72788 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 235 / Thursday, December 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 157 

[DoD–2008–OS–0075; RIN 0790–AI33] 

Reduction of Use of Social Security 

Numbers in the Department of Defense 

AGENCY: Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice addressing comments 

received on the proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense 

(DoD) published a proposed rule 

concerning the reduction of the use of 

social security numbers (SSN) in the 

Department on March 3, 2010 (75 FR 

9548). The Department published the 

proposed rule because it intended to 

apply the SSN reduction policies and 

procedures to entities that contract with 

the Department. However, it has been 

determined that the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) or another contract vehicle is 

a more appropriate way to apply these 

policies and procedures to these 

entities; therefore, a final rule in title 32 

of the Code of Federal Regulations will 

not be published. DoD will publish 

internal guidance in an Instruction that 

will not contain language regarding 

contract companies since that guidance 

will be provided as noted above in a 

DFARS rule or other contract vehicle. 

This notice is being published to 

address the public comments received 

concerning the proposed rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Sam Yousef, 571–372–1939. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Seven sets 

of comments were received on the 

proposed rule and are addressed below. 

All comments are available upon 

request. 

One commenter said that leave forms 

of military members or the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) Form 71 

(Request for Leave or Approved 

Absence) for civilian employees should 

not include SSNs in whole or in part. As 

part of the ongoing review to reduce or 

eliminate the use of SSNs, the 

Department will review the forms to 

document leave usage by military 

members and will reduce or eliminate 

the use of SSNs on these forms as 

appropriate. The civilian employee 

leave form, OPM Form 71, was revised 

in September 2009, and requires the 

individual’s Employee Number or only 

the last four digits of the SSN. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that the SSN is required in order to 

receive treatment at medical facilities on 

military installations and that the SSN 

is printed on identification cards. Other 

commenters noted that due to the 

widespread use of SSNs on military 

installations, individuals are at risk for 

identity theft. The Department of 

Defense takes the security and 

protection of its personnel’s Personally 

Identifiable Information (PII) very 

seriously. In order to reduce the use of 

the SSN and to better protect the 

identity of its members, the Department 

developed and released ‘‘Business 

Practice Changes to Allow the Removal 

of Social Security Numbers from DoD 

Identification (ID) Cards’’ in January 

2009 and in November 2012 released an 

‘‘Updated Plan for the Removal of Social 

Security Numbers (SSNs) from 

Department of Defense (DoD) 

Identification (lD) Cards,’’ that consisted 

of a comprehensive three-phased plan to 

reduce or eliminate SSN use on DoD ID 

cards: 

—Phase 1 of the updated plan requires 

removal of SSNs from DoD ID Cards 

and began with removal of the 

dependent’s SSN from Dependent ID 

cards in December 2008. Phase 1 will 

be complete in December 2012. 

—Phase 2 of the plan began replacement 

of the SSN with the DoD ID Number 

and started in June 2011. Phase 2 will 

be complete in June 2015. 

—Phase 3 of the plan will remove SSNs 

from ID card barcodes and is 

scheduled to begin in the 4th Quarter 

of Calendar Year 2012 and will take 

four years to complete. 

A commenter, while also expressing 

concern with the use of SSNs for 

identification and record keeping 

purposes, recommended that secure 

methods be used when transmitting 

information that includes SSNs. The 

Department requires that the Privacy 

Act be complied with when storing or 

transmitting information that contains 

PII. Secured communication methods 

are required to be used when 

transmitting PII. 

Another commenter also expressed 

concern with the extensive use of SSNs 

by DoD and recommended that an 

alternative identification number be 

used in lieu of the SSN. Another 

commenter recommended replacing the 

SSN with the DoD Electronic Data 

Interchange Personal Identifier (EDI–PI). 

Directive Type Memorandum (DTM) 

07–015, ‘‘DoD Social Security Number 

(SSN) Reduction Plan’’ and DoD 

Instruction 1000.30, ‘‘Reduction of 

Social Security Number (SSN) Use 

Within DoD,’’ which supersedes DTM 

07–015, require the DoD Forms 

Management Officer and the DoD 

Component Forms Management Officers 

to review SSN use and justifications on 

new and existing forms in their 

respective activities to reduce or 

eliminate the use of SSNs wherever 

possible. Additionally, these policies 

require the review and justification of 

SSN use in new and existing systems 

and to eliminate the use of SSNs 

wherever possible. The DoD ID Number, 

the common name for the EDI–PI, is 

identified by both policies as the 

primary alternative for the SSN. It is 

intended to support replacement of the 

SSN in most DoD processes and 

business needs. The DoD ID Number 

shall only be used for DoD business 

purposes. This may include transactions 

that include entities outside DoD, so 

long as individuals are acting on behalf 

of or in support of the Department of 

Defense. The DoD ID Number shall not 

be used to replace the SSN in any case 

where the SSN is required by law. All 

individuals eligible to receive DoD 

benefits, such as commissary, exchange, 

Morale, Welfare and Recreation or 

TRICARE purchased care, will, in 

addition to the DoD ID Number, receive 

a DoD Benefits Number that will be 

used to facilitate medical care in lieu of 

the SSN to the greatest extent 

permissible. 

