        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 300
        [Docket No. 071218860-7866-01]
        RIN 0648-AW26
        Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to approve and implement changes to the Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan (Plan) for the International Pacific Halibut Commission's (IPHC or Commission) regulatory Area 2A off Washington, Oregon, and California (Area 2A). NMFS proposes to implement the portions of the Plan and management measures that are not implemented through the IPHC, which includes the sport fishery management measures for Area 2A. These actions are intended to enhance the conservation of Pacific halibut, to provide greater angler opportunity where available, and to protect yelloweye rockfish and other overfished groundfish species from incidental catch in the halibut fisheries.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed changes to the Plan and on the proposed domestic Area 2A halibut management measures must be received no later than 5 p.m., local time on February 1, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of the Plan and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) are available from D. Robert Lohn, Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070. Electronic copies of the Plan, including proposed changes for 2008, and of the draft RIR/IRFA are also available at the NMFS Northwest Region website: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov, click on “Groundfish & Halibut.”

          You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AW26, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov

          • Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Jamie Goen.
          • Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, Attn: Jamie Goen, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.

            Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For further information contact Jamie Goen at 206-526-4646 or jamie.goen@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Northern Pacific Halibut Act (Halibut Act) of 1982, at 16 U.S.C. 773c, gives the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) general responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Halibut Convention between the United States and Canada (Halibut Convention). It requires the Secretary to adopt regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Halibut Convention and the Halibut Act. Section 773c of the Halibut Act authorizes the regional fishery management councils to develop regulations governing the Pacific halibut catch in their corresponding U.S. Convention waters that are in addition to, but not in conflict with, regulations of the IPHC. Each year between 1988 and 1995, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) had developed a catch sharing plan in accordance with the Halibut Act to allocate the total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific halibut between treaty Indian and non-treaty harvesters and among non-treaty commercial and sport fisheries in Area 2A.

        In 1995, NMFS implemented the Pacific Council-recommended long-term Plan (60 FR 14651, March 20, 1995). In each of the intervening years between 1995 and the present, minor revisions to the Plan have been made to adjust for the changing needs of the fisheries. The Plan allocates 35 percent of the Area 2A TAC to Washington treaty Indian tribes in Subarea 2A-1 and 65 percent to non-Indian fisheries in Area 2A. Additionally, as a result of U.S. v. Washington (U.S., et al. v. State of Washington, et al. Case No. 9213 Phase I, Subproceeding No. 92-1, Stipulation and Order, July 7, 1999), the Plan had required 25,000 lb (11.3 mt) dressed weight of halibut to be transferred from the non-treaty Area 2A halibut allocation to the treaty allocation in Area 2A each year for eight years from 2000 through 2007, for a total transfer of 200,000 lb (90.7 mt).
        The allocation to non-Indian fisheries is divided into three shares, with the Washington sport fishery (north of the Columbia River) receiving 36.6 percent, the Oregon/California sport fishery receiving 31.7 percent, and the commercial fishery receiving 31.7 percent. The commercial fishery is further divided into a directed commercial fishery that is allocated 85 percent of the commercial allocation and an incidental catch in the salmon troll fishery that is allocated 15 percent of the commercial allocation. The directed commercial fishery in Area 2A is confined to southern Washington (south of 46°53.30′ N. lat.), Oregon, and California. North of 46°53.30′ N. lat. (Pt. Chehalis), the Plan allows for incidental halibut retention in the primary limited entry longline sablefish fishery when the overall Area 2A TAC is above 900,000 lb (408.2 mt). The Plan also divides the sport fisheries into six geographic subareas, each with separate allocations, seasons, and bag limits.
        The Area 2A TAC will be set by the IPHC at its annual meeting on January 15-18, 2008, in Portland, OR. NMFS requests public comments on the Pacific Council's recommended modifications to the Plan and the proposed domestic fishing regulations by February 1, 2008. This allows the public the opportunity to consider the final Area 2A TAC before submitting comments on the proposed rule. The States of Washington and Oregon will conduct public workshops shortly after the IPHC meeting to obtain input on the sport season dates. After the Area 2A TAC is known and after NMFS reviews public comments and comments from the states, NMFS will issue a final rule for the Area 2A Pacific halibut fisheries concurrent with the IPHC regulations for the 2008 Pacific halibut fisheries.
        Pacific Council Recommended Changes to the Plan and Domestic Fishing Regulations
        Each year, the states (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)) and the tribes with treaty fishing rights for halibut consider whether changes to the Plan are needed or desired by their fishery participants. Fishery managers from the states hold public meetings before both the September and November Pacific Council meetings to get public input on revisions to the Plan. At the September 2007 Pacific Council meeting, NMFS and WDFW recommended several changes to the Plan, and ODFW and the tribes announced that they had no proposals for revising the Plan in 2008. Following the meeting, the states again reviewed their proposals with the public and drafted their recommended revisions for review and recommendation by the Pacific Council.
        At its November 5-9, 2007, meeting in San Diego, CA, the Pacific Council considered the results of state-sponsored workshops on the proposed changes to the Plan, NMFS-proposed changes to the Plan, and public comments, and made final recommendations for modifications to the Plan as follows:
        (1) Reopen the Washington North Coast subarea June sport fishery on the first Tuesday following June 16;
        (2) Clarify that the Saturday offshore opener in the Washington North Coast subarea June sport fishery is contingent on available quota;
        (3) Provide flexibility in the date that the entire Washington North Coast subarea sport fishery reopens for one day after June 24;
        (4) Retain the opening date of May 1 for the Washington South Coast subarea primary sport fishery in 2008 and, starting in 2009, revise the opening date to May 1 if it is a Sunday, otherwise, open on the first Sunday following May 1;
        (5) Set the Washington South Coast subarea primary sport fishery as a 2-day per week fishery, open Sunday and Tuesday;
        (6) Set aside 10 percent of the Washington South Coast subarea quota for the nearshore sport fishery once the primary fishery has closed;
        (7) Set the Washington South Coast subarea nearshore sport fishery as a 4-day per week fishery, open Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Tuesday;

