Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 9309 

following method: Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions on the website 

for submitting comments. 

Instructions. Include the HHS Docket 

No. HRSA–2021–0001 in your 

comments. All comments received will 

be posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov. Please do not 

include any personally identifiable or 

confidential business information you 

do not want publicly disclosed. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Please visit the National Vaccine Injury 

Compensation Program’s website, 

https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine

compensation/, or contact Tamara 

Overby, Acting Director, Division of 

Injury Compensation Programs, 

Healthcare Systems Bureau, HRSA, 

Room 08N146B, 5600 Fishers Lane, 

Rockville, MD 20857; by email at 

vaccinecompensation@hrsa.gov; or by 

telephone at (855) 266–2427. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: HHS 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking on July 20, 2020 (85 FR 

43794), and final rule on January 21, 

2021 (86 FR 6249). That final rule 

amended the provisions of 42 CFR 100.3 

by removing Shoulder Injury Related to 

Vaccine Administration, vasovagal 

syncope, and Item XVII from the 

Vaccine Injury Table. The January 20, 

2021, memorandum from the Assistant 

to the President and Chief of Staff, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Freeze Pending 

Review,’’ instructed federal agencies to 

consider delaying the effective date of 

rules published in the Federal Register, 

but which have not yet taken effect, for 

a period of 60 days so that the new 

Administration may review recently 

published rules for ‘‘any questions of 

fact, law, and policy the rule may raise.’’ 

The memorandum notes certain 

exceptions that do not apply here. On 

January 20, 2021, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) also 

published OMB Memorandum M–21– 

14, Implementation of Memorandum 

Concerning Regulatory Freeze Pending 

Review, which provides guidance 

regarding the Regulatory Freeze 

Memorandum. See OMB M–21–14, 

Implementation of Memorandum 

Concerning Regulatory Freeze Pending 

Review, https://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

wp-content/uploads/2021/01/M-21-14- 

Regulatory-Review.pdf. OMB M–21–14 

explains that pursuant to the Regulatory 

Freeze Memorandum, agencies ‘‘should 

consider postponing the effective dates 

for 60 days and reopening the 

rulemaking process’’ for ‘‘rules that have 

not yet taken effect and about which 

questions involving law, fact, or policy 

have been raised.’’ Id. In accordance 

with the Regulatory Freeze 

Memorandum and OMB M–21–14, HHS 

proposes to delay the effective date of 

the final rule revising the Vaccine Injury 

Table to April 23, 2021, which would be 

60 days beyond its original effective 

date. HHS needs to extend the effective 

date of the underlying rule by 60 days 

to determine whether its promulgation 

raises any legal issues, including but not 

limited to (1) whether the Advisory 

Commission on Childhood Vaccines 

was properly notified of the proposed 

rule pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 300aa–14(c), 

and (2) whether the public was properly 

notified of the entire revised regulation, 

42 CFR 100.3(b)–(e) (including the 

qualifications and aids to interpretation 

and the coverage provisions), given that 

both the proposed and final rules 

published in the Federal Register 

included only the revised Vaccine 

Injury Table itself, but not the entire 

revised regulation. HHS believes that 

the proposed delay is reasonable, would 

allow HHS time to receive public 

comments, and would not be disruptive 

since the underlying rule has not yet 

taken effect and the agency has not yet 

implemented the rule. 

HHS seeks comment on the proposed 

delay, including the proposed delay’s 

impact on any legal, factual, or policy 

issues raised by the underlying rule and 

whether further review of those issues 

warrants such a delay. All other 

comments on the underlying rule will 

be considered to be outside the scope of 

this rulemaking. HHS therefore seeks 

comment by February 16, 2021 on its 

proposal to extend the effective date by 

60 days to April 23, 2021. 

Norris Cochran, 

Acting Secretary, Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03069 Filed 2–11–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4165–15–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 21–31; DA 21–98; FRS 

17466] 

Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks 

Comment on Petitions for Emergency 

Relief To Allow the Use of E-Rate 

Funds To Support Remote Learning 

During the COVID–19 Pandemic 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Solicitation of comments. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau (the 

Bureau) seeks comment on petitions for 

emergency relief from parties asking the 

Federal Communications Commission 

(Commission) to permit the use of ERate program funds to support remote 

learning during this unprecedented 

public health emergency. 

DATES: Comments are due February 16, 

2021 and Reply Comments are due 

February 23, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to sections 1.415 

and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 

CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may 

file comments on or before February 16, 

2021, and reply comments on or before 

February 23, 2021. All filings should 

refer to WC Docket No. 21–31. 

