Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18709 

affixed to each vessel subject to this 

section in block Arabic numerals at least 

10 inches (25.40 cm) in height for 

vessels more than 25 ft (7.62 m) but 

equal to or less than 65 ft (19.81 m) in 

length; and 18 inches (45.72 cm) in 

height for vessels longer than 65 ft 

(19.81 m) in length. Markings must be 

legible and of a color that contrasts with 

the background. 

(b) [Reserved]. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8075 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 110311192–1204–01] 

RIN 0648–BA95 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2011 

Tribal Fishery for Pacific Whiting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is issuing this 

proposed rule for the 2011 Pacific 

whiting tribal fishery under the 

authority of the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) and the Magnuson Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson Act). Washington 

coastal treaty Indian tribes mean the 

Hoh, Makah, and Quileute Indian Tribes 

and the Quinault Indian Nation. This 

proposed rule establishes an interim 

tribal allocation of Pacific whiting for 

the 2011 season only, based on 

discussions with the Makah and 

Quileute tribes and Quinault Indian 

Nation regarding their fishing plans. At 

the March, 2011 Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) meeting, 

the Council recommended a coastwide 

Optimum Yield (OY) of 393,751 mt. 

This would result in a U.S. OY of 

290,903 mt. The proposed rule, based 

on communications to date with the 

tribes, proposes a tribal allocation of 

66,908 mt, for 2011 only, given the 

Council’s recommended OY. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received no later than 5 p.m., 

local time on April 19, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 0648–BA95 by any 

one of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: 206–526–6736, Attn: Kevin C. 

Duffy 

• Mail: William W. Stelle, Jr., 

Regional Administrator, Northwest 

Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way 

NE, Seattle, WA 98115–0070, Attn: 

Kevin C. Duffy. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments. Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin C. Duffy (Northwest Region, 

NMFS), phone: 206–526–4743, fax: 

206–526–6736 and e-mail: 

kevin.duffy@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

This proposed rule is accessible via 

the Internet at the Office of the Federal 

Register’s Web site at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

Background information and documents 

are available at the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s Web site at 

http://www.pcouncil.org/. 

Background 

The regulations at 50 CFR 660.50(d) 

establish the process by which the tribes 

with treaty fishing rights in the area 

covered by the Pacific Coast Groundfish 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP) request 

new allocations or regulations specific 

to the tribes, in writing, during the 

biennial harvest specifications and 

management measures process. The 

regulations state ‘‘the Secretary will 

develop tribal allocations and 

regulations under this paragraph in 

consultation with the affected tribe(s) 

and, insofar as possible, with tribal 

consensus.’’ These procedures employed 

by NOAA in implementing tribal treaty 

rights under the FMP, in place since 

May 31, 1996, were designed to provide 

a framework process by which NMFS 

can accommodate tribal treaty rights by 

setting aside appropriate amounts of 

fish in conjunction with the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Council) 

process for determining harvest 

specifications and management 

measures. The Council’s groundfish 

fisheries require a high degree of 

coordination among the tribal, state, and 

federal co-managers in order to rebuild 

overfished species and prevent 

overfishing, while allowing fishermen 

opportunities to sustainably harvest 

over 90 species of groundfish managed 

under the FMP. 

Since 1996, NMFS has been allocating 

a portion of the U.S. OY of Pacific 

whiting to the tribal fishery following 

the process established in 50 CFR 

660.50(d). The tribal allocation is 

subtracted from the whiting OY before 

allocation to the non-tribal sectors. To 

date, there has been no determination of 

the total amount of whiting for which 

the tribes are entitled to fish under their 

treaty right. Therefore, allocations to 

date have been on an interim basis, and 

are not considered to set precedent with 

respect to the amount of the treaty right. 