Dated: December 3, 2012. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29504 Filed 12–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Parts 201 and 203 

[Docket No. 2012–1] 

Copyright Office Fees 

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of 

Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office has 

further revised its proposed fee 

schedule for filing cable and satellite 

statements of account following 

feedback from interested parties in 

response to a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking published on March 28, 

2012. The modified fee schedule set 

forth below reflects an updated 

calculation of the cost of providing 

services. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

the Copyright Office no later than 5 p.m. 

Eastern Standard Time (EST) on January 

7, 2013. Reply comments must be 

received in the Copyright Office no later 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 235 / Thursday, December 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 72789 

than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time 

(EST) on January 22, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

submitted electronically. A comment 

page containing a comment form is 

posted on the Copyright Office Web site 

at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/ 

newfees/comments/. The Web site 

interface requires submitters to 

complete a form specifying name and 

organization, as applicable, and to 

upload comments as an attachment via 

a browse button. To meet accessibility 

standards, all comments must be 

uploaded in a single file not to exceed 

six megabytes (MB) in one of the 

following formats: the Adobe Portable 

Document File (PDF) format that 

contains searchable, accessible text (not 

an image); Microsoft Word; 

WordPerfect; Rich Text Format (RTF); or 

ASCII text file format (not a scanned 

document). The form and face of the 

comments must include both the name 

of the submitter and the organization. 

All comments will be posted publicly 

on the Copyright Office Web site exactly 

as they are received, along with names 

and organizations. If electronic 

submission of comments is not feasible, 

please contact the Copyright Office at 

(202) 707–8380 for special instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Megan Rivet, Budget Analyst, or Melissa 

Dadant, Senior Advisor for Operations 

and Special Projects, at (202) 707–8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 2010, 

Congress enacted the Satellite 

Television Extension and Localism Act 

(‘‘STELA’’), Public Law 111–175, 124 

Stat. 1218, which, for the first time, 

granted authority to the Copyright 

Office to establish fees for the filing of 

statements of account (‘‘SOAs’’) 

pursuant to the section 111, 119, and 

122 statutory licenses for cable and 

satellite users. Prior to 2010, the cost of 

processing such statements and 

associated royalty payments was funded 

solely by the royalty fees collected for 

the benefit of the copyright owners 

under the statutory licenses. STELA 

added a new provision to Title 17 that 

permits the Office to apportion up to 50 

percent of the cost of processing the 

SOAs and royalty payments to 

licensees. More specifically, 17 U.S.C. 

708(a) provides that the fees charged to 

licensees for the filing of SOAs ‘‘shall be 

reasonable and may not exceed one-half 

of the cost necessary to cover reasonable 

expenses incurred by the Copyright 

Office for the collection and 

administration of the statements of 

account and any royalty fees deposited 

with such statements.’’ 

On March 28, 2012, the Copyright 

Office published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’) as the initial step 

in adopting new fees for various 

services, including the registration of 

claims, recordation of documents, 

special services, processing of requests 

for records pursuant to the Freedom of 

Information Act, and Licensing Division 

services, including the new fees for 

filing of cable and satellite SOAs. See 77 

FR 18742 (March 28, 2012). Fees were 

proposed in accordance with the 

procedure set forth in the Copyright Act, 

which provides that the Register of 

Copyrights may, by regulation, adjust 

fees for certain enumerated services 

based upon a study of costs incurred by 

the Copyright Office. See 17 U.S.C. 

708(b). 

Generally speaking, the Office has 

conducted a study of costs every three 

years. In each case, and in the case here, 

the Office is acutely aware of its 

obligations as an agency of the federal 

government, including the mandate to 

establish sound fiscal policies and 

develop a responsible budget. At the 

same time, the Office is cognizant of its 

responsibilities to both copyright 

owners and users of copyrighted works. 

Ultimately, the Office must price its 

services in a manner that is fair to the 

parties and conducive to wellfunctioning programs and 

recordkeeping. Indeed, elsewhere the 

Copyright Act indicates that fees ‘‘shall 

be fair and equitable and give due 

consideration to the objectives of the 

copyright system.’’ 17 U.S.C. 708(b)(4). 

In response to the NPR, the Office 

received 138 comments on the proposed 

fees, three of which specifically 

addressed the new fees for filing cable 

and satellite SOAs. The Office received 

individual comments from the 

American Cable Association (‘‘ACA’’) 

and the National Cable & 

Telecommunications Association 

(‘‘NCTA’’), and a joint comment from 

Program Suppliers, Joint Sports 

Claimants, Commercial Television 

Claimants, Music Claimants, Canadian 

Claimants Group, National Public 

Radio, Broadcaster Claimants Group, 

and Devotional Claimants (collectively, 

‘‘Copyright Owners’’). 

NCTA expressed the concern that the 

proposed fees sought to recover costs for 

services ‘‘that go beyond what is 

reasonably necessary to administer the 

license and reflect[] expenses incurred 

in the past that are unlikely to recur in 

the future.’’ NCTA Comments at 2. ACA 

requested the Office to provide a waiver 

of fees for cable operators experiencing 

financial hardship. See generally ACA 

Comments. 

Copyright Owners, on the other hand, 

argued that the proposed fees failed to 

recover half of the actual operating costs 

of the cable and satellite program, and 

also questioned the Office’s 

methodology, specifically why actual 

costs were not the starting point for 

analysis. See generally Copyright 

Owners’ Comments. 

In light of the comments received 

from affected stakeholders, and because 

the fees for filing cable and satellite 

SOAs are being set for the first time, the 

Office conducted further analysis of 

those fees. As explained below, it 

performed a second study, using a 

revised methodology to more precisely 

capture the cost of providing the 

services in question. 

New Cost Study for Setting Cable and 

Satellite SOA Filing Fees 

The original cost study for the Office’s 

administration of the cable and satellite 

statutory licenses used the additive 

model employed in previous cost 

studies for peripheral fee services. This 

method focuses on the desk time of 

dedicated employees, in other words, 

how much time they spend performing 

activities involved in processing a 

typical service request. While effective 

in analyzing services that can be 

measured by short intervals of time, it 

is sometimes not as successful in 

determining the cost of a more complex 

task, such as the processing of an entire 

SOA. At the same time, managing the 

cable and satellite SOAs is a major 

program of the Office and comprises the 

greatest portion of staff time and related 

resources in comparison to 

administering the other statutory 

licenses. 

In its reexamination of SOA program 

costs, the Office applied a traditional 

methodology that it has used to assess 

the costs of its services in other areas, 

such as copyright registration. This 

methodology calculates the full cost of 

the activity in question—in this case, 

the entire SOA program, including the 

receipt and administration of the SOAs 

and royalty fees deposited with such 

statements—based on actual 

expenditures and all costs directly or 

indirectly associated with these 

functions. The revised methodology 

identifies staffing costs for each 

particular program service and 

apportions non-personnel costs either 

directly to the services they support or, 

in the case of administrative and other 

indirect costs, in proportion to the staff 

costs previously identified. Staffing 

costs not associated directly or 

indirectly with any of the program 

services, along with a commensurate 

proportion of non-personnel costs, are 

excluded from the model. 

The revised methodology is more 

complete because it accounts for all 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
72790 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 235 / Thursday, December 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

relevant staff time, whether associated 

directly with a program service or 

indirectly, and includes all staff, 

including administrative and 

managerial staff, and all relevant nonpersonnel costs. Because it is allinclusive, it covers costs incurred where 

the standard workflow path cannot be 

followed, as well as exceptional cases 

that involve time-intensive research or 

problem resolution, for example, cases 

where electronic funds transfer 

payments need to be matched with a 

SOA received much earlier or later than 

the payment or without a remittance 

advice. It also covers non-routine staff 

effort. For instance, during the period 

under review, the Office revised work 

procedures and forms, and updated its 

internal information systems, to 

facilitate its implementation of STELA. 

The Office expects these types of 

administrative and technical upgrades 

to continue to occur during the life of 

the SOA program. 

In conducting the second cost study, 

the Office applied a three-year average 

of non-personnel costs to address 

concerns that an aberrant year may have 

an undue impact on the proposed fees. 