Comments may be filed by paper or by 

using the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS). See 

Electronic Filing of Documents in 

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 

(1998). 

D Electronic Filers: Comments and 

replies may be filed electronically using 

the internet by accessing ECFS: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/ecfs. 

D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

D Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. 

Filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

D Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

D U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L St NE, Washington, 

DC 20554. 

Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gabriela Gross, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, (202) 418–7400 or by email at 

Gabriela.Gross@fcc.gov. We ask that 

requests for accommodations be made 

as soon as possible in order to allow the 

agency to satisfy such requests 

whenever possible. Send an email to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer 

9310 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 

(202) 418–0530 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Bureau’s Public Notice 

in WC Docket No. 21–31; DA 21–98, 

released on February 1, 2021. Due to the 

COVID–19 pandemic, the Commission’s 

headquarters will be closed to the 

general public until further notice. See 

FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020). 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. The full 

text of this document is available at the 

following internet address: https://

www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seekscomment-using-e-rate-funding-supportremote-learning. 

Proceedings in this document shall be 

treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons 

making ex parte presentations must file 

a copy of any written presentation or a 

memorandum summarizing any oral 

presentation within two business days 

after the presentation (unless a different 

deadline applicable to the Sunshine 

period applies). Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and summarize 

all data presented and arguments made 

during the presentation. If the 

presentation consisted in whole or in 

part of the presentation of data or 

arguments already reflected in the 

presenter’s written comments, 

memoranda or other filings in the 

proceeding, the presenter may provide 

citations to such data or arguments in 

his or her prior comments, memoranda, 

or other filings (specifying the relevant 

page and/or paragraph numbers where 

such data or arguments can be found) in 

lieu of summarizing them in the 

memorandum. Documents shown or 

given to Commission staff during ex 

parte meetings are deemed to be written 

ex parte presentations and must be filed 

consistent with rule § 1.1206(b). In 

proceedings governed by rule § 1.49(f) 

or for which the Commission has made 

available a method of electronic filing, 

written ex parte presentations and 

memoranda summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in these proceedings should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

The COVID–19 pandemic has 

underscored the critical need for 

broadband connections for millions of 

Americans, including students and 

teachers across the country. To mitigate 

the spread of the disease, schools and 

libraries have shut their doors and 

transitioned to remote learning and 

virtual services, either in whole or in 

part, leaving those students who found 

themselves caught in the ‘‘Homework 

Gap’’ before the pandemic facing 

extraordinary hardship and at risk of 

being unable to participate in any 

virtual studies. 

As a result of the impact of the 

COVID–19 pandemic on schools and 

libraries, the Commission has received 

at least 11 petitions for emergency relief 

from parties asking the FCC to permit 

the use of E-Rate program funds to 

support remote learning during this 

unprecedented public health emergency 

(collectively, Petitions). By this 

document, the Bureau seeks comment 

on those Petitions. In so doing, the 

Bureau highlights three of the petitions, 

that together raise most of the issues 

covered by other Petitioners: A petition 

filed by a coalition of E-Rate 

stakeholders led by the Schools, Health 

& Libraries Broadband (SHLB) Coalition, 

a petition for waiver filed on behalf of 

the State of Colorado and one filed by 

the State of Nevada, the Nevada State 

Board of Education, and the Nevada 

Department of Education. 

As the pandemic continues to force 

schools and libraries across the country 

to remain closed and rely on remote 

learning and virtual services, either in 

whole or in part, the need for broadband 

connections—particularly for those 

students, teachers, staff, and patrons 

that lack an adequate connection at 

home—is more critical than ever. 

Eligible schools and libraries explain 

that they are hampered in their ability 

to address the connectivity needs 

brought on, and in many cases 

exacerbated, by COVID–19 because of 

the restrictions on off-campus use of ERate-funded services and facilities. Last 

spring, as the COVID–19 pandemic 

forced schools and libraries to grapple 

with the challenges of transitioning to 

remote learning, the FCC began to 

receive requests for emergency relief 

aimed at ensuring that all students have 

sufficient connectivity at home. Below, 

the Bureau summarizes three petitions, 

which reflect the experience of schools 

and libraries dealing with many months 

of remote learning. 

