Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12611 

7Many coal-fired EGUs have announced plans to 

deactivate by April 2015 including several plants in 

West Virginia, including Albright, Kammer, 

Kanawha River, Phillip Sporn and Rivesville, as 

well as plants or individual units at plants in states 

neighboring West Virginia including Glen Lynn, 

Walter C. Beckjord, Muskingum River, Elrama, 

Clinch River, Eastlake, Ashtabula, and Big Sandy. 

Additional SO2 reductions will likely result from 

the deactivations of these coal-fired EGUs. For a 

listing of EGUs planning to deactivate in the states 

which are part of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., a 

regional transmission organization which 

coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity 

within states including West Virginia, see http://

www.pjm.com/planning/generation-deactivation/

gd-summaries.aspx. 

8EPA previously determined that CSAPR (like 

CAIR before it) was ‘‘better than BART’’ because it 

would achieve greater reasonable progress toward 

the national goal than would source-specific BART. 

77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012). EPA is not taking 

comment in this supplemental proposal on whether 

the West Virginia implementation plan meets the 

BART requirements or whether CSAPR is an 

alternative measure to source-specific BART in 

accordance with 40 CFR 52.301(e)(2). 

reasonable progress goals.7 EPA is 

seeking comment only on the issues 

raised in this supplemental proposal 

and is not reopening for comment other 

issues addressed in its prior proposal. 

IV. Summary of Reproposal 

In summary, EPA proposes to approve 

West Virginia’s progress report SIP 

revision submitted on April 30, 2013. 

EPA solicits comments on this 

supplemental proposal, but only with 

respect to the specific issues raised in 

this notice concerning our interpretation 

of the term ‘‘implementation plan’’ in 

the Regional Haze Rule, and our 

agreement with West Virginia’s 

assessment that the current regional 

haze SIP for West Virginia in 

combination with our CSAPR FIP need 

not be revised at this time to achieve the 

established reasonable progress goals for 

West Virginia and other nearby states in 

light of the status of CAIR through 2014 

and CSAPR starting in 2015. EPA is not 

reopening the comment period on any 

other aspect of the March 14, 2014 NPR 

as an adequate opportunity to comment 

on those issues has already been 

provided. The purpose of this 

supplemental proposal is limited to 

review of the West Virginia progress 

report in light of the Supreme Court’s 

decision in EME Homer City and the 

D.C. Circuit’s recent Order lifting the 

stay on CSAPR. This supplemental 

proposal reflects EPA’s desire for public 

input into how it should proceed in 

light of those decisions when acting on 

the pending progress report, in 

particular the requirements that the 

State assess whether the current 

implementation plan is sufficient to 

ensure that reasonable progress goals are 

met. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) and (h).8

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

this action does not involve technical 

standards; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this supplemental 

proposed rule pertaining to West 

Virginia’s regional haze progress report 

does not have tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

the SIP is not approved to apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: March 2, 2015. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05468 Filed 3–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 141219999–5174–01] 

RIN 0648–BE74 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

Fisheries off West Coast States; 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2015 

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 issues this proposed 

rule for the 2015 Pacific whiting fishery 

under the authority of the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP), the Magnuson Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the Pacific 

Whiting Act of 2006. This proposed rule 

would allocate 17.5% of the U.S. Total 

Allowable Catch of Pacific whiting for 

2015 to Pacific Coast Indian tribes that 

have a Treaty right to harvest 

groundfish, and would revise the 

regulation authorizing NMFS to 

reapportion unused allocation from the 

tribal allocation to the non-tribal sectors 

earlier in the fishing season. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received no later than April 9, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2015–0017, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

12612 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

NOAA-NMFS-2015-0017, click the 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the 

required fields, and enter or attach your 

comments. 

• Mail: William W. Stelle, Jr., 

Regional Administrator, Northwest 

Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way 

NE., Seattle, WA 98115–0070, Attn: 

Miako Ushio. 