To date, only the Makah Tribe has 

prosecuted a tribal fishery for Pacific 

whiting. The Makah Tribe has annually 

harvested a whiting allocation every 

year since 1996 using midwater trawl 

gear. From 1999 until 2009, the tribal 

allocation was based on a statement of 

need for their tribal fishery. In recent 

years prior to 2009, the specific tribal 

amount was generally, although not 

always, determined using a sliding scale 

relative to the U.S. whiting OY of 

between 14 and 17.5 percent, depending 

on the specific OY determined by the 

Council. In general, years with a 

relatively low OY resulted in a tribal 

allocation closer to 17.5 percent, and 

years with a relatively high OY result in 

a tribal allocation closer to 14 percent. 

Between 2000 and 2008, the U.S. OY 

ranged from a high of 269,545 mt in 

2008 to a low of 129,600 mt in 2002. In 

absolute amounts, the tribal allocation 

from 2000 to 2008 ranged from a high 

of 35,000 mt in 2005, 2007, and 2008 to 

a low of 22,680 mt in 2002. 

For the 2009 fishery, the Quileute 

Tribe first stated their intent to 

participate in the fishery. That year, the 

U.S. OY was 135,939 mt, and the tribal 

allocation was set at 50,000 mt (36.78 

percent of the U.S. OY). A set-aside of 

42,000 mt was established for the 

Makah, and an 8,000 mt set-aside was 

established for the Quileute. The final 

rule in 2009 anticipated the Makah 

managing their fisheries to achieve a 

harvest of no more than 42,000 mt, and 

the Quileute managing their fisheries to 

achieve a harvest of no more than 8,000 

mt. For 2010, both the Makah and 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

18710 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Quileute stated their intent to 

participate in the Pacific whiting 

fishery. Based on the formula for the 

tribal allocation used in the proposed 

rule, and taking into account public 

comments received on the proposed 

rule, the tribal allocation of Pacific 

whiting in 2010 was 49,939 mt (25.75 

percent of the U.S. OY). Although an 

allocation was made to account for 

participation by two tribes, only the 

Makah actually participated in the 2009 

and 2010 tribal whiting fisheries. 

NMFS and the co-managers have been 

involved in a process designed to 

determine the long-term tribal allocation 

for whiting. At the September 2008 

Council meeting, NMFS, the states and 

the Quinault, Quileute, and Makah 

tribes met and agreed on a process in 

which NMFS would pull together the 

current information regarding whiting, 

circulate it among the co-managers, seek 

comment on the information and 

possible analyses, and then prepare 

analyses of the information to be used 

by the co-managers in developing a 

tribal allocation for use in 2010 and 

beyond. The goal was agreement among 

the co-managers on a total tribal 

allocation for incorporation into the 

Council’s planning process for the 2010 

season. The further goal was to provide 

the tribes the time and information to 

develop an inter-tribal allocation or 

other necessary management agreement. 

The process has been moving forward 

but final agreement on a long-term tribal 

allocation has not been reached. In 

2009, NMFS shared a preliminary report 

summarizing scientific information 

available on the migration and 

distribution of Pacific whiting on the 

west coast. The co-managers have met to 

discuss this information and plan 

further meetings. During 2010, NMFS 

finalized the report summarizing 

scientific information available on the 

migration and distribution of Pacific 

whiting on the west coast. In addition, 

NMFS responded in writing to requests 

from the tribes for clarifications on the 

paper and requests for additional 

information. Additionally, NMFS met 

with each of the tribes in the fall of 2010 

to discuss the paper and to discuss a 

process for negotiation of the long-term 

tribal allocation of Pacific whiting. 

Those discussions are ongoing and it is 

not anticipated that these issues will be 

resolved prior to the start of the 2011 

Pacific whiting tribal fishery. 

Tribal Allocation for 2011 

Over the last three months, NMFS has 

met individually with each of the 

coastal tribes that have expressed a 

potential interest in fishing for whiting 

in 2011 to discuss this year’s tribal 

fishery as well as the process for 

negotiating a long-term tribal allocation. 