Most recently, a coalition of 

stakeholders led by SHLB filed a 

petition for declaratory ruling and 

waivers asking the FCC to allow E-Ratefunded services and equipment to be 

used off-campus to enable remote 

learning for the duration of the 

pandemic. SHLB urges the Bureau, on 

delegated authority, to declare that 

during the pandemic, remote learning 

meets the standard of serving an 

‘‘educational purpose’’ and thus, any 

off-campus use does not need to be 

removed from funding requests. SHLB 

also proposes opening a separate 

‘‘Remote Learning Application Filing 

Window’’ to allow applicants to file 

new or revised requests for additional ERate funds for off-campus services and 

equipment that facilitate remote 

learning during funding years 2020 and 

2021. SHLB recommends that the FCC 

provide unused E-Rate funds to support 

these Remote Learning applications and 

use the existing E-Rate discount 

methodologies to prioritize funding. 

SHLB further requests a waiver of ERate program rules, including the 

competitive bidding, application, and 

eligible services rules to facilitate the 

Remote Learning Application Filing 

Window. 

Last fall, Colorado filed a petition 

requesting waiver of the prohibition on 

the use of E-Rate funds and E-Ratefunded facilities and services to allow 

schools to extend their broadband 

internet connectivity to students who 

lack adequate internet connectivity at 

home, and the requirement to costallocate such off-campus use. Colorado 

explains that temporarily waiving the 

restrictions on off-campus use of E-Ratesupported equipment and services is 

consistent with the Communications 

Act, which requires the Commission to 

provide support for services that ‘‘are 

essential to education, public health, or 

public safety’’ and ‘‘are consistent with 

the public interest, convenience, and 

necessity.’’ Colorado further explains 

that because the school classroom has 

shifted from a shared physical space to 

a virtual space during the pandemic, the 

Commission can and should waive the 

E-Rate program requirements 

accordingly to provide students with the 

broadband internet connectivity needed 

to fully engage in remote learning. 

Colorado contends that the FCC can rely 

on the same statutory authority to allow 

schools to extend connectivity to 

students’ homes that the Commission 

relied on to establish the Connected 

Care Pilot Program, which funds the 

purchase of internet access service for 

participating telehealth patients’ remote 

use. 

Last summer, Nevada filed a request 

for waiver of the restrictions on the use 

of E-Rate-funded broadband 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 9311 

connectivity beyond school property. 

Nevada proposes to install fixed 

wireless hotspots on the roofs of school 

buildings to extend their E-Rate-funded 

broadband internet connectivity to a 

two-to-three-mile radius around each 

school site for students’ and staff’s use. 

Nevada specifies that access to the 

schools’ networks would be restricted to 

students and staff through specific 

credentials or by their registered 

devices. According to Nevada, by 

leveraging existing fiber connections, 

fixed wireless hotspots could ‘‘bridge 

60% of the current connectivity gaps 

that exist due to geographic and 

economic limitations across the State.’’ 

The Bureau seeks comment on these 

and the other issues raised by the three 

above-referenced petitions as well as the 

other petitions. To focus our 

consideration of the requests, the 

Bureau offers some more specific areas 

of inquiry. 

The Bureau seeks comment on the 

specific equipment and services that ERate should support to fund off-campus 

access to broadband services for 

students, staff and patrons who lack 

adequate home internet access. For 

example, the SHLB Petition requests ERate support for wired or wireless 

network equipment and services 

necessary for remote learning, 

including, but not limited to, wireless 

hotspot devices and fixed or mobile 

wireless towers. Do other commenters 

agree that these services and equipment 

are needed to support remote learning? 

Are there other or different services or 

equipment that are needed to support 

remote learning? For example, should 

modems, routers, devices that combine 

a modem and router, or connected 

devices be eligible? With respect to 

broadband connectivity, what level of 

service is required to support remote 

learning? The Bureau also seeks 

comment on the cost of the services and 

equipment needed to support remote 

learning. The Bureau encourages 

schools, libraries and other stakeholders 

that have recent experience with these 

services and costs to provide specific 

information about the services they are 

purchasing, the costs they are paying 

and what they have done to ensure the 

services are sufficient and the costs are 

reasonable. 

E-Rate program rules require 

applicants to select the most costeffective service offering, consistent 

with section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Act. 