The Office considered reengineering 

efforts of the Licensing Division in the 

area of statutory licenses and the rise of 

associated costs in 2011. The 

administrative and technical 

enhancements are integral to the SOA 

program. However, in order to mitigate 

the impact of higher than usual costs in 

2011, the 2011 costs have been averaged 

with costs from 2010 and 2009 to 

achieve a balanced representation of the 

overall, ongoing cost of the SOA 

program, including periodic and 

technical upgrades. 

Finally, in both the initial and revised 

cost studies, the Office excluded 

approximately 75 percent of salaries for 

staff who work in the Fiscal Section of 

the Licensing Division. The Office did 

so because much of the work of these 

employees is dedicated to royalty 

management functions that serve 

copyright owners (e.g., production of 

financial statements, reconciliations, 

investments, and distributions); the 75 

percent exclusion is meant to fairly 

account for this fact. 

Revised Fees for Cable and Satellite 

Statements of Account 

In the initial cost study, the Office 

analyzed the processing of cable SA1, 

SA2, and SA3 SOAs and satellite SOAs 

independently. In performing the 

revised study, it was evident that many 

of the program costs are common to 

both cable and satellite filings, in 

particular the fiscal management and 

information technology costs, and thus 

should be shared by both types of filers. 

Based on its further evaluation of the 

program costs for the collection and 

administration of the cable and satellite 

SOAs and the royalty fees deposited 

with such statements, the Office 

continues to propose a tiered fee 

schedule corresponding to the filing of 

the different types of SOAs. The fees for 

licensees who file a cable SA1 or SA2 

form remain unchanged from the initial 

proposal, $15 for the filing of a SA1 

form and $20 for the filing of a SA2 

form. Such fees are reasonable in light 

of the minimal amount of processing 

required and the typical royalty 

payments associated with such 

statements, which are substantially 

lower than royalties associated with 

SA3 filings. See 17 U.S.C. 708(b) (fees 

established by the Register for cable and 

satellite SOAs are to be ‘‘reasonable’’). 

Additionally, following its review of the 

totality of SOA program costs, as 

described above, the Office proposes to 

establish both the cable SA3 filing fee 

and satellite filing fee at $725. The 

Office believes that $725 is a reasonable 

fee in light of the second cost study and 

substantial royalty payments associated 

with these SOAs. 

Moreover, at the proposed levels, the 

fees collected from licensees filing 

SOAs should in the aggregate approach, 

but not exceed, 50 percent of the 

Office’s reasonable expenses to 

administer the cable and satellite SOA 

program, as determined in the more 

recent study conducted by the Office. 

Based on projected filings, the expected 

annual fee recovery will be 

approximately $1.77 million, or 

approximately 47 percent of the 

estimated $3.74 million total annual 

SOA program cost. 

Schedule of Revised Proposed Fees 

The chart below sets forth the 

proposed fees for filing cable and 

satellite SOAs: 

SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED FEES

[Administration of statutory licenses] 

Proposed new fee 

(1) Processing of a statement of account based on secondary transmissions of primary transmissions pursuant to § 111: 

(i) Form SA1 ........................................................................................................................................................................... $15 

(ii) Form SA2 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 20 

(iii) Form SA3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 725 

(2) Processing of a statement of account based on secondary transmissions pursuant to §§ 119 and 122 725 

The Office believes that, as revised, 

the proposed fees are appropriate based 

on the reasonable expenses incurred in 

the processing of cable and satellite 

SOAs and managing the associated 

royalty payments. Moreover, the fees are 

set to approach one-half the costs, 

without exceeding one-half, in order 

that owners and users of copyrighted 

works share the burden of supporting 

the cable and satellite SOA program. An 

outcome where program costs are 

shared relatively equally by owners and 

users is consistent with the mandate of 

STELA, as well as the objectives of the 

copyright system. 

Waiver of Filing Fees 

ACA suggests that the Office 

‘‘establish a streamlined waiver process 

for smaller cable operators where 

payment of the filing fee would result in 

a financial hardship.’’ ACA Comments 

at 2. While the Office understands 

ACA’s rationale for this request, the law 

appears to preclude this option. 

Section 708(a) requires that ‘‘fees 

shall be paid to the Register of 

Copyrights’’ for filing a cable SOA. The 

statute also instructs the Register to fix 

said fees based on relevant costs. To this 

end, the Office conducted a cost study, 

taking into account that cable 

companies that file SA1 and SA2 forms 

benefit from the statutory licensing 

scheme, yet generate revenues 

considerably lower than the cable 

systems that file the SA3 form. 

Accordingly, the Office is proposing 

significantly lower fees to ensure that 

they are reasonable under the 

circumstances. 