For 2011, the Makah and the Quileute 

Tribes have indicated that they plan to 

participate in the 2011 fishery. The 

Quinault Indian Nation informed NMFS 

that while they are still pursuing 

entering the fishery in 2011, they have 

not yet made a final decision. Because 

the co-managers have not negotiated a 

long term tribal allocation, NMFS is 

again moving forward with this 

proposed rule as an interim measure to 

address the allocation for and 

management of the 2011 tribal Pacific 

whiting fishery. As with the 2010 

allocation, this proposed rule is not 

intended to establish any precedent for 

future whiting seasons or for the longterm tribal allocation of whiting. 

The proposed rule would be 

implemented under authority of Section 

305(d) of the Magnuson Act, which 

gives the Secretary responsibility to 

‘‘carry out any fishery management plan 

or amendment approved or prepared by 

him, in accordance with the provisions 

of this Act.’’ With this proposed rule, 

NMFS, acting on behalf of the Secretary, 

would ensure that the FMP is 

implemented in a manner consistent 

with treaty rights of the Washington 

tribes to fish in their ‘‘usual and 

accustomed grounds and stations’’ in 

common with non-tribal citizens. 

(United States v. Washington, 384 F. 

Supp. 313 (W.D. 1974)). 

At the March, 2011 Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) meeting, 

the Council recommended a coastwide 

Optimum Yield (OY) of 393,751 mt. 

This would result in a U.S. OY of 

290,903 mt. The Makah Tribe has 

requested the opportunity to harvest up 

to 17.5 percent of the U.S. OY of 

whiting in 2011. The Quileute Tribe has 

stated that it plans to have two boats 

participating in the 2011 fishery, and 

that it believes that 8,000 mt of whiting 

per boat is necessary to ensure the 

economic viability of each boat. 

Given past tribal allocations, the 

recent conversations with the Quinault 

Indian Nation, the Quileute Tribe, and 

the Makah Tribe, and the whiting U.S. 

OY recommendation from the Pacific 

Council, NMFS is proposing a 2011 

interim tribal allocation of no higher 

than 66,908 mt, which is 23.00 percent 

of the recommended U.S. OY. NMFS is 

still in communication with the tribes 

on the 2011 interim allocation and the 

final allocation amount may differ from 

this proposal. In addition, NMFS has yet 

to consider and adopt the Council’s 

recommendation for the U.S. OY of 

whiting. NMFS believes the proposed 

amount will allow for the anticipated 

2011 participation in the fishery by the 

Makah and Quileute tribes, and for the 

potential 2011 participation by the 

Quinault Indian Nation. 

Regarding the 2011 tribal whiting 

allocation, NMFS believes the proposed 

allocation, although higher than the 

absolute amounts of prior tribal 

allocations, is well within the range of 

past percentages (12.08–36.78 percent). 

As described above, while further 

negotiation on the long-term tribal 

allocation of Pacific whiting will occur 

in 2011, NMFS believes that current 

knowledge on the distribution and 

abundance of the coastal Pacific whiting 

stock supports a conclusion that the 

proposed tribal allocation of 66,908 mt 

lies within the range of the tribal treaty 

right to Pacific whiting. 

Classification 

At this time, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the management 

measures for the 2011 Pacific whiting 

tribal fishery are consistent with the 

national standards of the MagnusonStevens Act and other applicable laws. 

NMFS, in making the final 

determination, will take into account 

the data, views, and comments received 

during the comment period. 

NMFS has initially determined that 

this proposed rule is not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

An Initial Regulatory and Flexibility 

Act (IRFA) was prepared, as required by 

section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the 

economic impact this proposed rule, if 

adopted, would have on small entities. 

A summary of the analysis follows. A 

copy of this analysis is available from 

NMFS (see ADDRESSES). 