Competitive bidding is a cornerstone of 

the E-Rate program, ensuring that 

applicants are informed of their options 

and service providers have sufficient 

information to provide services, leading 

to cost-effective pricing, and protecting 

limited E-Rate funds from waste, fraud, 

and abuse. At the same time, due to the 

urgency with which schools have 

needed to adapt to remote learning, both 

the Colorado and SHLB Petitions seek 

waivers of competitive bidding rules. In 

the absence of such a safeguard, how 

can the Commission ensure that 

applicants are making cost-effective 

purchases? Is payment of the nondiscount share a sufficient incentive to 

prevent wasteful spending? Would the 

same be true if adjustments are made to 

the non-discount share? What steps 

have schools and libraries that are 

currently providing off-premises 

broadband services to students, staff and 

patrons taken to ensure that they are 

making cost effective purchases? What 

other limitations or guardrails exist or 

are necessary to prevent waste, fraud, or 

abuse of E-Rate program funds? Should, 

for example, the Commission subject 

recipients of E-rate funds for remote 

learning equipment and services to 

audits similar to those conducted in the 

regular E-Rate program? Should the 

Commission apply existing E-Rate 

program record keeping requirements to 

any funds it provides to enable remote 

learning? What other measures should 

the FCC use to safeguard these funds 

and ensure they are used to target 

students and teachers who lack 

sufficient internet access at home? 

Publicly available information 

strongly suggests that substantially more 

funding might be needed than is 

potentially available through the E-Rate 

program. In the event that demand 

exceeds available funding, how should 

the off-campus requests be prioritized? 

The Bureau seeks comment on the best 

approach to quickly and equitably make 

funding available to those with the most 

need. 

How can the Commission ensure that 

available funds are efficiently targeted 

and focused on the needs of rural 

students; Native American, African 

American and LatinX students; students 

with disabilities; and other populations 

of students that are disproportionally 

affected by the Homework Gap or are 

more expensive or difficult to reach? 

Does the E-Rate program’s existing 

discount rate system adequately target 

students that fall into the Homework 

Gap, especially low-income students 

and those in rural or remote areas? How 

can the Commission prioritize limited 

E-Rate support to those students, staff, 

or patrons that still do not have 

adequate home internet access to fully 

engage in remote learning? 

Colorado requests that the 

Commission waive its restrictions on 

off-campus use of E-Rate-supported 

services during the COVID–19 

pandemic and asserts that remote 

learning will remain a significant, if not 

exclusive, mode of instruction through 

at least the 2020–21 school year. SHLB 

requests that the Commission waive its 

restrictions on off-campus use for 

funding years 2020 and 2021, due to the 

uncertainties of whether students will 

be able to return to the classrooms 

during the upcoming 2021–2022 school 

year. If relief is granted to the 

Petitioners, should the relief provided 

apply on a prospective basis in order to 

target the students and staff that remain 

without adequate home internet access? 

Or, recognizing that COVID–19 has 

forced schools and libraries across the 

country to dramatically shift the way 

they operate and provide education and 

library services since the first closures 

began in March 2020, should the relief 

provided apply retroactively to services 

and equipment purchased during 

funding year 2020? If funding is allowed 

for prior purchases, how can the 

Commission ensure that limited E-Rate 

funds are not used to pay for services 

and equipment that were reimbursed 

with other federal funding, including 

funding made available through the 

CARES Act or through the Emergency 

Broadband Benefits Program? 

Commenters should explain how the 

funding sought through the E-Rate 

program to address insufficient internet 

access at home would not be duplicative 

of funding available through the 

Emergency Broadband Benefits 

Program. What are the guardrails or 

other measures that should be used to 

avoid duplication of limited funds and 

ensure the funds are targeted to students 

and teachers lacking adequate internet 

access at home? Should the Commission 

prioritize prospective relief over 

reimbursements for prior purchases? 

What should be the timeframe for this 

relief? Should it start when the COVID– 

19 pandemic was declared a national 

emergency? Should it end when the 

national emergency is rescinded, or 

should another marker be used to define 

this period? 