        (8) Remove outdated language referring to the 25,000 lb annual tribal allocation resulting from the U.S. v. Washington case;

        (9) Edit language referring to the number of sport subareas to clarify that there are six rather than seven; and
        (10) Revise the flexible inseason management provisions for the sport fisheries to allow modification of subarea quotas in all subareas.
        Proposed Changes to the Plan
        NMFS is proposing to approve the Pacific Council recommendations and to implement the above-described changes by making the following changes to the Plan:
        In section (b) of the Plan, Allocations, revise the first sentence of the first paragraph to remove the reference to “(1) Except as provided below under (b)(2),” to read as follows:
        This Plan allocates 35 percent of the Area 2A TAC to U.S. treaty Indian tribes in the State of Washington in subarea 2A-1, and 65 percent to non-Indian fisheries in Area 2A.
        In section (b) of the Plan, Allocations, remove paragraph (2).
        In section (d) of the Plan, Treaty Indian Fisheries, revise the first sentence of the paragraph to read as follows:
        Thirty-five percent of the Area 2A TAC is allocated to 12 treaty Indian tribes in subarea 2A-1, which includes that portion of Area 2A north of Point Chehalis, WA (46°53.30′ N. lat.) and east of 125°44.00′ W. long.
        In section (f) of the Plan, Sport Fisheries, revise the last sentence of the introductory paragraph to read as follows:
        The allocation is further divided as subquotas among six geographic subareas.
        In section (f) of the Plan, Sport Fisheries, revise paragraph (1) to read as follows:
        Subarea management. The sport fishery is divided into six sport fishery subareas, each having separate allocations and management measures as follows.
        In section (f) of the Plan, Sport Fisheries, revise the last sentence of the first paragraph in (1)(ii) to read as follows:
        The fishery will then reopen for two days on the first Tuesday and Thursday following June 16, in the following nearshore areas only:
        In section (f) of the Plan, Sport Fisheries, revise the first three sentences of the second paragraph in (1)(ii) to read as follows:
        If there is sufficient quota, the fishery will reopen for one day on the first Saturday following June 16 in the entire north coast subarea. If sufficient quota remains, the fishery would reopen, as a first priority, in the entire north coast subarea for one day following June 24. If there is insufficient quota remaining to reopen the entire north coast subarea for another day, then the nearshore areas described above would reopen following June 24, up to four days per week (Thursday through Sunday), until the remaining subarea quota is projected to be taken.
        In section (f) of the Plan, Sport Fisheries, revise the fourth through eighth sentences of paragraph (1)(iii) to read as follows:
        The south coast subarea quota will be allocated as follows: 90 percent for the primary fishery, and 10 percent for the nearshore fishery, once the primary fishery has closed. In 2008, the fishery will open on May 1. Beginning in 2009, the fishery will open on May 1, if it is a Sunday; otherwise, the fishery will open on the first Sunday following May 1. The primary fishery will be open two days per week, Sunday and Tuesday, in all areas, except where prohibited, and the nearshore fishery will be open four days per week, Friday through Sunday and Tuesday, in the area from 47°25.00′ N. lat. south to 46°58.00′ N. lat. and east of 124°30.00′ W. long. The primary fishery will continue until September 30, or until 90 percent of the quota is achieved, whichever is earlier.
        In section (f) of the Plan, Sport Fisheries, revise paragraph (5)(ii)(E) to read as follows:
        Modification of subarea quotas.
        Proposed 2008 Sport Fishery Management Measures
        NMFS is proposing sport fishery management measures that are necessary to implement the Plan in 2008. The 2008 TAC for Area 2A will be determined by the IPHC at its annual meeting on January 15-18, 2008, in Portland, OR. Because the 2008 TAC has not yet been determined, these proposed sport fishery management measures use the IPHC staff's preliminary 2008 Area 2A TAC recommendation of 1,000,000 lb (454 mt), which is lower than the 2007 TAC of 1,340,000 lb (608 mt). Where season dates are not indicated, those dates will be provided in the final rule, following determination of the 2008 TAC and consultation with the states and the public. In Section 25 of the annual domestic management measures, “Sport Fishing for Halibut,” paragraph (4)(b) is proposed to read as follows:

        (4) * * *
        (b) The sport fishing subareas, subquotas, fishing dates, and daily bag limits are as follows, except as modified under the inseason actions in § 300.63(c). All sport fishing in Area 2A is managed on a “port of landing” basis, whereby any halibut landed into a port counts toward the quota for the area in which that port is located, and the regulations governing the area of landing apply, regardless of the specific area of catch.
        (i) The area in Puget Sound and the U.S. waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, east of a line extending from 48°17.30′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long. north to 48°24.10′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long., is not managed inseason relative to its quota. This area is managed by setting a season that is projected to result in a catch of 42,606 lb (19 mt).
        (A) The fishing season in eastern Puget Sound (east of 123°49.50′ W. long., Low Point) is (insert season dates) and the fishing season in western Puget Sound (west of 123°49.50′ W. long., Low Point) is (insert season dates), 5 days a week (Thursday through Monday). (The final determination of the season dates will be based on the allowable harvest level and projected 2008 catch rates after the final 2008 TAC is set by the IPHC.)
        (B) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
        (ii) The quota for landings into ports in the area off the north Washington coast, west of the line described in paragraph (4)(b)(i) of this section and north of the Queets River (47°31.70′ N. lat.), is 93,243 lb (42 mt).
        (A) The fishing seasons are:
        (1) Commencing on May 15 and continuing 3 days a week (Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday) until 67,135 lb (30 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission.
        (2) On June 17 and 19, the fishery will open only in the nearshore areas defined at the end of this paragraph. If there is sufficient quota, the fishery will open for one day on June 21 in the entire north coast subarea. If sufficient quota remains, the fishery would reopen, as a first priority, in the entire north coast subarea for one day following June 24. If there is insufficient quota remaining to reopen the entire north coast subarea for another day, then the nearshore areas described below would reopen following June 24, up to four days per week (Thursday-Sunday), until the overall quota of 93,243 lb (42 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the area is closed by the Commission, or until September 30, whichever is earlier. After June 19, any fishery opening will be announced on the NMFS hotline at 800-662-9825. No halibut fishing will be allowed after June 19 unless the date is announced on the NMFS hotline. The nearshore areas for Washington's North Coast fishery are defined as follows:
        (i) WDFW Marine Catch Area 4B, which is all waters west of the Sekiu River mouth, as defined by a line extending from 48°17.30′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long. north to 48°24.10′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long., to the Bonilla-Tatoosh line, as defined by a line connecting the light on Tatoosh Island, WA, with the light on Bonilla Point on Vancouver Island, British Columbia (at 48°35.73′ N. lat., 124°43.00′ W. long.) south of the International Boundary between the U.S. and Canada (at 48°29.62′ N. lat., 124°43.55′ W. long.), and north of the point where that line intersects with the boundary of the U.S. territorial sea.
        (ii) Shoreward of the recreational halibut 30-fm boundary line, a modified line approximating the 30-fm depth contour from the Bonilla-Tatoosh line south to the Queets River. The recreational halibut 30-fm boundary line is defined by the following coordinates in the order listed:
        (1) 48°24.79′ N. lat., 124°44.07′ W. long.;
        (2) 48°24.80′ N. lat., 124°44.74′ W. long.;
        (3) 48°23.94′ N. lat., 124°44.70′ W. long.;
        (4) 48°23.51′ N. lat., 124°45.01′ W. long.;
        (5) 48°22.59′ N. lat., 124°44.97′ W. long.;
        (6) 48°21.75′ N. lat., 124°45.26′ W. long.;
        (7) 48°21.23′ N. lat., 124°47.78′ W. long.;
        (8) 48°20.32′ N. lat., 124°49.53′ W. long.;
        (9) 48°16.72′ N. lat., 124°51.58′ W. long.;
        (10) 48°10.00′ N. lat., 124°52.58′ W. long.;
        (11) 48°05.63′ N. lat., 124°52.91′ W. long.;
        (12) 47°56.25′ N. lat., 124°52.57′ W. long.;
        (13) 47°40.28′ N. lat., 124°40.07′ W. long.; and
        (14) 47°31.70′ N. lat., 124°37.03′ W. long.
        (B) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
        (C) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the North Coast Recreational Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA). It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the North Coast Recreational YRCA. A vessel fishing in the North Coast Recreational YRCA may not be in possession of any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the North Coast Recreational YRCA with or without halibut on board. The North Coast Recreational YRCA is a C-shaped area off the northern Washington coast intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. The North Coast Recreational YRCA is defined by straight lines connecting the following specific latitude and longitude coordinates in the order listed:
        (1) 48°18.00′ N. lat.; 125°18.00′ W. long.;
        (2) 48°18.00′ N. lat.; 124°59.00′ W. long.;
        (3) 48°11.00′ N. lat.; 124°59.00′ W. long.;
        (4) 48°11.00′ N. lat.; 125°11.00′ W. long.;
        (5) 48°04.00′ N. lat.; 125°11.00′ W. long.;
        (6) 48°04.00′ N. lat.; 124°59.00′ W. long.;
        (7) 48°00.00′ N. lat.; 124°59.00′ W. long.;
        (8) 48°00.00′ N. lat.; 125°18.00′ W. long.;
        and connecting back to 48°18.00′ N. lat.; 125°18.00′ W. long.
        (iii) The quota for landings into ports in the area between the Queets River, WA (47°31.70′ N. lat.) and Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38.17′ N. lat.), is 27,952 lb (13 mt).
        (A) The fishing season commences on May 1 and continues 2 days a week (Sunday and Tuesday) in all waters (the primary fishery), except that in the area from 47°25.00′ N. lat. south to 46°58.00′ N. lat. and east of 124°30.00′ W. long. (the Washington South coast, northern nearshore area), the fishing season commences on May 1 and continues 4 days a week (Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Tuesday). The south coast subarea quota will be allocated as follows: 25,156 lb (11 mt), 90 percent, for the primary fishery, and 2,795 lb (1.3 mt), 10 percent, for the northern nearshore fishery, once the primary fishery has closed. The primary fishery will continue from May 1 until 25,156 lb (11 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or until September 30, whichever is earlier. Subsequent to this closure, if there is insufficient quota remaining to reopen the primary fishery for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be used to accommodate incidental catch in the northern nearshore area from 47°25.00′ N. lat. south to 46°58.00′ N. lat. and east of 124°30.00′ W. long. on Fridays and Saturdays, until 27,952 lb (13 mt) is projected to be taken and the fishery is closed by the Commission. If the fishery is closed prior to September 30, and there is insufficient quota remaining to reopen the northern nearshore area for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be transferred inseason to another Washington coastal subarea by NMFS via an update to the recreational halibut hotline.
        (B) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
        (C) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the South Coast Recreational YRCA. It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the South Coast Recreational YRCA. A vessel fishing in the South Coast Recreational YRCA may not be in possession of any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the South Coast Recreational YRCA with or without halibut on board. The South Coast Recreational YRCA is an area off the southern Washington coast intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. The South Coast Recreational YRCA is defined by straight lines connecting the following specific latitude and longitude coordinates in the order listed:
        (1) 46°58.00′ N. lat., 124°48.00′ W. long.;
        (2) 46°55.00′ N. lat., 124°48.00′ W. long.;
        (3) 46°55.00′ N. lat., 124°49.00′ W. long.;
        (4) 46°58.00′ N. lat., 124°49.00′ W. long.;
        and connecting back to 46°58.00′ N. lat., 124°48.00′ W. long.
        (iv) The quota for landings into ports in the area between Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38.17′ N. lat.) and Cape Falcon, OR (45°46.00′ N. lat.), is 14,402 lb (6.5 mt).
        (A) The fishing season commences on May 1, and continues 7 days a week until 10,081 lb (4.6 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission or until July 20, whichever is earlier. The fishery will reopen on August 1 and continue 3 days a week (Friday through Sunday) until 14,402 lb (6.5 mt) have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or until September 30, whichever is earlier. Subsequent to this closure, if there is insufficient quota remaining in the Columbia River subarea for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be transferred inseason to another Washington and/or Oregon subarea by NMFS via an update to the recreational halibut hotline. Any remaining quota would be transferred to each state in proportion to its contribution.
        (B) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

        (C) Pacific Coast groundfish may not be taken and retained, possessed or landed, except sablefish and Pacific cod when allowed by Pacific Coast groundfish regulations, if halibut are on board the vessel.
        (v) The quota for landings into ports in the area off Oregon between Cape Falcon (45°46.00′ N. lat.) and Humbug Mountain (42°40.50′ N. lat.), is 189,566 lb (86 mt).
        (A) The fishing seasons are:
        (1) The first season (the “inside 40-fm” fishery) commences May 1 and continues 7 days a week through October 31, in the area shoreward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour, or until the sub-quota for the central Oregon “inside 40-fm” fishery (15,165 lb (6.9 mt)) or any inseason revised subquota is estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, whichever is earlier. The boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour between 45°46.00′ N. lat. and 42°40.50′ N. lat. is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
        (1) 45°46.00′ N. lat., 124°04.49′ W. long.;
        (2) 45°44.34′ N. lat., 124°05.09′ W. long.;
        (3) 45°40.64′ N. lat., 124°04.90′ W. long.;
        (4) 45°33.00′ N. lat., 124°04.46′ W. long.;
        (5) 45°32.27′ N. lat., 124°04.74′ W. long.;
        (6) 45°29.26′ N. lat., 124°04.22′ W. long.;
        (7) 45°20.25′ N. lat., 124°04.67′ W. long.;
        (8) 45°19.99′ N. lat., 124°04.62′ W. long.;
        (9) 45°17.50′ N. lat., 124°04.91′ W. long.;
        (10) 45°11.29′ N. lat., 124°05.19′ W. long.;
        (11) 45°05.79′ N. lat., 124°05.40′ W. long.;
        (12) 45°05.07′ N. lat., 124°05.93′ W. long.;
        (13) 45°03.83′ N. lat., 124°06.47′ W. long.;
        (14) 45°01.70′ N. lat., 124°06.53′ W. long.;
        (15) 44°58.75′ N. lat., 124°07.14′ W. long.;
        (16) 44°51.28′ N. lat., 124°10.21′ W. long.;
        (17) 44°49.49′ N. lat., 124°10.89′ W. long.;
        (18) 44°44.96′ N. lat., 124°14.39′ W. long.;
        (19) 44°43.44′ N. lat., 124°14.78′ W. long.;
        (20) 44°42.27′ N. lat., 124°13.81′ W. long.;
        (21) 44°41.68′ N. lat., 124°15.38′ W. long.;
        (22) 44°34.87′ N. lat., 124°15.80′ W. long.;
        (23) 44°33.74′ N. lat., 124°14.43′ W. long.;
        (24) 44°27.66′ N. lat., 124°16.99′ W. long.;
        (25) 44°19.13′ N. lat., 124°19.22′ W. long.;
        (26) 44°15.35′ N. lat., 124°17.37′ W. long.;
        (27) 44°14.38′ N. lat., 124°17.78′ W. long.;
        (28) 44°12.80′ N. lat., 124°17.18′ W. long.;
        (29) 44°09.23′ N. lat., 124°15.96′ W. long.;
        (30) 44°08.38′ N. lat., 124°16.80′ W. long.;
        (31) 44°08.30′ N. lat., 124°16.75′ W. long.;
        (32) 44°01.18′ N. lat., 124°15.42′ W. long.;
        (33) 43°51.60′ N. lat., 124°14.68′ W. long.;
        (34) 43°42.66′ N. lat., 124°15.46′ W. long.;
        (35) 43°40.49′ N. lat., 124°15.74′ W. long.;
        (36) 43°38.77′ N. lat., 124°15.64′ W. long.;
        (37) 43°34.52′ N. lat., 124°16.73′ W. long.;
        (38) 43°28.82′ N. lat., 124°19.52′ W. long.;
        (39) 43°23.91′ N. lat., 124°24.28′ W. long.;
        (40) 43°20.83′ N. lat., 124°26.63′ W. long.;
        (41) 43°17.96′ N. lat., 124°28.81′ W. long.;
        (42) 43°16.75′ N. lat., 124°28.42′ W. long.;
        (43) 43°13.98′ N. lat., 124°31.99′ W. long.;
        (44) 43°13.71′ N. lat., 124°33.25′ W. long.;
        (45) 43°12.26′ N. lat., 124°34.16′ W. long.;
        (46) 43°10.96′ N. lat., 124°32.34′ W. long.;
        (47) 43°05.65′ N. lat., 124°31.52′ W. long.;
        (48) 42°59.66′ N. lat., 124°32.58′ W. long.;
        (49) 42°54.97′ N. lat., 124°36.99′ W. long.;
        (50) 42°53.81′ N. lat., 124°38.58′ W. long.;
        (51) 42°50.00′ N. lat., 124°39.68′ W. long.;
        (52) 42°49.14′ N. lat., 124°39.92′ W. long.;
        (53) 42°46.47′ N. lat., 124°38.65′ W. long.;
        (54) 42°45.60′ N. lat., 124°39.04′ W. long.;
        (55) 42°44.79′ N. lat., 124°37.96′ W. long.;
        (56) 42°45.00′ N. lat., 124°36.39′ W. long.;
        (57) 42°44.14′ N. lat., 124°35.16′ W. long.;
        (58) 42°42.15′ N. lat., 124°32.82′ W. long.; and
        (59) 42°40.50′ N. lat., 124°31.98′ W. long.;
        (2) The second season (spring season), which is for the “all-depth” fishery, is open on (insert dates beginning with May 8 or 9). The projected catch for this season is 130,801 lb (59 mt). If sufficient unharvested catch remains for additional fishing days, the season will re-open. Dependent on the amount of unharvested catch available, the potential season re-opening dates will be: (insert dates, no later than July 31). If NMFS decides inseason to allow fishing on any of these re-opening dates, notice of the re-opening will be announced on the NMFS hotline (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825. No halibut fishing will be allowed on the re-opening dates unless the date is announced on the NMFS hotline. (The final determination of the season dates will be based on the allowable harvest level and projected 2008 catch rates and on input from a public meeting held by ODFW after the 2008 TAC is set by the IPHC.)
        (3) If sufficient unharvested catch remains, the third season (summer season), which is for the “all-depth” fishery, will be open on (insert dates beginning with August 1), or until the combined spring season and summer season quotas in the area between Cape Falcon and Humbug Mountain, OR, totaling 174,401 lb (79 mt), are estimated to have been taken and the area is closed by the Commission, or October 31, whichever is earlier. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline in July whether the fishery will re-open for the summer season in August. No halibut fishing will be allowed in the summer season fishery unless the dates are announced on the NMFS hotline. Additional fishing days may be opened if a certain amount of quota remains after August 3 and August 31. If after August 3, greater than or equal to 60,000 lb (27.2 mt) remains in the combined all-depth and inside 40-fm (73-m) quota, the fishery may re-open every Friday through Sunday, beginning August 8 - 10, and ending October 31. If after August 31, greater than or equal to 30,000 lb (13.6 mt) remains in the combined all-depth and inside 40-fm (73-m) quota, and the fishery is not already open every Friday through Sunday, the fishery may re-open every Friday through Sunday, beginning September 5 - 7, and ending October 31. After August 31, the bag limit may be increased to two fish of any size per person, per day. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline whether the summer all-depth fishery will be open on such additional fishing days, what days the fishery will be open and what the bag limit is.
        (B) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person, unless otherwise specified. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline any bag limit changes.
        (C) During days open to all-depth halibut fishing, no Pacific Coast groundfish may be taken and retained, possessed or landed, except sablefish when allowed by Pacific Coast groundfish regulations, if halibut are on board the vessel.
        (D) When the all-depth halibut fishery is closed and halibut fishing is permitted only shoreward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour, halibut possession and retention by vessels operating seaward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour is prohibited.
        (E) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the Stonewall Bank YRCA. It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the Stonewall Bank YRCA. A vessel fishing in the Stonewall Bank YRCA may not be in possession of any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the Stonewall Bank YRCA with or without halibut on board. The Stonewall Bank YRCA is an area off central Oregon, near Stonewall Bank, intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. The Stonewall Bank YRCA is defined by straight lines connecting the following specific latitude and longitude coordinates in the order listed:
        (1) 44°37.46 N. lat.; 124°24.92 W. long.;
        (2) 44°37.46 N. lat.; 124°23.63 W. long.;
        (3) 44°28.71 N. lat.; 124°21.80 W. long.;
        (4) 44°28.71 N. lat.; 124°24.10 W. long.;
        (5) 44°31.42 N. lat.; 124°25.47 W. long.;
        and connecting back to 44°37.46 N. lat.; 124°24.92 W. long.
        (vi) The area south of Humbug Mountain, Oregon (42°40.50′ N. lat.) and off the California coast is not managed inseason relative to its quota. This area is managed on a season that is projected to result in a catch of 6,182 lb (2.8 mt).
        (A) The fishing season will commence on May 1 and continue 7 days a week until October 31.
        (B) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
        Flexible Inseason Management for Sport Fisheries
        Language on flexible inseason management for sport fisheries at 50 CFR 300.63 (c)(2)(v) is proposed to be revised in the same manner as language being revised in section (f)(5)(ii)(E) of the Plan. More specifically, the phrase “north of Cape Falcon, OR” is removed from the sentence so that it reads, “modification of subarea quotas.” As mentioned in paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of 50 CFR 300.63, unused quota can be moved inseason both north of Cape Falcon, OR, and south of Leadbetter Point, WA, to modify quota in Area 2A sport fisheries if sport fishery subareas are not projected to utilize their respective quotas. Therefore, this revision clarifies the flexible inseason management provisions so that all subarea quotas may be modified inseason, not just subarea quotas north of Cape Falcon.
        Classification
        This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS has prepared an RIR/IRFA on the proposed changes to the Plan and annual domestic Area 2A halibut management measures. Copies of these documents are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

        NMFS prepared an IRFA that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. The IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows:
        A fish-harvesting business is considered a “small” business by the Small Business Administration (SBA) if it has annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 million. For related fish-processing businesses, a small business is one that employs 500 or fewer persons. For wholesale businesses, a small business is one that employs not more than 100 people. For marinas and charter/party boats, a small business is one with annual receipts not in excess of $6.5 million. All of the businesses that would be affected by this action are considered small businesses under Small Business Administration guidance.
        The proposed changes to the Plan, which allocates the catch of Pacific halibut among users in Washington, Oregon and California, would: (1) reopen the Washington North Coast subarea June sport fishery on the first Tuesday following June 16; (2) clarify that the Saturday offshore opener in the Washington North Coast subarea June sport fishery is contingent on available quota; (3) provide flexibility in the date that the entire Washington North Coast subarea sport fishery reopens for one day after June 24; (4) retain the opening date of May 1 for the Washington South Coast subarea primary sport fishery in 2008 and, starting in 2009, revise the opening date to May 1 if it is a Sunday, otherwise, open on the first Sunday following May 1; (5) set the Washington South Coast subarea primary sport fishery as a 2-day per week fishery, open Sunday and Tuesday; (6) set aside 10 percent of the Washington South Coast subarea quota for the nearshore sport fishery once the primary fishery has closed; (7) set the Washington South Coast subarea nearshore sport fishery as a 4-day per week fishery, open Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Tuesday; (8) remove outdated language referring to the 25,000 lb annual tribal allocation resulting from the U.S. v. Washington case; (9) edit language referring to the number of sport subareas to clarify that there are six rather than seven; and (10) revise the flexible inseason management provisions for the sport fisheries to allow modification of subarea quotas in all subareas. NMFS also proposes to implement the portions of the Plan and management measures that are not implemented through the IPHC, which includes the sport fishery management measures for Area 2A. These actions are intended to enhance the conservation of Pacific halibut, to provide greater angler opportunity where available, and to protect yelloweye rockfish and other overfished groundfish species from incidental catch in the halibut fisheries.
        As mentioned in the preamble, WDFW held state meetings and crafted alternatives to adjust management of the sport halibut fisheries in their state. These alternatives were then narrowed by the state and brought to the Council at the Council's September and November 2007 meetings. Generally, by the time the alternatives reach the Council, and because they have been through the state public review process, they are narrowed down into the proposed action and status quo. There were no alternatives that could have similarly improved angler enjoyment of and participation in the fisheries while simultaneously protecting halibut and co-occurring groundfish species from overharvest.

        In 1995, NMFS implemented the Plan, when the TAC was 520,000 pounds (236 mt). In each of the intervening years between 1995 and the present, minor revisions to the Plan have been made to adjust for the changing needs of the fisheries, even though the TAC reached levels of over 1,000,000 pounds (454 mt), with a peak of 1,480,000 pounds (671 mt) in 2004. Since 2004, there has been very little change in the total allowable catch and sector allocations. In 2006, the Area 2A Halibut TAC set by the IPHC was 1.38 million pounds (626 mt) and for 2007 it was 1.34 million pounds (608 mt). However, preliminary IPHC staff recommendations for the 2008 TAC are lower than the TAC levels since 2001. The preliminary 2008 Area 2A TAC of 1.00 million pounds (454 mt) is lower than previous years due to the IPHC's new stock assessment information, revised selectivity assumptions and revised harvest policy. This is a 25-percent decline from the 2007 TAC. As this is a sizable decline, there may be changes to the regulations described in this proposed rule resulting from IPHC recommendations at their annual meeting in January 2008, or as an outcome of the state public workshops held after the IPHC meeting. Expectations are that any proposed changes in the regulations will be ones that, in implementing the amended Plan, seek to mitigate the adverse impacts of the decline of the TAC in order to maximize available fishing opportunities and benefits to fishing communities.
        Six hundred fifty-nine vessels were issued IPHC licenses to retain halibut in 2007. IPHC issues licenses for: the directed commercial fishery in Area 2A, including licenses issued to retain halibut caught incidentally in the primary sablefish fishery (225 licenses in 2007); incidental halibut caught in the salmon troll fishery (292 licenses in 2007); and the charterboat fleet (142 licenses in 2007). No vessel may participate in more than one of these three fisheries per year. Individual recreational anglers and private boats are the only sectors that are not required to have an IPHC license to retain halibut.
        Specific data on the economics of halibut charter operations is unavailable. However, in January 2004, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) completed a report on the overall West Coast charterboat fleet. In surveying charterboat vessels concerning their operations in 2000, the PSMFC estimated that there were about 315 charterboat vessels in operation off Washington and Oregon. In 2000, IPHC licensed 130 vessels to fish in the halibut sport charter fishery. Comparing the total charterboat fleet to the 130 and 142 IPHC licenses in 2000 and 2007, respectively, approximately 41 to 45 percent of the charterboat fleet could participate in the halibut fishery. The PSMFC has developed preliminary estimates of the annual revenues earned by this fleet and they vary by size class of the vessels and home state. Small charterboat vessels range from 15 to 30 ft (4.572 to 9.144 m), and typically carry 5 to 6 passengers. Medium charterboat vessels range from 31 to 49 ft (9.44 to 14.93 m) in length and typically carry 19 to 20 passengers. (Neither state has large vessels of greater than 49 ft (14.93 m) in their fleet.) Average annual revenues from all types of recreational fishing, whalewatching and other activities ranged from $7,000 for small Oregon vessels to $131,000 for medium Washington vessels. Estimates from the RIR show the recreational halibut fishery generated approximately $2.5 million in personal income to West Coast communities, while the non-tribal commercial halibut fishery generated approximately $2.2 million in income impacts. Because these estimated impacts for the entire halibut fishery overall are less than the SBA criteria for individual businesses, these data confirm that charterboat and commercial halibut vessels qualify as small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
        These changes are authorized under the Pacific Halibut Act, implementing regulations at 50 CFR 300.60 through 300.65, and the Pacific Council process of annually evaluating the utility and effectiveness of Area 2A Pacific halibut management under the Plan. Given the TAC, the proposed sport management measures implement the Plan by managing the recreational fishery to meet the differing fishery needs of the various areas along the coast according to the Plan's objectives. The measures will be very similar to last year's management measures. The changes to the Plan and domestic management measures are minor changes and are intended to help prolong the halibut season, provide increased recreational harvest opportunities, or clarify sport fishery management for fishermen and managers. There are no large entities involved in the halibut fisheries; therefore, none of these changes to the Plan and domestic management measures will have a disproportionate negative effect on small entities versus large entities.
        These changes do not include any reporting or recordkeeping requirements. These changes will also not duplicate, overlap or conflict with other laws or regulations. Consequently, these changes to the Plan and annual domestic Area 2A halibut management measures are not expected to meet any of the RFA tests of having a “significant” economic impact on a “substantial number” of small entities. Nonetheless, NMFS has prepared an IRFA. Through this proposed rule, NMFS is requesting comments on these conclusions.
        Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, the Secretary recognizes the sovereign status and co-manager role of Indian tribes over shared Federal and tribal fishery resources. At section 302(b)(5), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act establishes a seat on the Pacific Council for a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from California, Oregon, Washington, or Idaho.
        The U.S. Government formally recognizes that the 12 Washington Tribes have treaty rights to fish for Pacific halibut. In general terms, the quantification of those rights is 50 percent of the harvestable surplus of Pacific halibut available in the tribes' usual and accustomed (U and A) fishing areas (described at 50 CFR 300.64). Each of the treaty tribes has the discretion to administer their fisheries and to establish their own policies to achieve program objectives. Accordingly, tribal allocations and regulations, including the proposed changes to
        the Plan, have been developed in consultation with the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with tribal consensus.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300
          Fishing, Fisheries, and Indian fisheries.