Under the RFA, the term ‘‘small 

entities’’ includes small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. The Small 

Business Administration (SBA) has 

established size criteria for all major 

industry sectors in the U.S., including 

fish harvesting and fish processing 

businesses. A business involved in fish 

harvesting is a small business if it is 

independently owned and operated and 

not dominant in its field of operation 

(including its affiliates) and if it has 

combined annual receipts not in excess 

of $4.0 million for all its affiliated 

operations worldwide. A seafood 

processor is a small business if it is 

independently owned and operated, not 

dominant in its field of operation, and 

employs 500 or fewer persons on a fulltime, part-time, temporary, or other 

basis, at all its affiliated operations 

worldwide. A business involved in both 

the harvesting and processing of seafood 

products is a small business if it meets 

the $4.0 million criterion for fish 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18711 

harvesting operations. A wholesale 

business servicing the fishing industry 

is a small business if it employs 100 or 

fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, 

temporary, or other basis, at all its 

affiliated operations worldwide. For 

marinas and charter/party boats, a small 

business is one with annual receipts not 

in excess of $7.0 million. The RFA 

defines small organizations as any 

nonprofit enterprise that is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. The RFA 

defines small governmental 

jurisdictions as governments of cities, 

counties, towns, townships, villages, 

school districts, or special districts with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

In recent years the number of 

participants engaged in the Pacific 

whiting fishery has varied with changes 

in the whiting OY and economic 

conditions. Pacific whiting shoreside 

vessels (26 to 29), mothership 

processors (4 to 6), mothership catcher 

vessels (11 to 20), catcher/processors (5 

to 9), Pacific whiting shoreside first 

receivers (8 to 16), and five whiting 

vessels participating in the Makah 

portion of the tribal whiting fishery, are 

the major units of this fishery. For 2011, 

there may be additional vessels 

participating in the tribal whiting 

fishery. NMFS records suggest the gross 

annual revenue for each of the catcher/ 

processor and mothership operations 

participating in the Pacific coast whiting 

fishery exceeds $4.0 million. Therefore, 

they are not considered small 

businesses. NMFS records also show 

that 10–43 catcher vessels have taken 

part in the mothership fishery on an 

annual basis since 1994. These 

companies are all assumed to be small 

businesses, although some of these 

vessels may be affiliated with larger 

processing companies. Since 1994, 26– 

31 catcher vessels have annually 

participated in the shoreside whiting 

fishery. These companies are all 

assumed to be small businesses, 

although some of the vessels may be 

affiliated with larger processing 

companies. Vessels participating in the 

tribal whiting fishery are presumed to 

be small businesses, whereas the Tribes 

are presumed to be small government 

jurisdictions. 

Pacific whiting has grown in 

importance, especially in recent years. 

Through the 1990s, the volume of 

Pacific whiting landed in the fishery 

increased. In 2002 and 2003, landings of 

Pacific whiting declined due to 

information showing the stock was 

depleted and the subsequent regulations 

that restricted harvest in order to 

rebuild the species. Over the years 

2003–2007, estimated Pacific whiting 

ex-vessel values averaged about $29 

million. In 2008, these participants 

harvested about 248,000 mt of whiting 

worth about $63 million in ex-vessel 

value based on shoreside ex-vessel 

prices of $254 per ton—the highest exvessel revenues and prices on record. In 

comparison, the 2007 fishery harvested 

about 224,000 mt worth $36 million at 

an average ex-vessel price of about $160 

per mt. In 2009, tribal and non-tribal 

fleets harvested about 122,000 mt of 

Pacific whiting, worth approximately 

$14 million. During 2009, ex-vessel 

prices declined to about $119.00 per 

ton, presumably due to the worldwide 

recession. For 2010, the preliminary exvessel price returned to $160.00 per mt, 

leading to approximately $27 million in 

revenues, based on a total harvest of 

170,000 mt. 

For 2010, the tribes were initially 

allocated 49,939 mt. In September and 

October, NMFS reapportioned a total of 

16,000 mt from the tribal allocation to 

the non-tribal shorebased, mothership, 

and catcher processor sectors. 