According to SHLB and Colorado, 

allowing E-Rate-funded off-campus 

support for students with inadequate 

internet access at home during the 

pandemic is consistent with the 

Commission’s authority to determine 

which services to support under the 

Communications Act. SHLB explains 

that the Commission can clarify that offcampus use of equipment to support 

remote learning during the pandemic 

constitutes an educational purpose 

under section 254(h)(1)(B). Colorado 

asserts that the inaccessibility of 

physical classrooms during the 

9312 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

pandemic enables the Commission to 

deem at-home connectivity eligible for 

these purposes under section 254(c)(1), 

which requires the Commission to take 

into consideration, when determining 

eligible services, which services ‘‘are 

essential to education, public health, or 

public safety’’ and ‘‘are consistent with 

the public interest, convenience, and 

necessity.’’ SHLB offers a variety of 

arguments for rejecting suggestions that 

the reference to ‘‘classrooms’’ in section 

254(b)(6) and 254(h)(2)(A) which 

provide that ‘‘[t]he Commission shall 

establish competitively neutral rules 

. . . to enhance, to the extent 

technically feasible and economically 

reasonable, access to advanced 

telecommunications and information 

services for all public and nonprofit 

elementary and secondary school 

classrooms . . . .’’ limits the 

Commission’s ability to provide E-Rate 

supported broadband for remote 

learning. SHLB points out that the 

Commission already provides E-rate 

support for some off-campus services 

and echoes Colorado’s argument that 

during the pandemic students’ and 

teachers’ homes have become virtual 

classrooms. Both SHLB and Colorado 

argue that the Commission relied on its 

authority under section 254(h)(2)(A) of 

the Act to allow health care providers to 

purchase internet access services for 

participating patients’ use in their 

homes or mobile locations during the 

pandemic in the Connected Care Pilot 

Program and can take a similar action in 

the E-Rate program. They also both 

point out that the Commission has the 

statutory authority to designate 

additional E-Rate supported services. 

The Bureau invites other stakeholders to 

comment on the Commission’s legal 

authority to use E-Rate funding to help 

address the remote learning challenges 

created by the COVID–19 Pandemic. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Cheryl Callahan, 

Assistant Chief, Telecommunications Access 

Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02997 Filed 2–10–21; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 210205–0014] 

RIN 0648–BK27 

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch 

Sharing Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to approve 

changes to the Pacific Halibut Catch 

Sharing Plan for the International 

Pacific Halibut Commission’s regulatory 

Area 2A off of Washington, Oregon, and 

California. In addition, NMFS proposes 

to implement management measures 

governing the 2021 recreational fisheries 

that are not implemented through the 

International Pacific Halibut 

Commission. These measures include 

the recreational fishery seasons, 

allocations, and management measures 

for Area 2A. These actions are intended 

to conserve Pacific halibut and provide 

angler opportunity where available. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

must be received on or before March 15, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by NOAA–NMFS–2020–0157, 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2020- 

0157, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Barry Thom, c/o Kathryn Blair, West 

Coast Region, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd 

Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. 

Instructions: NMFS may not consider 

comments if they are sent by any other 

method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the 

comment period ends. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and NMFS will post them for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender is 

publicly accessible. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

Docket: This rule is accessible via the 

internet at the Office of the Federal 

Register website at https://

www.federalregister.gov. Background 

information and documents are 

available at the NMFS West Coast 

Region website at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/ 

sustainable-fisheries/fisheriesmanagement-west-coast and at the 

Council’s website at http://

www.pcouncil.org. Other comments 

received may be accessed through 

Regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathryn Blair, phone: 503–231–6858, 

fax: 503–231–6893, or email: 

kathryn.blair@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 

1982 (Halibut Act) gives the Secretary of 

Commerce (Secretary) responsibility for 

implementing the provisions of the 

Halibut Convention between the United 

States and Canada. 16 U.S.C. 773–773k. 

The Halibut Act requires that the 

Secretary adopt regulations to carry out 

the purposes and objectives of the 

Halibut Convention and Halibut Act. 16 

U.S.C. 773(c). The Halibut Act also 

authorizes the regional fishery 

management councils having authority 

for a particular geographic area to 

develop regulations in addition to, but 

not in conflict with, regulations issued 

by the International Pacific Halibut 

Commission (IPHC) to govern the 

Pacific halibut catch in U.S. Convention 

waters (16 U.S.C. 773c(c)). 

Since 1988, the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) has 

developed, and NMFS has approved, 

annual Catch Sharing Plans that allocate 

the IPHC regulatory Area 2A Pacific 

halibut catch limit between treaty 

Indian and non-Indian harvesters, and 

among non-Indian commercial and 

recreational (sport) fisheries. In 1995, 

the Council recommended, and NMFS 

approved, a long-term Area 2A Catch 

Sharing Plan (60 FR 14651; March 20, 

1995). NMFS has been approving 

adjustments to the Area 2A Catch 

Sharing Plan based on Council 

recommendations each year to address 

the changing needs of these fisheries. 

While the full Catch Sharing Plan is not 

published in the Federal Register, it is 

made available on the Council and 

NMFS websites. 

At its annual meeting January 25–29, 

2021, the IPHC recommended an Area 

2A catch limit. This catch limit is 

derived from the total constant 

exploitation yield (TCEY), which 

includes commercial discards and