Instructions: 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 by NMFS. All comments 

received are 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, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. 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, Excel, or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Miako Ushio (West Coast Region, 

NMFS), phone: 206–526–4644, and 

email: miako.ushio@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

This proposed rule is accessible via 

the Internet at the Office of the Federal 

Register Web site at https://

www.federalregister.gov. Background 

information and documents are 

available at the NMFS West Coast 

Region Web site at http://

www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/

fisheries/management/whiting/pacific_

whiting.html and 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 that ‘‘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.’’ The procedures NOAA 

employs in implementing tribal treaty 

rights under the FMP, were designed to 

provide a framework process by which 

NOAA Fisheries 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. 

Since the FMP has been in place, 

NMFS has been allocating a portion of 

the U.S. total allowable catch (TAC) 

(called Optimum Yield (OY) or Annual 

Catch Limit (ACL) prior to 2012) of 

Pacific whiting to the tribal fishery, 

following the process established in 50 

CFR 660.50(d). The tribal allocation is 

subtracted from the U.S. Pacific whiting 

TAC before allocation to the non-tribal 

sectors. 

There are four tribes that can 

participate in the tribal whiting fishery: 

The Hoh, Makah, Quileute, and 

Quinault. The Hoh tribe has not 

expressed an interest in participating to 

date. The Quileute Tribe and Quinault 

Indian Nation have expressed interest in 

commencing participation in the 

whiting fishery. However, to date, only 

the Makah Tribe has prosecuted a tribal 

fishery for Pacific whiting. They have 

harvested whiting every year since 1996 

using midwater trawl gear. Tribal 

allocations have been based on 

discussions with the tribes regarding 

their intent for those fishing years. Table 

1 below provides a history of U.S. OYs 

and annual tribal allocation in metric 

tons (mt). 

TABLE 1—U.S. OPTIMUM YIELDS

(OYS) AND ANNUAL TRIBAL ALLOCATION IN METRIC TONS (MT) 

Year U.S. OY Tribal 

allocation 

2005 ..... 269,069 mt ......... 35,000 mt. 

2006 ..... 269,069 mt ......... 32,500 mt. 

2007 ..... 242,591 mt ......... 35,000 mt. 

2008 ..... 269,545 mt ......... 35,000 mt. 

2009 ..... 135,939 mt ......... 50,000 mt. 

2010 ..... 193,935 mt ......... 49,939 mt. 

2011 ..... 290,903 mt ......... 66,908 mt. 

2012 ..... 186,037 mt TAC 1 48,556 mt. 

2013 ..... 269,745 mt TAC 63,205 mt. 

2014 ..... 316,206 mt TAC 55,336 mt. 

1Beginning in 2012, the United States started using the term Total Allowable Catch, 

based on the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the 

Government of Canada on Pacific Hake/

Whiting. 

In 2009, NMFS, the states of 

Washington and Oregon, and the Treaty 

tribes started a process to determine the 

long-term tribal allocation for Pacific 

whiting; however, no long-term 

allocation has been determined. In order 

to ensure Treaty tribes continue to 

receive allocations, this rulemaking 

proposes the 2015 tribal allocation of 

Pacific whiting. This is an interim 

allocation not intended to set precedent 

for future allocations. 

Tribal Allocation for 2015 

In exchanges between NMFS and the 

tribes during December of 2014, the 

Makah tribe indicated their intent to 

participate in the tribal whiting fishery 

in 2015. The Makah tribe has requested 

17.5% of the U.S. TAC. The Quileute 

tribe and the Quinault Indian Nation 

indicated that they are not planning to 

participate in 2015. NMFS proposes a 

tribal allocation that accommodates the 

Makah request, specifically 17.5% of the 

U.S. TAC. NMFS believes that the 

current scientific information regarding 

the distribution and abundance of the 

coastal Pacific whiting stock suggests 

that the 17.5% is within the range of the 

tribal treaty right to Pacific whiting. 