To the extent the suggestion of ACA 

is that nothing in the law expressly 

prevents the Register from creating 

exceptions or waivers to the general fee, 

the Office notes that Congress has set 

forth express authority for the Register 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 235 / Thursday, December 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 72791 

to waive fees elsewhere in section 708. 

Section 708(c) grants the Register 

discretion to waive fees for United 

States agencies and their employees, but 

only ‘‘in occasional or isolated cases 

involving relatively small amounts.’’ 

Such express and limited authority in 

the area of waivers suggests that 

Congress would have created a clear 

exception or waiver of the kind 

suggested by ACA had it so desired. 

Moreover, no such waivers exist with 

respect to other fee requirements, 

including for example, for registrations 

of individual claimants. The Office 

welcomes further comment on whether 

the statute provides authority to the 

Register to establish a waiver process 

where payment of the filing fee would 

result in a financial hardship and 

whether, in general, waivers of this kind 

should be permissible. 

Technical Amendments 

The Office will adopt technical 

amendments as needed to conform 

existing regulations to the changes 

proposed in this notice. 

Request for Comments 

As noted above, the Copyright Office 

is publishing the revised proposed fee 

schedule for these particular fees to 

provide the public with an opportunity 

to comment. 

Dated: November 29, 2012. 

Maria A. Pallante, 

Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29229 Filed 12–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 121018563–2563–01] 

RIN 0648–XC311 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands; 2013 and 2014 

Harvest Specifications for Groundfish 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes 2013 and 

2014 harvest specifications, 

apportionments, and prohibited species 

catch (PSC) allowances for the 

groundfish fisheries of the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) 

management area. This action is 

necessary to establish harvest limits for 

groundfish during the 2013 and 2014 

fishing years, and to accomplish the 

goals and objectives of the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area. The intended effect 

of this action is to conserve and manage 

the groundfish resources in the BSAI in 

accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

January 7, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2012–0210, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal 

www.regulations.gov. To submit 

comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, 

first click the ‘‘submit a comment’’ icon, 

then enter NOAA–NMFS–2012–0210 in 

the keyword search. Locate the 

document you wish to comment on 

from the resulting list and click on the 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ icon on that line. 

• Mail: Address written comments to 

Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. 

Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668. 

• Fax: Address written comments to 

Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. Fax comments to 907– 

586–7557. 

• Hand delivery to the Federal 

Building: Address written comments to 

Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. Deliver comments to 

709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, 

Juneau, AK. 

Instructions: Comments must be 

submitted by one of the above methods 

to ensure that the comments are 

received, documented, and considered 

by NMFS. Comments sent by any other 

method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered. All comments received are 

a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted for public viewing 

on www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address) submitted 

voluntarily by the sender will be 

publicly accessible. 

Do not submit confidential business 

information, or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, 

or Adobe PDF file formats only. 

Electronic copies of the Alaska 

Groundfish Harvest Specifications Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 

the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA), and the Supplemental 

IRFA prepared for this action may be 

obtained from http:// 

www.regulations.gov or from the Alaska 

Region Web site at http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. The final 2011 

Stock Assessment and Fishery 

Evaluation (SAFE) report for the 

groundfish resources of the BSAI, dated 

November 2011, is available from the 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (Council) at 605 West 4th 

Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 

99501–2252, phone 907–271–2809, or 

from the Council’s Web site at http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc. The 

draft 2012 SAFE report for the BSAI will 

be available from the same sources in 

November 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Whitney, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal 

regulations at 50 CFR part 679 

implement the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(FMP) and govern the groundfish 

fisheries in the BSAI. The Council 

prepared the FMP and NMFS approved 

it under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). General 

regulations governing U.S. fisheries also 

appear at 50 CFR part 600. 

The FMP and its implementing 

regulations require NMFS, after 

consulting with the Council, to specify 

annually the total allowable catch (TAC) 

for each target species category, the sum 

of which must be within the optimum 

yield (OY) range of 1.4 million to 2.0 

million metric tons (mt) (see 

§ 679.20(a)(1)(i)). Section 679.20(c)(1) 

further requires NMFS to publish 

proposed harvest specifications in the 

Federal Register and solicit public 

comments on proposed annual TACs 

and apportionments thereof, PSC 

allowances, prohibited species quota 

(PSQ) reserves established by § 679.21, 

seasonal allowances of pollock, Pacific 

cod, and Atka mackerel TAC, American 

Fisheries Act allocations, Amendment 

80 allocations, and Community 

Development Quota (CDQ) reserve 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with