43686 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1 Implementation of the Pay Telephone

Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of

the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket

No. 96–128, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20541

(1996) (‘‘Payphone Order’’); Order on

Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 21233 (1996) (‘‘Order

on Reconsideration’’) (both orders together

‘‘Payphone Orders’’); 61 Fed. Reg. 65,341 (Dec. 12,

1996).

2 D.C. Circuit Nos. 96–1394 et al. (July 1, 1997).

October 1995, and October 1996. No

chemical compounds of concern related

to the site were detected in these

groundwater samples.

• EPA oversight sampling since the

Removal Action has identified the

presence of Pentachlorophenol in some

groundwater samples, however no

evidence of Pentachlorophenol was ever

identified at the site during site

inspections, field investigations, the

Removal Action, or post-removal

confirmation sampling. EPA has

provided Ecology with these results and

the Agencies have agreed that EPA will

continue efforts to identify the source

and potential impacts of the

Pentachlorophenol, but that since there

is no evidence to date that the

Pentachlorophenol is site-related, its

detection should not preclude deletion

of this site from the NPL. Note that

deleted sites remain eligible for future

Fund-financed response actions should

future conditions warrant such action,

and whenever there is a significant

release from a site or portion of a site

deleted from the NPL, the site or portion

may be restored to the NPL without

application of the Hazard Ranking

System.

• EPA sees no reason to require

continued annual ground water

monitoring for PCBs, although periodic

monitoring to support five-year reviews

may still be appropriate. TPH is being

addressed as an additional state

requirement, which the Washington

Department of Ecology will determine

whether or not to continue.

C. Characterization of Risk

• The risk assessment was done

subsequent to the Removal Action, and

documented that current and future

potential risks posed by the site are

within the acceptable risk range of 10-5

or less. There is no current pathway for

human exposure since all soil

contamination has been removed and/or

capped and no site-related contaminants

of concern have been detected in

groundwater. Because site risks were so

low, EPA determined that no feasibility

study was necessary and no other

alternatives were considered or

evaluated.

• The site remains a useful parking

lot, serving downtown Everson,

including the Senior Center and City

Hall.

D. Public Participation

Community input has been sought by

EPA Region 10 throughout the cleanup

process at the Site. An information

repository was established and has been

maintained at the Everson Public

Library. Fact sheets and public notices

were distributed when the site was

placed on the NPL in 1990, when Notice

Letters were sent to the PRPs in

December 1991, when the Removal

Action was proposed in August 1993,

and at several other times.

A public comment period was held

from August 16 to September 15, 1993

on the proposed removal action. At that

time the public was informed that if the

Removal Action was successful, no

further action would likely be

necessary. EPA issued a Proposed Plan

calling for No Further Action on August

24, 1994, and held a public comment

period from August 26 to September 26,

1994. A fact sheet and two public

notices of the Plan were issued by EPA,

but EPA received no public comments

on the Proposed Plan.

A copy of the Deletion Docket can be

reviewed by the public at the Everson

Public Library, or the EPA Region 10

Superfund Records Center. The Deletion

Docket includes this Notice, the ROD,

Amended ROD, Remedial Action

Construction Report, and Final Site

Close-Out Report. EPA Region 10 will

also announce the availability of the

Deletion Docket for public review in a

local newspaper and informational fact

sheet.

One of the three criteria for deletion

specifies that EPA may delete a site

from the NPL if ‘‘responsible parties or

other persons have implemented all

appropriate response actions required.’’

EPA, with the concurrence of Ecology,

believes that this criterion for deletion

has been met. Groundwater and soil

data from the Site confirm that the ROD

cleanup goals have been achieved.

There is no significant threat to human

health or the environment and,

therefore, no further remedial action is

necessary. Consequently, EPA is

proposing deletion of this Site from the

NPL. Documents supporting this action

are available in the docket at the

information repositories.

Dated: August 4, 1997.