The Joint Management Committee 

(JMC), which was established pursuant 

to the Agreement between the United 

States and Canada on Pacific Hake/

Whiting (the Agreement), is anticipated 

to recommend the coastwide and 

corresponding U.S./Canada TACs no 

later than March 25, 2015. The U.S. 

TAC is 73.88% of the coastwide TAC. 

Until this TAC is set, NMFS cannot 

propose a specific amount for the tribal 

allocation. The whiting fishery typically 

begins in May, and the final rule 

establishing the whiting specifications 

for 2015 is anticipated to be published 

by early May. Therefore, in order to 

provide for public input on the tribal 

allocation, NMFS is issuing this 

proposed rule without the final 2015 

TAC. However, to provide a basis for 

public input, NMFS is describing a 

range of potential tribal allocations in 

this proposed rule, applying the 

proposed approach to determining the 

tribal allocation to a range of potential 

TACs derived from historical 

experience. 

In order to project a range of potential 

tribal allocations for 2015, NMFS is 

applying its proposed approach to 

determining the tribal allocation to the 

range of U.S. TACs over the last 10 

years, 2005 through 2014 (plus or minus 

25% to capture variability in stock 

abundance). The range of TACs in that 

time period was 135,939 mt (2009) to 

316,206 mt (2014). Applying the 25% 

variability results in a range of potential 

TACs of 101,954 mt to 395,258 mt for 

2015. Therefore, using the proposed 

allocation rate of 17.5%, the potential 

range of the tribal allocation for 2015 

would be between 17,842 and 69,170 

mt. 

This proposed rule would also modify 

the regulatory mechanism whereby 

NMFS may, upon determining based on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12613 

discussion with the participating tribes 

and consideration of available catch 

information that some portion of the 

tribal allocation will not be used during 

the fishing year, reapportion that part to 

the non-tribal sectors of the whiting 

fishery. Currently, regulations at 50 CFR 

660.131(h) call for reapportionment to 

occur on September 15 or as soon as 

practicable thereafter. NMFS has 

reapportioned Pacific whiting from the 

tribal sector to the non-tribal sectors in 

four of the past five years, after 

consultation with the participating 

(Makah) tribe to ensure such 

reapportionments will not limit tribal 

harvest opportunities. The timing of 

reapportionment in the regulation was 

intended to allow for the tribal fishery 

to proceed to the point where it could 

determine whether the full allocation 

was likely to be used, while providing 

time for the non-treaty sectors to catch 

the reallocated fish prior to the onset of 

winter weather conditions. In some 

years, the participating tribes may 

determine prior to September 15 that 

they will not use a portion of the tribal 

allocation. In late 2014, representatives 

of the Makah expressed an interest in 

possibly supporting earlier 

reapportionments to be used in 

situations such as this, and NMFS 

proposes amending regulations via this 

rulemaking to allow for that possibility. 

This proposed rule would be 

implemented under authority of Section 

305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens 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 four 

Northwest 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). 

Classification 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the management measures for the 

2015 Pacific whiting tribal fishery are 

consistent with the national standards 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable laws. In making the final 

determination, NMFS will take into 

account the data, views, and comments 

received during the comment period. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that this proposed rule 

is not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

As required by section 603 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) was prepared. 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. 

Under the RFA, the term ‘‘small 

entities’’ includes small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. This 

rulemaking affects vessels engaged in 

small businesses. 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 $20.5 million for all its affiliated 

operations worldwide (79 FR 33647). 

For marinas and charter/party boats, a 

small business is defined as one with 

annual receipts, not in excess of $7.5 

million. For purposes of rulemaking, 

NMFS is also applying the $20.5 million 

standard to catcher processors (C/Ps) 

because whiting C/Ps are involved in 

the commercial harvest of finfish. 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 

full time, part time, temporary, or other 

basis, at all its affiliated operations 

worldwide. 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. 

Small organizations. The RFA defines 

small organizations as any nonprofit 

enterprise that is independently owned 

and operated and is not dominant in its 

field. 

Small governmental jurisdictions. 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. 

This proposed rule would allocate 

17.5% of the U.S. Total Allowable Catch 

of Pacific whiting for 2015 to Pacific 

Coast Indian tribes that have a Treaty 

right to harvest groundfish. This 

allocation rule was used for the 2014 

fishery. The entities that this 

rulemaking directly impacts are the 

Makah Tribe, and the following in the 

non-tribal fisheries: Quota share (QS) 

holders in the Shorebased IFQ 

Program—Trawl Fishery; vessels in the 

Mothership Coop (MS) Program— 

Whiting At-sea Trawl Fishery; and the 

Catcher/Processor (C/P) Coop Whiting 

At-sea Trawl Fishery. These entities 

determine how much of their 

allocations are to be actually fished and 

what vessels are allowed to fish their 

allocations. This rulemaking proposes to 

allocate fish to the Makah Tribe. Based 

on groundfish ex-vessel revenues and 

on tribal enrollments (the population 

size of each tribe), the Makah Tribe is 

considered a small entity. 

Currently, the Shorebased IFQ 

Program is composed of 149 Quota 

Share permits/accounts, 152 vessel 

accounts, and 43 first receivers. The MS 

fishery is currently composed of a single 

coop, with six mothership processor 

permits, and 34 Mothership/CatcherVessel (MS/CV) endorsed permits, with 

three permits each having two catch 

history assignments. The C/P Program is 

composed of 10 C/P permits owned by 

three companies that have formed a 

single coop. 

Many companies participate in two 

sectors and some participate in all three 

sectors. All of the 34 mothership catch 

history assignments are associated with 

a single mothership coop and all ten of 

the catcher-processor permits are 

associated with a coop. These coops are 

considered large entities from several 

perspectives; they have participants that 

are large entities, whiting coop revenues 

exceed or have exceeded the $20.5 

million, or coop members are connected 

to American Fishing Act permits or 

coops where the NMFS Alaska Region 

has determined they are all large entities 

(79 FR 54597; September 12, 2014). 

After accounting for cross participation, 

multiple QS account holders, and 

affiliation through ownership, NMFS 

estimates that there are 103 non-tribal 

entities directly affected by these 

proposed regulations, 89 of which are 

considered ‘‘small’’ businesses. 

For the years 2010 to 2014, the total 

whiting fishery (tribal and non-tribal) 

averaged harvests of approximately 

183,000 mt annually, worth over $43 

million in ex-vessel revenues. As the 

U.S. whiting TAC has been highly 

variable during this time, so have 

harvests. In the past five years, harvests 

have ranged from 160,000 mt (2012) to 

264,000 mt (2014). Ex-vessel revenues 

have also varied. Annual ex-vessel 

revenues have ranged from $30 million 

(2010) to $65 million (2013). Total 

whiting harvest in 2013 was 

approximately 233,000 mt worth $65 

million, at an ex-vessel price of $280 per 

mt. Ex-vessel revenues in 2014 were 

over $64 million with a harvest of 

264,000 tons and ex-vessel price of $240 

per mt. The prices for whiting are 

largely determined by the world market 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

12614 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

for groundfish, because most of the 

whiting harvested is exported. Note that 

the use of ex-vessel values does not take 

into account the wholesale or export 

value of the fishery or the costs of 

harvesting and processing whiting into 

a finished product. NMFS does not have 

sufficient information to make a 

complete assessment of these values. 

The Pacific whiting fishery harvests 

almost exclusively Pacific whiting. 

While bycatch of other species occurs, 

the fishery is constrained by bycatch 

limits on key overfished species. This is 

a high-volume fishery with low exvessel prices per pound. This fishery 

also has seasonal aspects based on the 

distribution of whiting off the west 

coast. 

Since 1996, there has been a tribal 

allocation of the U.S. whiting TAC. 

Tribal fisheries undertake a mixture of 

fishing activities that are similar to the 

activities that non-tribal fisheries 

undertake. Tribal harvests have been 

delivered to both shoreside plants and 

at-sea processors. These processing 

facilities also process fish harvested by 

non-tribal fisheries. 

This proposed rule would allocate 

17.5% of Pacific whiting to the tribal 

fishery, and would ultimately determine 

how much is left for allocation to the 

non-tribal sectors, which are the 

Shorebased IFQ Program—Trawl 

Fishery; Mothership Coop (MS) 

Program—Whiting At-sea Trawl 

Fishery; and C/P Coop Program— 

Whiting At-sea Trawl Fishery. The 

amount of whiting allocated to both the 

tribal and non-tribal sectors is based on 

the U.S. TAC. From the U.S. TAC, small 

amounts of whiting that account for 

research catch and for bycatch in other 

fisheries are deducted. The amount of 

the tribal allocation is also deducted 

directly from the TAC. After accounting 

for these deductions, the remainder is 

the commercial harvest guideline. This 

guideline is then allocated among the 

three non-tribal sectors as follows: 34 

percent for the C/P Coop Program; 24 

percent for the MS Coop Program; and 

42 percent for the Shorebased IFQ 

Program. 

The effect of the tribal allocation on 

non-tribal fisheries will depend on the 

level of tribal harvests relative to their 

allocation and the reapportioning 

process. Total whiting harvest in 2014 

was approximately 264,000 mt worth 

$64 million, at an ex-vessel price of 

$240 per mt. Assuming a similar harvest 

level and ex-vessel price in 2015, if the 

tribe were to harvest 17.5%, the 

approximate value of that harvest would 

be $11 million. If the tribes do not 

harvest their entire allocation, there are 

opportunities during the year to 

reapportion unharvested tribal amounts 

to the non-tribal fleets. For example, last 

year, NMFS executed two such 

reapportionments. In the first 

reapportionment, the best available 

information through September 12, 2014 

indicated that at least 25,000 mt of the 

tribal allocation would not be harvested 

by December 31, 2014. To allow for full 

utilization the resource, NMFS 

reapportioned 25,000 mt to the 

shorebased IFQ Program, C/P Coop and 

MS Coop in proportion to each sector’s 

original allocation on September 12, 

2014. Reapportioning this amount was 

expected to allow for greater attainment 

of the OY while not limiting tribal 

harvest opportunities for the remainder 

of the year. Subsequently, the C/P Coop, 

MS Coop, and Shorebased IFQ sectors 

expressed an interest in additional 

harvest of Pacific whiting via written 

notice to NMFS. 

In the second reapportionment, the 

best available information on October 

22, 2014, indicated that an additional 

20,000 mt of the tribal allocation would 

not be harvested by December 31, 2014. 

To allow for full utilization the 

resource, NMFS reapportioned an 

additional 20,000 mt of the non-tribal 

sector and distributed to the C/P Coop 

and MS Coop in proportion to each 

sector’s original allocation on October 

23, 2014. The Shorebased IFQ Program’s 

share of the second reapportionment 

was not distributed due to concerns 

regarding Chinook salmon catch. 

Reapportioning a combined total of 

45,000 mt was expected to allow for 

greater attainment of the OY while not 

limiting tribal harvest opportunities for 

the remainder of the year. The revised 

Pacific whiting allocations for 2014 

were: Tribal 10,336 mt, C/P Coop 

103,486 mt; MS Coop 73,049 mt; and 

Shorebased IFQ Program 127,835 mt. 

NMFS considered two alternatives for 

this action: The ‘‘No-Action’’ and the 

‘‘Proposed Action.’’ NMFS did not 

consider a broader range of alternatives 

to the proposed allocation. The tribal 

allocation is based primarily on the 

requests of the tribes. These requests 

reflect the level of participation in the 

fishery that will allow them to exercise 

their treaty right to fish for whiting. 

Under the Proposed Action alternative, 

NMFS proposes to set the tribal 

allocation percentage at 17.5%, as 

requested by the tribes. This would 

yield a tribal allocation of between 

17,842 and 69,170 mt for 2015. 

Consideration of a percentage lower 

than the tribal request of 17.5% is not 

appropriate in this instance. As a matter 

of policy, NMFS has historically 

supported the harvest levels requested 

by the tribes. Based on the information 

available to NMFS, the tribal request is 

within their tribal treaty rights. A higher 

percentage would arguably also be 

within the scope of the treaty right. 

However, a higher percentage would 

unnecessarily limit the non-tribal 

fishery. 

Under the no-action alternative, 

NMFS would not make an allocation to 

the tribal sector. This alternative was 

considered, but the regulatory 

framework 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 2015, which would be 

inconsistent with NMFS’ responsibility 

to manage the fishery consistent with 

the tribes’ treaty rights. Given that there 

is a tribal request for allocation in 2015, 

this alternative received no further 

consideration. 

NMFS believes this proposed rule 

would not adversely affect small 

entities. This reapportioning process 

allows unharvested tribal allocations of 

whiting, fished by small entities, to be 

fished by the non-tribal fleets, 

benefitting both large and small entities. 

Nonetheless, NMFS has prepared this 

IRFA and is requesting comments on 

this conclusion. See ADDRESSES. 

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 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 the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12615 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

NMFS issued a Supplemental 

Biological Opinion on March 11, 2006, 

concluding that neither the higher 

observed bycatch of Chinook in the 

2005 whiting fishery nor new data 

regarding salmon bycatch in the 

groundfish bottom trawl fishery 

required a reconsideration of its prior 

‘‘no jeopardy’’ conclusion. NMFS also 

reaffirmed its prior determination that 

implementation of the Groundfish 

PCGFMP is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any of the 

affected ESUs. The effect of the Pacific 

whiting fishery on protected Chinook 

salmon is currently under ESA Section 

7 consultation to reconsider this ‘‘no 

jeopardy’’ conclusion. The trigger for 

this reinitiation of consultation was the 

2014 Pacific whiting fishery exceeding 

the Chinook salmon incidental take 

statement from the 1999 Biological 

Opinion by a level similar to 2005. 

NMFS has considered the effects of this 

proposed rule on listed salmonids, 

consistent with ESA Section 7(a)(2) and 

7(d). The proposed action is not likely 

to adversely affect, or would not 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any listed species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. 

Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 

37160, June 28, 2005) 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. 

On December 7, 2012, NMFS 

completed a biological opinion 

concluding that the groundfish fishery 

is not likely to jeopardize non-salmonid 

marine species including listed 

eulachon, green sturgeon, humpback 

whales, Steller sea lions, and 

leatherback sea turtles. The opinion also 

concludes that the fishery is not likely 

to adversely modify critical habitat for 

green sturgeon and leatherback sea 

turtles. An analysis included in the 

same document as the opinion 

concludes that the fishery is not likely 

to adversely affect green sea turtles, 

olive ridley sea turtles, loggerhead sea 

turtles, sei whales, North Pacific right 

whales, blue whales, fin whales, sperm 

whales, Southern Resident killer 

whales, Guadalupe fur seals, or the 

critical habitat for Steller sea lions. 

Steller sea lions and humpback 

whales are protected under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). 

Impacts resulting from fishing activities 

proposed in this rulemaking are 

discussed in the FEIS for the 2015–2016 

groundfish fishery specifications and 

management measures. West coast pot 

fisheries for sablefish are considered 

Category II fisheries under the MMPA’s 

List of Fisheries, indicating occasional 

interactions. All other west coast 

groundfish fisheries, including the trawl 

fishery, are considered Category III 

fisheries under the MMPA, indicating a 

remote likelihood of or no known 

serious injuries or mortalities to marine 

mammals. MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) 

requires that NMFS authorize the taking 

of ESA-listed marine mammals 

incidental to U.S. commercial fisheries 

if it makes the requisite findings, 

including a finding that the incidental 

mortality and serious injury from 

commercial fisheries will have 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stock. As noted above, NMFS 

concluded in its biological opinion for 

the groundfish fisheries that these 

fisheries were not likely to jeopardize 

Steller sea lions or humpback whales. 

The eastern distinct population segment 

of Steller sea lions was delisted under 

the ESA on November 4, 2013 (78 FR 

66140). On September 4, 2013, based on 

its negligible impact determination 

dated August 28, 2013, NMFS issued a 

permit for three years to authorize the 

incidental taking of humpback whales 

by the sablefish pot fishery (78 FR 

54553). 

On November 21, 2012, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a 

biological opinion concluding that the 

groundfish fishery will not jeopardize 

the continued existence of the shorttailed albatross. The FWS also 

concurred that the fishery is not likely 

to adversely affect the marbled murrelet, 

California least tern, southern sea otter, 

bull trout, nor bull trout critical habitat. 

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. Consistent 

with the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 

U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting 

members of the Pacific Council is a 

representative of an Indian tribe with 

federally recognized fishing rights from 

the area of the Council’s jurisdiction. In 

addition, NMFS has coordinated 

specifically with the tribes interested in 

the whiting fishery regarding the issues 

addressed by this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660 

Fisheries, Fishing, Indian fisheries. 

Dated: March 3, 2015. 

Eileen Sobeck, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

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, revise paragraph (f)(4) 

to read as follows: 

§ 660.50 Pacific Coast treaty Indian 

fisheries. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(4) Pacific whiting. The tribal 

allocation for 2015 will be 17.5% of the 

U.S. TAC. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 660.131, revise paragraph (h) to 

read as follows: 

§ 660.131 Pacific whiting fishery 

management measures. 

* * * * * 

(h) Reapportionment of pacific 

whiting. (1) Upon receipt of written 

notice to the Regional Administrator 

from the tribe(s) participating in the 

fishery that they do not intend to use a 

portion of the tribal allocation, the 

Regional Administrator may, no earlier 

than 7 days following notice to other 

treaty tribes with rights to whiting, 

reapportion any remainder to the other 

sectors of the trawl fishery as soon as 

practicable after receiving such notice. If 

no such reapportionment has occurred 

prior to September 15 of the fishing 

year, the Regional Administrator will, 

based on discussions with 

representatives of the tribes 

participating in the Pacific whiting 

fishery for that fishing year, consider the 

tribal harvests to date and catch 

projections for the remainder of the year 

relative to the tribal allocation of Pacific 

whiting, as specified at § 660.50. That 

portion of the tribal allocation that the 

Regional Administrator determines will 

not be used by the end of the fishing 

year may be reapportioned to the other 

sectors of the trawl fishery on 

September 15 or as soon as practicable 

thereafter. Subsequent 

reapportionments may be made based 

on subsequent determinations by the 

Regional Administrator based on the 

factors described above in order to 

ensure full utilization of the resource. 

However, no reapportionments will 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

12616 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

occur after December 1 of the fishing 

year. 

(2) NMFS will reapportion unused 

tribal allocation to the other sectors of 

the trawl fishery in proportion to their 

initial allocations. 

(3) The reapportionment of surplus 

whiting will be made effective 

immediately by actual notice under the 

automatic action authority provided at 

§ 660.60(d)(1). 

(4) Estimates of the portion of the 

tribal allocation that will not be used by 

the end of the fishing year will be based 

on the best information available to the 

Regional Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05384 Filed 3–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS