, Pacific cod, shallow-water flatfish, flathead sole, Atka mackerel, skates and “other species” (sculpins, sharks, squids, and octopuses) (§ 679.21(d)(3)(iii)).

Table 10 lists the proposed 2016 and 2017 seasonal apportionments of trawl halibut PSC limits between the trawl gear deep-water and the shallow-water species fisheries. These limits proportionately incorporate the halibut PSC limit reductions implemented in accordance with Amendment 95 (79 FR 9625, February 20, 2014) and § 679.21(d)(3).

Table 28d to 50 CFR part 679 specifies the amount of the trawl halibut PSC limit that is assigned to the CV and C/P sectors that are participating in the Central GOA Rockfish Program. This includes 117 mt of halibut PSC limit to the CV sector and 74 mt of halibut PSC limit to the C/P sector. These amounts are allocated from the trawl deep-water species fishery's halibut PSC third seasonal apportionment.

Section 679.21(d)(4)(iii)(B) limits the amount of the halibut PSC limit allocated to Rockfish Program participants that could be re-apportioned to the general GOA trawl fisheries to no more than 55 percent of the unused annual halibut PSC apportioned to Rockfish Program participants. The remainder of the unused Rockfish Program halibut PSC limit is unavailable for use by vessels directed fishing with trawl gear for the remainder of the fishing year.

Section 679.21(d)(2) requires that the “other hook-and-line fishery” halibut PSC apportionment to vessels using hook-and-line gear must be divided between CVs and C/Ps. NMFS must calculate the halibut PSC limit apportionments for the entire GOA to hook-and-line CVs and C/Ps in accordance with § 679.21(d)(2)(iii) in conjunction with these harvest specifications. A comprehensive description and example of the calculations necessary to apportion the “other hook-and-line fishery” halibut PSC limit between the hook-and-line CV and C/P sectors were included in the proposed rule to implement Amendment 83 to the FMP (76 FR 44700, July 26, 2011) and is not repeated here.

For 2016 and 2017, NMFS proposes annual halibut PSC limit apportionments of 140 mt and 116 mt to the hook-and-line CV and hook-and-line C/P sectors, respectively. The 2016 and 2017 annual halibut PSC limits are divided into three seasonal apportionments, using seasonal percentages of 86 percent, 2 percent, and 12 percent. Table 11 lists the proposed 2016 and 2017 annual halibut PSC limits and seasonal apportionments between the hook-and-line CV and hook-and-line C/P sectors in the GOA.

No later than November 1 of each year, NMFS calculates the projected unused amount of halibut PSC limit by either of the hook-and-line sectors for the remainder of the year. The projected unused amount of halibut PSC limit is made available to the other hook-and-line sector for the remainder of that fishing year if NMFS determines that an additional amount of halibut PSC limit is necessary for that sector to continue its directed fishing operations (§ 679.21(d)(2)(iii)(C)).

To monitor halibut bycatch mortality allowances and apportionments, the Regional Administrator uses observed halibut incidental catch rates, discard mortality rates (DMRs), and estimates of groundfish catch to project when a fishery's halibut bycatch mortality allowance or seasonal apportionment is reached. The DMRs are based on the best information available, including information contained in the annual SAFE report.

NMFS proposes the Council's recommendation that the halibut DMRs developed and recommended by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) for the 2016 through 2017 GOA groundfish fisheries be used to monitor the proposed 2016 and 2017 halibut bycatch mortality allowances (see Tables 9 through 11). The IPHC developed the DMRs for the 2016 through 2017 GOA groundfish fisheries using the 10-year mean DMRs for those fisheries. Long-term average DMRs were not available for some fisheries, so rates from the most recent years were used. For the skate, sculpin, shark, squid, and octopus fisheries, where not enough mortality data are available, the mortality rate of halibut caught in the Pacific cod fishery for that gear type was recommended as a default rate. The IPHC will analyze observer data annually and recommend changes to the DMRs when a fishery DMR shows large variation from the mean. A discussion of the DMRs and how the IPHC establishes them is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES). Any changes to the current DMRs will be incorporated into the final GOA harvest specifications. Table 12 lists the proposed 2016 and 2017 DMRs.

Amendment 93 to the FMP (77 FR 42629, July 20, 2012) established separate Chinook salmon PSC limits in the Western and Central GOA in the directed pollock fishery. These limits require NMFS to close the pollock directed fishery in the Western and Central regulatory areas of the GOA if the applicable limit is reached (§ 679.21(h)(6)). The annual Chinook salmon PSC limits in the pollock directed fishery of 6,684 salmon in the Western GOA and 18,316 salmon in the Central GOA are set in § 679.21(h)(2)(i) and (ii). In addition, all salmon (regardless of species), taken in the pollock directed fisheries in the Western and Central GOA must be retained until an observer at the processing facility that takes delivery of the catch is provided an opportunity to count the number of salmon and to collect any scientific data or biological samples from the salmon (§ 679.21(h)(4)).

Amendment 97 to the FMP (79 FR 71350, December 2, 2014) established an initial annual PSC limit of 7,500 Chinook salmon for the non-pollock groundfish fisheries. This limit is apportioned among three sectors: 3,600 Chinook salmon to trawl C/Ps; 1,200 Chinook salmon to trawl CVs participating in the Rockfish Program; and 2,700 Chinook salmon to trawl CVs not participating in the Rockfish Program that are fishing for groundfish species other than pollock (§ 679.21(i)(3)). NMFS will monitor the Chinook salmon PSC in the non-pollock GOA groundfish fisheries and close an applicable sector if it reaches its Chinook salmon PSC limit.

The Chinook salmon PSC limit for two sectors, trawl C/Ps and trawl CVs not participating in the Rockfish Program, may be increased in subsequent years based on the performance of these two sectors and their ability to minimize their use of their respective Chinook salmon PSC limits. If either or both of these two sectors limits its use of Chinook salmon PSC to a certain threshold amount in 2015, that sector will receive an incremental increase to its 2016 Chinook salmon PSC limit (§ 679.21(i)(3)). NMFS will evaluate the annual Chinook salmon PSC by trawl C/Ps and non-Rockfish Program CVs when the 2015 fishing year is complete to determine whether to increase the Chinook salmon PSC limits for these two sectors. Based on preliminary 2015 Chinook salmon PSC data, the trawl C/P sector will receive an incremental increase of its Chinook salmon PSC limit, whereas the non-Rockfish Program CV sector will not. This evaluation will be completed in conjunction with the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications.

Section 679.64 establishes groundfish harvesting and processing sideboard limits on AFA C/Ps and CVs in the GOA. These sideboard limits are necessary to protect the interests of fishermen and processors who do not directly benefit from the AFA from those fishermen and processors who receive exclusive harvesting and processing privileges under the AFA. Section 679.7(k)(1)(ii) prohibits listed AFA C/Ps from harvesting any species of fish in the GOA. Additionally, § 679.7(k)(1)(iv) prohibits listed AFA C/Ps from processing any pollock harvested in a directed pollock fishery in the GOA and any groundfish harvested in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA.

AFA CVs that are less than 125 ft (38.1 meters) length overall, have annual landings of pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands of less than 5,100 mt, and have made at least 40 landings of GOA groundfish from 1995 through 1997 are exempt from GOA sideboard limits under § 679.64(b)(2)(ii). Sideboard limits for non-exempt AFA CVs operating in the GOA are based on their traditional harvest levels of TAC in groundfish fisheries covered by the FMP. Section 679.64(b)(3)(iii) establishes the groundfish sideboard limitations in the GOA based on the retained catch of non-exempt AFA CVs of each sideboard species from 1995 through 1997 divided by the TAC for that species over the same period.

Table 13 lists the proposed 2016 and 2017 groundfish sideboard limits for non-exempt AFA CVs. NMFS will deduct all targeted or incidental catch of sideboard species made by non-exempt AFA CVs from the sideboard limits listed in Table 16.

The halibut PSC sideboard limits for non-exempt AFA CVs in the GOA are based on the aggregate retained groundfish catch by non-exempt AFA CVs in each PSC target category from 1995 through 1997 divided by the retained catch of all vessels in that fishery from 1995 through 1997 (§ 679.64(b)(4)). Table 14 lists the proposed 2016 and 2017 non-exempt AFA CV halibut PSC limits for vessels using trawl gear in the GOA. The proposed 2016 and 2017 seasonal apportionments of trawl halibut PSC limits between the deep-water and shallow-water species fisheries categories proportionately incorporate reductions made to the annual trawl halibut PSC limits and associated seasonal apportionments (see Table 10).

Section 680.22 establishes groundfish catch limits for vessels with a history of participation in the Bering Sea snow crab fishery to prevent these vessels from using the increased flexibility provided by the Crab Rationalization Program to expand their level of participation in the GOA groundfish fisheries. Sideboard limits restrict these vessels' catch to their collective historical landings in each GOA groundfish fishery (except the fixed-gear sablefish fishery). Sideboard limits also apply to landings made using an LLP license derived from the history of a restricted vessel, even if that LLP license is used on another vessel.

The basis for these sideboard limits is described in detail in the final rules implementing the major provisions of the Crab Rationalization Program, including Amendments 18 and 19 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP) (70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005), Amendment 34 to the Crab FMP (76 FR 35772, June 20, 2011), and Amendment 83 to the GOA FMP (76 FR 74670, December 1, 2011).

Table 15 lists the proposed 2016 and 2017 groundfish sideboard limitations for non-AFA crab vessels. All targeted or incidental catch of sideboard species made by non-AFA crab vessels or associated LLP licenses will be deducted from these sideboard limits.