Randall F. Smith,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–21380 Filed 8–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 96–128]

Pleading Cycle Established For

Comment On Remand Issues In The

Payphone Proceeding

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document clarifies the

status of the requirements in the

Payphone Orders in light of the D.C.

Circuit’s decision in Illinois Public

Telecommun., and establishes a

pleading cycle for comment on issues

remanded by that Court.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

August 26, 1997 and reply comments

are due on or before September 9, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Room 222, 1919 M St. N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg

Lipscomb, Formal Complaints and

Information Branch, Enforcement

Division, Common Carrier Bureau. (202)

418–0960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DA 97–

1673, August 5, 1997.

Comments Due: August 26, 1997.

Reply Comments Due: September 9, 1997.

I. Introduction

1. This Public Notice clarifies the

status of the requirements of the

Payphone Orders 1 in light of the D.C.

Circuit’s decision in Illinois Public

Telecommunications Ass’n v. FCC,2 and

seeks further comment on certain issues

raised by that court decision. In Illinois

Public Telecomm., the court granted in

part and denied in part petitions for

judicial review of the Payphone Orders.

In doing so, however, the court actually

vacated only one narrow aspect of those

orders, i.e., the asset valuation standard

that the Commission adopted with

respect to transfers of telephone

company payphone assets to separate

affiliates. The remaining portions of the

orders were either upheld, or remanded

to the Commission for further

consideration and explanation. Thus,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Proposed Rules 43687

3See Allied-Signal Inc. v. NRC, 988 F.2d 146, 151

(D.C. Cir. 1993); Checkosky v. SEC, 23 F.3d 452, 463

(D.C. Cir. 1994) (opinion of Silberman, J.). It follows

logically that because the court held that the failure

of the Commission to provide interim compensation

for 0+ calls that are not compensated pursuant to

contract is arbitrary and capricious and not

responsive to the § 276 requirement that there be

compensation for each and every call, the court

would similarly find a decision by the Commission

to discontinue interim compensation during the

remand proceedings as contrary to § 276. The

court’s decision to remand but not vacate the

interim compensation provisions of the Payphone

Orders supports this assumption.

4See Natural Gas Clearinghouse v. FERC, 965

F.2d 1066, 1073–75 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Public Utils.

Comm’n of California v. FERC, 988 F.2d 154, 162–

63 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

5 Illinois Public Telecomm., No. 96–1394, slip op.

at 16.

6 Id. at 14.

7 Id. at 17.

8 Id.

9 Id.

10LECs are currently excluded from interim

obligations because of ‘‘. . . administrative

practicality and because LECs, on an individual

basis, currently do not carry a significant volume

Continued

except for the vacated asset valuation

standard, all of the requirements of the

Payphone Orders—including those

portions that were remanded to the

Commission—remain in effect pending

further action by the Commission on

remand.3 We place the industry on

notice, however, that should the

equities so dictate, payphone

compensation payment obligations (or

the absence of such obligations)

incurred by providers of interexchange

services and compensation levels paid

or received under our existing rules

pending action on remand may be

subject to retroactive adjustment in

order to undo the effects of applying

aspects of the current rules that were

identified by the court as potentially

arbitrary.4

2. As discussed below, we also seek

comment to supplement the record on

certain issues raised by the court’s

ruling in Illinois Public Telecomm.

II. Issues for Comment

A. Default Rate for Compensation of

Subscriber 800 and Access Code Calls

3. The court concluded that the

Commission did not adequately justify

setting the per-call compensation rate

for subscriber 800 and access code calls

at the same rate as the deregulated local

call rate of $.35. In particular, the court

held that the Commission did not justify

its conclusion that the costs of coin

calls, subscriber 800 calls, and access

code calls all are similar.5 The court

concluded that the Commission had not

responded to arguments by parties in

the proceeding that the ‘‘costs of local

coin calls versus 800 and access code

calls are not similar.’’ The court cited

the filings of various IXCs that argued

that: (1) the costs of coin calls are higher

than those for coinless calls because of

additional costs for equipment and coin

collection; (2) the costs of local coin

calls are higher because the PSP pays for

originating and completing local calls

while, for coinless calls (e.g., subscriber

800 calls or access code calls) the PSP

only pays for originating the calls.6

4. We seek comment on the

differences in costs to the PSP of

originating subscriber 800 calls and

access code calls, on the one hand, and

local coin calls, on the other hand. We

also seek comment on whether and, if

so, how these cost differences should

affect a market-based compensation

amount. Finally, we seek comment on

whether the local coin rate, subject to an

offset for expenses unique to those calls,

is an appropriate per-call compensation

rate for calls not compensated pursuant

to a contract or other arrangement, such

as subscriber 800 calls and access code

calls. Parties should respond

specifically to concerns raised by the

court in setting forth their views on the

appropriate per-call compensation

amount.

B. Interim Compensation Plan

5. In the Payphone Orders, the

Commission established a two-year

interim plan for payphone

compensation for subscriber 800 and

access code calls based on a rate of $.35

per call. Under the first year of the

interim plan, IXCs with annual toll

revenues in excess of $100 million are

required to pay, collectively, a flat-rate

compensation of $45.85 per payphone

per month in shares proportionate to

their share of total market long distance

revenues. During the second year, all

IXCs are required to pay $.35 per

subscriber 800 call or access code call

unless they have contracted for a

different amount.

6. The court remanded the interim

plan for two reasons. First, the court

concluded that the Commission failed to

provide a reasonable justification for an

interim rate based on $.35 per call. As

discussed above, the court remanded

the decision to set compensation for

subscriber 800 calls and access code

calls at the deregulated local coin rate.

The court concluded that the

Commission ‘‘must now set a new

interim rate and decide what is to

happen once the interim period is

over.’’ 7 Second, the court held that the

Commission acted arbitrarily and

capriciously because it required

payments only from IXCs with over

$100 million in toll revenues for the

first year of the interim plan. The court

concluded that administrative

convenience was an insufficient

justification for an interim plan that

exempts all but large IXCs from paying

for the costs of services received.8 In

addition, the court found that the

Commission did not adequately justify

why it based its interim plan on total

toll revenues, ‘‘as it did not establish a

nexus between total toll revenues and

the number of payphone-originated

calls.’’ The court concluded that the

Commission could decide that the new

interim rate is an appropriate default

rate after the interim period and that,

through negotiations, PSPs and IXCs

could be left free to depart from the

default rate.9

i. Compensation for Subscriber 800 and

Access Code Calls During the Interim

Period

7. In response to the court’s

conclusion that the Commission had not

justified setting the interim flat rate

compensation level on the basis of $0.35

per call (which we had multiplied by an

estimate of the number of monthly

compensable calls), we seek comment

on the proper aggregate amount of

compensation PSPs should receive per

payphone during the period before per

call compensation becomes available.

8. We also seek comment on the

proper allocation of a flat-rate

compensation obligation, if any, among

providers of interexchange service. The

Commission currently does not have

specific toll revenue data or market

share data for IXCs with toll revenues

under $100 million. Consequently, we

seek comment on how the Commission

could establish the relative

compensation obligations of such

smaller IXCs, if such carriers were to be

included in the interim compensation

mechanism. We also seek comment on

whether annual toll revenues are the

appropriate basis for allocating flat-rate

compensation obligations among all of

the IXCs, regardless of their annual toll

revenues, or whether some other basis is

more appropriate. If parties argue that

another basis is appropriate for

allocating flat-rate compensation, they

should also discuss how differences in

the amount of interim compensation

obligations would be accounted for,

given that the existing interim

mechanism continues to be in effect. We

also seek comment on whether the

Commission should include LECs that

carry toll traffic among the carriers

required to pay interim compensation,

and, if so, the data we would use to

ascertain their respective obligations.10
43688 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Proposed Rules

of compensable calls.’’ Order on Reconsideration,

11 FCC Rcd at 21291, para. 126.

11Payphone Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20603–04,

paras. 124–25.

12 Illinois Public Telecomm., No. 96–1394, slip

op. at 19.

13See United States v. Western Elec. Co., 698 F.

Supp. 348, 360 (D.D.C. 1988) (MFJ). The BOCs were

not compensated for these calls through contracts

with IXCs like other PSPs. The Commission

included per-call compensation for 0+ plus calls

made from BOC payphones and inmate payphones

so long as they do not otherwise receive

compensation for originating 0+ calls. The

Commission did not, however, provide for such

compensation during the first year of the interim

period. Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at

21259–60, para. 52.

14Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at

21259–21260, para. 52.

15 Id.

16 Illinois Public Telecomm., No. 96–1394, slip

op. at 19–20.

17Section 276(a)(1) provides that ‘‘any Bell

operating company that provides payphone service

shall not subsidize its payphone service directly or

indirectly from its telephone exchange service

operations or its exchange access operations.’’ 47

U.S.C. 276(a)(1). Paragraph (b) of § 276 requires the

Commission to issue ‘‘regulations that . . .

discontinue . . . all intrastate and interstate

payphone subsidies from basic exchange and

exchange access revenues.’’ Id. U.S.C. 276(b)(1)(B).

18See Payphone Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,621,

para. 142–45.

19 47 CFR 32.27(b). See Payphone Order, 11 FCC

Rcd at 20,621, para. 157. The court rejected the

petitioners’ argument that § 276 requires that a

BOC’s payphone assets be transferred to its

unregulated books. Illinois Public Telecomm., No.

96–1394, slip op. at 28.

ii. Compensation for 0+ Calls During the

Interim Period

9. The Payphone Orders do not

provide compensation for any calls that

are compensated pursuant to a contract

between the PSP and a presubscribed

carrier. The interim compensation

mechanism provides compensation only

for subscriber 800 calls and access code

calls,11 which are the most significant

classes of calls currently not

compensated pursuant to contract. The

court found that the Commission’s

‘‘failure to provide interim

compensation for 0+ calls is patently

inconsistent with § 276’s command that

fair compensation be provided for ‘each

and every completed . . . call.’ ’’ 12 As

the Commission noted in the Payphone

Order, a significant number of

payphones maintained by the BOCs are

not subject to a contract between the

PSP and the presubscribed IXC, due to

the previous restrictions imposed by the

Modification of Final Judgment.13

Because the court’s statement is made in

response to an argument made by the

BOCs, it appears that the court’s

concern about a lack of compensation

for 0+ calls in the interim period is

limited to situations where such

compensation is not paid pursuant to a

contract. We seek comment on this

interpretation. Further, we seek

comment on how the BOCs, and any

other similarly situated PSP, should be

compensated during the interim period

for 0+ calls for which they do not

receive compensation by contract. More

specifically, because the presubscribed

carrier on a particular payphone

receives the 0+ calls from that payphone

and often pays a commission on such

calls to the location provider, we seek

comment on whether it would be

appropriate to have the presubscribed

carrier pay the default per-call

compensation amount to the PSP for

each such call. The concerns that the

Commission expressed when it deferred

per-call tracking and per-call

compensation are not implicated in this

situation, because the presubscribed

carrier is already keeping track of these

calls. The presubscribed carrier could

simply pay the PSP for the number of

calls it has received from the payphone

multiplied by the default rate. We seek

comment on this option, and any other

options parties may suggest for

responding to the court’s concerns.

iii. Compensation for Inmate Calls

During the Interim Period

10. In the Payphone Orders, the

Commission decided that inmate

payphones would not be eligible for

interim flat-rate compensation because

such payphones are not capable of

originating either access code or

subscriber 800 calls, the only types of

calls for which interim compensation

was provided.14 The Commission found

that virtually all calls originated by

inmate payphones are 0+ calls, which

tend to be compensated pursuant to a

contract between the PSP or location

provider and the presubscribed IXC.15

The court remanded this issue because

it held that § 276 requires the

Commission to adopt regulations that

will ensure that PSPs receive fair

compensation for every call using their

payphone as required by the Act.16 As

with its discussion of interim

compensation for 0+ calls, the court’s

statements were made in response to

arguments made by the BOCs. Thus, as

we discussed above, it appears that the

court’s concern about a lack of

compensation for inmate calls in the

interim period is limited to situations

where such compensation is not paid

pursuant to a contract. We seek

comment on this interpretation. Further,

we seek comment on how the BOCs,

and any other similarly situated PSP,

should be compensated for inmate

payphone calls during the interim

period. We specifically seek comment

on whether it would be appropriate to

have the presubscribed carrier pay the

default per-call compensation amount to

the PSP for each inmate payphone call

for which compensation is not provided

pursuant to a contract with the PSP.

Again, the Commission’s concerns

absent tracking and per-call

compensation are not implicated in this

situation, because the presubscribed

carrier is already keeping track of the

calls.

iv. Retroactive Adjustments to Interim

Compensation Levels and Obligations

11. As noted at the outset of the

Public Notice, the Commission may

impose retroactive adjustments to the

payment obligations and compensation

levels that are incurred under our

existing rules during the period before

the Commission completes action on

remand. We seek comment on whether,

how, and under what authority any

such retroactive adjustments should be

made. Parties should specify the time

period covered by such potential

adjustments, e.g., the entire first year of

interim compensation (beginning in

October 1996), or from the date of the

court’s remand in Illinois Public

Telecomm. Ass’n.

C. Asset Valuation

12. In order to implement the § 276

requirement to remove subsidies from

payphone operations,17 the Commission

required deregulation of payphone

assets.18 Upon deregulation of payphone

assets, LECs are allowed either to

maintain the assets in their books of

account but reclassify the assets as

nonregulated, or to transfer the

payphone assets to a structurally

separate affiliate.19 In the Payphone

Order, the Commission stated that LECs

that elect not to transfer their payphone

assets to a separate affiliate may

maintain their assets on the books at net

book value. The Commission further

stated that, under its affiliate

transactions rules, if a LEC transfers its

payphone assets to either a separate

affiliate or an operating division that has

no joint and common use of assets or

resources with the LEC and maintains a

separate set of books, the LEC must

record the transfer of assets at the higher

of fair market value or net book value.

The Commission concluded that fair

market valuation will capture any

appreciation in value of those assets,

‘‘thus ensuring that any eventual gains
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Proposed Rules 43689

20Payphone Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,623–20,625,

paras. 163–66.

21 Illinois Public Telecomm., No. 96–1394, slip

op. at 28.

22 Id. at 26, citing Democratic Cent. Comm. of the

Dist. of Columbia v. Washington Metro. Area

Transit Comm’n, 485 F.2d 785, 806 (D.C. Cir. 1973),

cert. denied, 415 U.S. 935 (1974) (Democratic

Central).

23 Id. at 27.

24 Id. (citing Southwestern Bell Corp. v. FCC, 896

F.2d 1378, 1382 (D.C. Cir. 1990)).

25 Illinois Public Telecomm., No. 96–1394, slip

op. at 28.

would accrue to the benefit of the

ratepayers and shareholders.’’ 20

14. The court held that the

Commission’s valuation methodology

with respect to the one-time transfer of

assets mandated by industry reform was

arbitrary and capricious and contrary to

precedent.21 The court concluded that

the Commission failed to recognize that

the court’s test in Democratic Central,

which the Commission declined to

apply, was designed to protect not only

the interests of ratepayers, but also the

competing interests of shareholders.22

The court found inappropriate under

Democratic Central the Commission’s

valuation methodology, because the

court held that the Commission was

attempting to transfer the increase in the

value of the payphone operations from

the LECs’ shareholders to ratepayers.

The court held that, under Democratic

Central, as a result of the Commission’s

price cap rules, investors rather than

ratepayers have borne the risk of loss on

payphone assets. Therefore, the court

concluded that investors should reap

the benefit of increases in the value of

such assets.23 The court stated that in

Southwestern Bell Corp. v. FCC, while

upholding the Commission’s affiliate

transactions rules, specifically ‘‘noted

Democratic Central’s continued

applicability to ‘one-time’ transfers

mandated by industry reform.’’ The

court held that the transfer of payphone

assets pursuant to § 276 fell within this

category.24 The court rejected upon

similar analysis a challenge by other

petitioners to the net book valuation

method required by the Commission

with respect to the reclassification of

payphone assets as nonregulated within

the same corporate entity.25

15. We seek comment on how the

asset valuation requirements for the

transfer of payphone assets established

in the Payphone Orders should be

revised to respond to the concerns

raised by the court. The court appears

to hold that net book value must be used

for one-time transfers mandated by

industry reform, which would apply to

payphone asset transfers. If other

approaches are recommended, parties

should address how such approaches

comply with the court’s Democratic

Central analysis.

III. Ex Parte Presentations

16. This Public Notice is a ‘‘permitbut-disclose proceeding and subject to

the ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ requirements

under § 1.1206(b) of the rules, 47 CFR

1.1206(b), as revised. Persons making

oral ex parte presentations are reminded

that memoranda summarizing the

presentation must contain a summary of

the substance of the presentation and

not merely a listing of the subjects

discussed. More than a one or two

sentence description of the views and

arguments presented is generally

required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2), as

revised. Other rules pertaining to oral

and written presentations are set forth

in § 1.1206(b), as well. The Commission

requires all written ex parte

presentations or summaries of oral ex

parte presentations in this proceeding to

be served on all parties to this

proceeding.

IV. Comment Filing Dates

17. Pursuant to applicable procedures

set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,

1.419, interested parties may file

comments with the Office of the

Secretary, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 222, 1919 M St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 on or

before August 26, 1997, and reply

comments on or before September 9,

1997 from the release of this public

notice. To file formally in this

proceeding, participants must file an

original and four copies of all

comments, reply comments, and

supporting comments. In addition,

parties should file two copies of any

such pleadings with the Chief,

Enforcement Division, Common Carrier

Bureau, Stop 1600A, Room 6008, 2025

M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

Parties should also file one copy of any

documents filed in this docket with the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

17. For further information, contact

Michael Carowitz, Rose Crellin, or Greg

Lipscomb, Enforcement Division,

Common Carrier Bureau, 202/418–0960.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–21819 Filed 8–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[I.D. 080597F]

RIN: 0648–AK14

Amendment 34 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Groundfish

Fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian

Islands Area

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce

ACTION: Notice of availability of an

amendment to a fishery management

plan; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery

Management Council (Council) has

submitted Amendment 34 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Groundfish

Fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian

Islands Area (FMP) for Secretarial

review. Amendment 34 would authorize

an allocation of Atka mackerel to vessels

using jig gear. Annually, up to 2 percent

of the total allowable catch (TAC)

specified for this species in the Eastern

Aleutian Islands District (AI)/Bering Sea

subarea (BS) could be allocated to the jig

gear fleet fishing in this area. This

action is necessary to provide an

opportunity to a localized, small-vessel

jig gear fleet to fish for Atka mackerel

in summer months. The large-scale

trawl fisheries typically harvest the

available TAC for this species early in

the fishing year, which does not allow

the jig gear fishermen an opportunity for

a summer fishery. Comments from the

public are requested.

DATES: Comments on Amendment 34

must be submitted on or before October

14, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on Amendment

34 should be submitted to Chief,

Fisheries Management Division, Alaska

Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau,

AK 99802-1668, Attn: Lori Gravel, or

delivered to the Federal Building, 709

West 9th. Street, Juneau, AK. Copies of

Amendment 34 and the Environmental

Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

prepared for the amendment are

available from NMFS at the above