Based on conversations with the 

tribes regarding their intent for the 2011 

tribal whiting fishery, a proposed tribal 

allocation of 66,908 mt is being 

considered. Using the average ex-vessel 

price of $160.00 per ton, the ex-vessel 

value is estimated to be approximately 

$10,705,280. 

NMFS did not consider a broad range 

of alternatives to the proposed 

allocation because the tribal allocation 

is based primarily on the requests of the 

tribes for a level of participation in the 

fishery that will allow them to exercise 

their treaty right to fish for whiting. 

Consideration of amounts lower than 

the tribal requests is not appropriate 

here, where based on the information 

available to NMFS the requested 

amount appears to be within the amount 

to which the tribes are entitled. A higher 

amount would arguably be within the 

scope of the treaty right, but would 

unnecessarily limit the non-tribal 

fishery. A no action alternative was 

considered, but the regulatory structure 

provides for a tribal allocation on an 

annual basis only. Therefore, no action 

would result in no allocation of Pacific 

whiting to the tribal sector in 2011, 

inconsistent with NMFS’ obligation to 

manage the fishery consistent with the 

tribes’ treaty rights. Given that the 

Makah and Quileute tribes have made 

specific requests for allocations in 2011, 

this alternative received no further 

consideration. 

With the implementation of Fishery 

Management Plan amendments 20 and 

21, the ability to reapportion Pacific 

whiting from tribal to non-tribal 

fisheries was eliminated. Similarly, 

unharvested whiting allocated to the 

non-tribal shoreside, mothership, and 

catcher-processor sectors cannot be 

reapportioned among these sectors. So, 

unlike 2010, the regulations do not 

provide NMFS a specific mechanism to 

reapportion unharvested tribal whiting 

to the non-tribal sectors, and will not be 

able to reapportion among the non-tribal 

sectors. Pending markets, available 

bycatch, and the ability of tribal fleets 

to develop the capacity to harvest the 

tribal allocation may result in 

unharvested Pacific whiting because 

there is no regulatory mechanism to 

reapportion. Similarly, there may be 

unharvested Pacific whiting in the other 

sectors as well. 

Tribal fisheries include a mixture of 

activities similar to the non-tribal 

fisheries, where tribal fisheries will 

deliver shoreside for processing or to a 

mothership for at-sea processing. The 

processing facilities that the tribes use 

also process fish harvested by non-tribal 

fisheries. Increased allocations to tribal 

harvesters (harvest vessels are small 

entities, tribes are small jurisdictions) 

implies decreased allocations to nontribal harvesters (a mixture of small and 

large businesses). 

There are no reporting, recordkeeping 

or other compliance requirements in the 

proposed rule. 

No Federal rules have been identified 

that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 

this action. 

NMFS issued Biological Opinions 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) on August 10, 1990, November 

26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 

27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 

15, 1999, pertaining to the effects of the 

Pacific Coast groundfish FMP fisheries 

on Chinook salmon (Puget Sound, 

Snake River spring/summer, Snake 

River fall, upper Columbia River spring, 

lower Columbia River, upper Willamette 

River, Sacramento River winter, Central 

Valley spring, California coastal), coho 

salmon (Central California coastal, 

southern Oregon/northern California 

coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal 

summer, Columbia River), sockeye 

salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and 

steelhead (upper, middle and lower 

Columbia River, Snake River Basin, 

upper Willamette River, central 

California coast, California Central 

Valley, south/central California, 

northern California, southern 

California). These biological opinions 

have concluded that implementation of 

the FMP for the Pacific Coast groundfish 

fishery was not expected to jeopardize 

the continued existence of any 

endangered or threatened species under 

the jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

18712 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat. 

NMFS reinitiated a formal section 7 

consultation under the ESA in 2005 for 

both the Pacific whiting midwater trawl 

fishery and the groundfish bottom trawl 

fishery. The December 19, 1999, 

Biological Opinion had defined an 

11,000 Chinook incidental take 

threshold for the Pacific whiting fishery. 

During the 2005 Pacific whiting season, 

the 11,000 fish Chinook incidental take 

threshold was exceeded, triggering 

reinitiation. Also in 2005, new data 

from the West Coast Groundfish 

Observer Program became available, 

allowing NMFS to complete an analysis 

of salmon take in the bottom trawl 

fishery. 

NMFS prepared a Supplemental 

Biological Opinion dated March 11, 

2006, which addressed salmon take in 

both the Pacific whiting midwater trawl 

and groundfish bottom trawl fisheries. 

In its 2006 Supplemental Biological 

Opinion, NMFS concluded that catch 

rates of salmon in the 2005 whiting 

fishery were consistent with 

expectations considered during prior 

consultations. Chinook bycatch has 

averaged about 7,300 fish over the last 

15 years and has only occasionally 

exceeded the reinitiation trigger of 

11,000 fish. 

Since 1999, annual Chinook bycatch 

has averaged about 8,450 fish. The 

Chinook ESUs most likely affected by 

the whiting fishery has generally 

improved in status since the 1999 ESA 

section 7 consultation. Although these 

species remain at risk, as indicated by 

their ESA listing, NMFS concluded that 

the higher observed bycatch in 2005 

does not require a reconsideration of its 

prior ‘‘no jeopardy’’ conclusion with 

respect to the fishery. For the 

groundfish bottom trawl fishery, NMFS 

concluded that incidental take in the 

groundfish fisheries is within the 

overall limits articulated in the 

Incidental Take Statement of the 1999 

Biological Opinion. The groundfish 

bottom trawl limit from that opinion 

was 9,000 fish annually. NMFS will 

continue to monitor and collect data to 

analyze take levels. NMFS also 

reaffirmed its prior determination that 

implementation of the Groundfish FMP 

is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any of the affected ESUs. 

Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 

37160, June 28, 2005) were recently 

listed and Oregon Coastal coho (73 FR 

7816, February 11, 2008) were recently 

relisted as threatened under the ESA. 

The 1999 biological opinion concluded 

that the bycatch of salmonids in the 

Pacific whiting fishery were almost 

entirely Chinook salmon, with little or 

no bycatch of coho, chum, sockeye, and 

steelhead. 

The Southern Distinct Population 

Segment (DPS) of green sturgeon was 

listed as threatened under the ESA (71 

FR 17757, April 7, 2006). The southern 

DPS of Pacific eulachon was listed as 

threatened on March 18, 2010, under 

the ESA (75 FR 13012). NMFS has 

reinitiated consultation on the fishery, 

including impacts on green sturgeon, 

eulachon, marine mammals, and turtles. 

After reviewing the available 

information, NMFS has concluded that, 

consistent with Sections 7(a)(2) and 7(d) 

of the ESA, the proposed action would 

not jeopardize any listed species, would 

not adversely modify any designated 

critical habitat, and would not result in 

any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitment of resources that would 

have the effects of foreclosing the 

formulation or implementation of any 

reasonable and prudent alternative 

measures. 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, 

this proposed rule was developed after 

meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with tribal officials from 

the area covered by the FMP. Under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 

1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of 

the Pacific Council must be a 

representative of an Indian tribe with 

federally recognized fishing rights from 

the area of the Council’s jurisdiction. 

NMFS has met and continues to meet 

with tribal officials and/or senior staff to 

address both their short and long term 

interests regarding Pacific whiting. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660 

Fisheries, Fishing, Indian fisheries. 

Dated: March 31, 2011. 

John Oliver, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Operations, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST 

COAST STATES 

1. The authority citation for part 660 

continues to read as follows: 

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

773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq. 

2. In § 660.50 paragraph (f)(4) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 660.50 Pacific Coast treaty Indian 

fisheries. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(4) Pacific whiting. The tribal 

allocation for 2011 is 66,908 mt. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–8077 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS