Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 23261

Flexibility Act (RFA). See 5 U.S.C. 604.

The RFA (see 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) has

been amended by the Contract With

America Advancement Act of 1996,

Pub. L. 104–121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996)

(CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). We

received no petitions for reconsideration

of that FRFA. In this present Public

Notice, the Commission promulgates no

additional final rules, and our action

does not affect the previous analysis. If

commenters believe that the proposals

discussed in this Public Notice require

additional RFA analysis, they should

include a discussion of these issues in

their comments.

Deadlines and Instructions for Filing

Proposals and Comments. Interested

parties may file additional proposals

regarding the Commission’s

methodology for determining universal

service support for rural and non-rural

carriers on or before April 27, 1998.

Interested parties may file comments in

support of or opposition to the

proposals on or before May 15, 1998.

Reply comments are due on or before

May 29, 1998. All filings should refer to

CC Docket Nos. 96–45 and 97–160, and

DA 98–715. One original and five copies

of all filings must be sent to Magalie

Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

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

Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties must

also send copies to the individuals

listed on the attached Service List and

to the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

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

Washington, D.C. 20554.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54

Universal service.

Federal Communications Commission.

James D. Schlichting,

Deputy Bureau Chief, Common Carrier

Bureau.

Attachment

The Honorable Susan Ness, Chair,

Commissioner, Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room

832, Washington, DC 20554

The Honorable Harold Furchtgott-Roth,

Commissioner, Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room

802, Washington, DC 20554

The Honorable Gloria Tristani,

Commissioner, Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room

826, Washington, DC 20554

The Honorable Julia Johnson, State Chair,

Chairman, Florida Public Service

Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Blvd.,

Gerald Gunter Building Tallahassee, FL

32399–0850

The Honorable David Baker, Commissioner,

Georgia Public Service Commission, 244

Washington Street, S.W., Atlanta, GA

30334–5701

The Honorable Laska Schoenfelder,

Commissioner, South Dakota Public

Utilities Commission, State Capitol, 500

East Capitol Street, Pierre, SD 57501–5070

The Honorable Patrick H. Wood, III,

Chairman, Texas Public Utility

Commission, 1701 North Congress Ave.,

Austin, TX 78701

Martha S. Hogerty, Missouri Office of Public

Council, 301 West High Street, Suite 250,

Truman Building, Jefferson City, MO 65102

Charles Bolle, South Dakota Public Utilities

Commission, State Capitol, 500 East

Capitol Street, Pierre, SD 57501–5070

Deonne Bruning, Nebraska Public Service

Commission, 300 The Atrium, 1200 N

Street, P.O. Box 94927, Lincoln, NE 68509–

4927

James Casserly, Federal Communications

Commission, Commissioner Ness’s Office,

1919 M Street, N.W., Room 832,

Washington, DC 20554

Rowland Curry, Texas Public Utility

Commission, 1701 North Congress Avenue,

P.O. Box 13326, Austin, TX 78701

Ann Dean, Maryland Public Service

Commission, 16th Floor, 6 Saint Paul

Street, Baltimore, MD 21202–6806

Bridget Duff, State Staff Chair, Florida Public

Service Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak

Blvd., Tallahassee, FL 32399–0866

Irene Flannery, Federal Staff Chair, Federal

Communications Commission, Accounting

and Audits Division, Universal Service

Branch, 2100 M Street, N.W., Room 8922,

Washington, DC 20554

Paul Gallant, Federal Communications

Commission, Commissioner Tristani’s

Office 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 826,

Washington, DC 20554

Lori Kenyon, Alaska Public Utilities

Commission, 1016 West Sixth Avenue,

Suite 400, Anchorage, AK 99501

Mark Long, Florida Public Service

Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Blvd.,

Tallahassee, FL 32399–0866

Sandra Makeeff, Iowa Utilities Board, Lucas

State Office Building, Des Moines, IA

50319

Kevin Martin, Federal Communications

Commission, Commissioner, FurchtgottRoth’s Office, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room

802, Washington, DC 20554

Philip F. McClelland, Pennsylvania Office of

Consumer Advocate, 1425 Strawberry

Square, Harrisburg, PA 17120

Barry Payne, Indiana Office of the Consumer

Counsel, 100 North Senate Avenue, Room

N501, Indianapolis, IN 46204–2208

James Bradford Ramsey, National Association

of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, 1100

Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., P.O. Box 684,

Washington, DC 20044–0684

Brian Roberts, California Public Utilities

Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San

Francisco, CA 94102

Tiane Sommer, Georgia Public Service

Commission, 244 Washington Street, S.W.,

Atlanta, GA 30334–5701

Sheryl Todd (plus 8 copies), Federal

Communications Commission, Accounting

and Audits Division, Universal Service

Branch, 2100 M Street, N.W., Room 8611,

Washington, DC 20554

[FR Doc. 98–11200 Filed 4–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 980414096–8096–01; I.D.

032698A]

RIN 0648–AJ99

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Gear Allocation of

Shortraker and Rougheye Rockfish in

the Aleutian Islands Subarea

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to

implement Amendment 53 to the

Fishery Management Plan for the

Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea

and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP).

Amendment 53 would allocate

shortraker rockfish and rougheye

rockfish (SR/RE) in the Aleutian Islands

subarea (AI) between vessels using trawl

gear and vessels using non-trawl gear.

This action is necessary to prevent the

incidental catch of SR/RE in trawl

fisheries from closing non-trawl

fisheries and is intended to further the

objectives of the FMP.

DATES: Comments must be received at

the following address by June 12, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to

Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O.

Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn:

Lori Gravel, or delivered to the Federal

Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau,

AK. Copies of the Environmental

Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review

prepared for this action may be obtained

from the same address or by calling the

Alaska Region, NMFS, at 907–586–7228.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan Kinsolving, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Management Background and Need for

Action

Fishing for groundfish by U.S. vessels

in the exclusive economic zone of the

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

management area (BSAI) is managed by

NMFS according to the FMP. The FMP
23262 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

was prepared by the North Pacific

Fishery Management Council (Council)

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens

Act). Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed

by regulations implementing the FMP at

50 CFR parts 600 and 679.

The Council has submitted

Amendment 53 for Secretarial review

and a Notice of Availability of the FMP

amendment was published at 63 FR

16223 (April 2, 1998) with comments on

the FMP amendment invited through

June 1, 1998. All written comments

received by June 1, 1998, whether

specifically directed to the FMP

amendment, the proposed rule, or both,

will be considered in the approval/

disapproval decision on the FMP

amendment.

SR/RE are commercially valuable

species. However, amounts available to

the commercial fisheries are limited by

a relatively small total allowable catch

(TAC) amount that is fully needed to

support incidental catch or bycatch

needs in other groundfish fisheries. As

a result, the directed fishery for SR/RE

typically is closed at the beginning of

the fishing year. Bycatch of SR/RE is

highest in the Pacific ocean perch (POP)

and Atka mackerel trawl fisheries, but

SR/RE also are taken in non-trawl

fisheries. Of the total observed SR/RE

bycatch from 1995 and 1996, 20.5

percent and 10.1 percent, respectively,

were taken in non-trawl fisheries.

In 1997, inseason management of

groundfish fisheries in the AI was

frustrated by the relatively high bycatch

of SR/RE in the POP and Atka mackerel

trawl fisheries (781 mt and 161 mt,

respectively). This resulted in a total

catch that exceeded the acceptable

biological catch for SR/RE. Estimates of

SR/RE bycatch through mid-1997

indicated that the overfishing level

would be reached if fisheries that took

these species in the AI were not closed.

As a result, NMFS prohibited the

retention of Atka mackerel, Pacific cod,

and rockfish by vessels using trawl gear

and retention of Pacific cod and

Greenland turbot by vessels using hookand-line gear. Had it been necessary,

NMFS was prepared to close the

Individual Fishing Quota fishery for

sablefish to prevent overfishing of SR/

RE. Thus, although overfishing concerns

stemmed primarily from the bycatch of

SR/RE in the POP and Atka mackerel

trawl fisheries, non-trawl fisheries that

also take incidental amounts of these

rockfish were closed, or threatened with

closure, to prevent overfishing of SR/RE.

These overfishing closures disrupted

fishing plans and resulted in a loss of

economic opportunity for the trawl and

non-trawl fishing industry.

Concerns about the overall

management of the SR/RE TAC, as well

as trawl and non-trawl industry

frustration about actual or potential

fishery closures resulting from

overfishing concerns, prompted the

Council to take several actions at its

June and September 1997 meetings.

First, the Council recommended that

separate maximum retainable bycatch

(MRB) percentages be established for

SR/RE that would minimize the impact

that ‘‘topping off’’ behavior may have on

the rate at which the SR/RE TAC is

reached. ‘‘Topping off’’ occurs when

vessel operators alter fishing operations

to catch more SR/RE than they

otherwise would so that their retained

catch of these species may be

maximized under MRB constraints. To

minimize this practice, the Council

voted to establish a separate MRB

percentage for SR/RE of 7 percent

relative to certain deepwater species

(primarily POP) and 2 percent relative

to all other species except arrowtooth

flounder, which cannot be used as a

species against which SR/RE may be

retained. A final rule that implemented

the Council’s recommended MRB

percentages was published in the

Federal Register on March 31, 1998 (63

FR 15334), effective on April 30, 1998.

In spite of the proposed MRB

percentages, overall bycatch amounts of

SR/RE still could pose concern because

the TAC amounts annually specified for

SR/RE are small in comparison to the

high volume POP and Atka mackerel

trawl fisheries. Consequently,

representatives of the trawl and nontrawl industries recommended that the

Council adopt an FMP amendment to

allocate SR/RE between gear groups. At

its February 1998 meeting, the Council

approved Amendment 53 to the FMP.

After subtraction of reserves, this

amendment would allocate 30 percent

of the remaining SR/RE TAC to nontrawl gear and 70 percent of the

remaining SR/RE TAC to trawl gear.

The industry-recommended allocation

of SR/RE TAC between trawl and nontrawl vessels is intended to provide an

allocation to the non-trawl fleet in

excess of actual relative harvest in

recent years. This measure should

provide these operations adequate

opportunity to fully harvest their

allocations of Pacific cod and sablefish.

Trawl industry representatives endorsed

this split, recognizing that trawl bycatch

rates will likely decrease as a result of

the proposed reduction in the MRB

percentages for SR/RE. A gear allocation

based solely on historical catch between

gear groups would not adequately

account for the fact that non-trawl

fisheries have been preempted in the

past by closures resulting from trawl

bycatch of SR/RE; nor would it conform

with an industry negotiated settlement

on what an equitable allocation should

be. Finally, a gear-specific allocation of

SR/RE would allow more effective

management of SR/RE in both fisheries

and minimize the potential for over

harvest of the SR/RE TAC.

Classification

At this time, NMFS has not

determined that the FMP amendment

this rule would implement is consistent

with the national standards of the

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other

applicable laws. NMFS, in making that

determination, will take into account

the data, views, and comments received

during the comment period.

NMFS prepared a regulatory impact

review that describes the impact this

proposed rule, if adopted, would have

on small entities. The Assistant General

Counsel for Legislation and Regulation

of the Department of Commerce

certified to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration that this proposed rule,

if adopted, would not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities as follows:

The Small Business Administration has

defined all fish-harvesting or hatchery

businesses that are independently owned and

operated, not dominant in their field of

operation, with annual receipts not in excess

of $3,000,000 as small businesses.

Additionally, seafood processors with 500

employees or fewer, wholesale industry

members with 100 employees or fewer, notfor-profit enterprises, and government

jurisdictions with a population of 50,000 or

less are considered small entities. NMFS has

determined that a ‘‘substantial number’’ of

small entities would generally be 20 percent

of the total universe of small entities affected

by the regulation. A regulation would have

a ‘‘significant economic impact’’ on these

small entities if it reduced annual gross

revenues by more than 5 percent, increased

total costs of production by more than 5

percent, resulted in compliance costs for

small entities that are at least 10 percent

higher than compliance costs as a percent of

sales for large entities, or would be likely to

cause approximately 2 percent of the affected

small businesses to go out of business. NMFS

assumes that catcher vessels participating in

the Alaska groundfish fisheries are ‘‘small

entities’’ for purposes of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

In 1996, 213 vessels participated in the

Aleutian Islands (AI) groundfish fisheries all

of which could be affected by this rule. Of

these, 140 vessels (66 percent) were catcher

vessels and would be considered the

universe of impacted small entities by NMFS.

One hundred percent of these small entities
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 23263

could be affected by this rule. Thus, this rule

affects a substantial number of small entities.

There is no directed fishery for SR/RE.

These species are taken as bycatch in other

BSAI fisheries, including Pacific ocean

perch, Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, sablefish,

and Greenland turbot. When the SR/RE total

allowable catch is taken, the other fisheries

that take SR/RE are closed. Trawl vessels

generally take more SR/RE than non-trawl

fisheries. To prevent trawl fisheries from

closing non-trawl fisheries, the proposed rule

would allocate 30 percent of SR/RE bycatch

to non-trawl vessels.

During 1995 and 1996, non-trawl vessels

were responsible for 22 percent and 18

percent respectively of the bycatch of SR/RE.

Thus, the proposed allocation is in excess of

the actual amount of bycatch in the non-trawl

sector and represents a shift of approximately

10 percent from the trawl to the non-trawl

sector. During 1996, 93 non-trawl catcher

vessels fished in the AI subarea. During 1997,

small entities that participated in Aleutian

Island non-trawl fisheries landed an

estimated $1,618,506 worth of sablefish,

rockfish, Greenland turbot and Pacific cod.

These vessels would be positively impacted

by this rule, because it would be less likely

that non-trawl fisheries would be shut down

due to SR/RE bycatch concerns.

During 1996, 47 trawl catcher vessels

fished in the AI. These vessels could be

negatively impacted by the proposed rule to

the extent that SR/RE bycatch concerns result

in shortened trawl seasons. However, only

those fisheries in which SR/RE bycatch is

high, primarily Atka mackerel and Pacific

ocean perch, would risk early closure. Both

of these fisheries are primarily undertaken by

catcher/processor vessels (large entities).

Between 1992 and 1996, only two catcher

vessels (1.4 percent of the affected small

entities) participated in the Pacific ocean

perch trawl fishery and no catcher boats

participated in the Atka mackerel trawl

fishery. Both of these vessels would be able

to switch to other fisheries in the event that

the Pacific ocean perch fishery were shut

down due to SR/RE bycatch concerns. NMFS

data indicate that these two vessels landed

only small amounts of Pacific ocean perch.

The proposed amendment would reduce

the amount of SR/RE available to the trawl

sector by approximately 10 percent. To the

extent that small entities participating in

trawl fisheries actually retain SR/RE, this

reduction would cause a negative impact. In

1996, small entities retained only 3,300

pounds. of SR/RE. Less than 600 pounds was

landed by small entities participating in

trawl fisheries. The remaining 2,700 pounds

was landed by small entities participating in

non-trawl fisheries. If the amount landed by

trawl catcher vessels were reduced by 10

percent, a loss of 60 pounds, or $66, could

potentially result.

Thus, NMFS is able to conclude that

substantially fewer than 20 percent of the

affected small entities would experience any

negative impact at all, and that in no case

would this rule result in a significant impact

on a substantial number of small entities.

As a result, a regulatory flexibility

analysis was not prepared. A copy of the

analysis is available from NMFS (See

ADDRESSES).

This proposed rule has been

determined to be not significant for

purposes of E.O. 12866.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and

reporting requirements.

Dated: April 21, 1998.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed

to be amended as follows:

PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF

ALASKA

1. The authority citation for part 679

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et

seq. and 3631 et seq.

2. In § 679.20, paragraph (a)(9) is

redesignated as paragraph (a)(10), and a

new paragraph (a)(9) is added to read as

follows:

§ 679.20 General limitations.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(9) BSAI shortraker rockfish and

rougheye rockfish. After subtraction of

reserves, the TAC of Shortraker rockfish

and rougheye rockfish specified for the

Aleutian Islands subarea will be

allocated 30 percent to vessels using

non-trawl gear and 70 percent to vessels

using trawl gear.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–11242 Filed 4–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F