          Dated: December 27, 2007
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS

        1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 300.63, paragraph (c)(2)(v) is revised to read as follows:

          § 300.63
          Catch sharing plan and domestic management measures in Area 2A.

          (c) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (v) Modification of subarea quotas.

      [FR Doc. E7-25535 Filed 12-31-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 20
        [GN Docket No. 13-111, DA 20-791, FRS 16977]
        Promoting Technological Solutions To Combat Contraband Wireless Device Use in Correctional Facilities

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          In this document, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) seeks to refresh the record on the proposals and questions raised in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) in GN Docket No. 13-111, FCC 17-25, released on March 24, 2017, and invite additional comment on the successes and ongoing challenges of currently employed solutions and those under further review and development.

          DATES:
          Interested parties may file comments on or before September 16, 2020; and reply comments on or before October 1, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 13-111, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

          • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
          Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
          • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
          • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

          • Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.

            People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           Melissa Conway, Melissa.Conway@fcc.gov, of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, (202) 418-2887.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Bureau's Public Notice in Docket No. 13-111, DA 20-791, released July 28, 2020. The complete text of the document is available for viewing via the Commission's ECFS website by entering the docket number, GN Docket No. 13-111.
        Ex Parte Rules

        This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) List all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation.

        If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by section 1.49(f) of the rules or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

        In the document, the Bureau seeks to refresh the record in this proceeding that addresses the serious threat of contraband wireless device use by inmates in correctional facilities. Developing a more comprehensive and current record will facilitate an evaluation of potential next steps necessary to eliminate this challenging public safety problem. Through its March 2017 Further Notice (82 FR 22780) and Report and Order (R&O), the Commission streamlined the authorization process for contraband wireless device interdiction systems in correctional facilities by eliminating certain filing requirements and providing for immediate approval of lease applications filed to operate these systems. In the Further Notice, the Commission sought further comment on a process for wireless providers to disable wireless devices identified as contraband, on whether to require advanced notice of wireless provider network changes to solutions providers to maintain system effectiveness, and on the viability of other technological solutions.
        Since the release of the R&O and Further Notice, the Commission has conducted substantial outreach and encouraged stakeholder cooperation in deploying effective technologies. Evolving wireless technologies and wireless provider networks have necessitated adjustments in the deployment and maintenance of contraband interdiction systems. Stakeholders, including wireless providers, contraband device interdiction solutions providers, and corrections officials, have gained meaningful experience using various tools to combat contraband wireless devices. The Bureau's goal is to leverage these experiences to better facilitate the nationwide deployment of legal and cost-effective contraband interdiction systems. The Bureau encourages commenters to be as specific as possible when addressing the below issues.
        First, the Bureau seeks to refresh the record on all aspects of the proposed Commission process that would require the disabling of contraband wireless devices by wireless providers following identification. As contraband wireless device use in correctional facilities continues to be a threat to public safety, despite continued voluntary efforts to mitigate the problem, would adoption of a rule-based disabling approach be a more effective, wide-scale solution? The Bureau seeks additional comment on the specifics of the proposed disabling rules. CTIA, the Wireless Association (CTIA), recently reported to the Commission that it has been working successfully, along with its members companies, on processes in various states using a model court order, and that wireless providers are in fact ceasing service to contraband devices pursuant to court orders they have obtained. Therefore, the Bureau also seeks additional comment on specific successes and failures associated with obtaining and executing court orders in the various states where this approach has been pursued. How many contraband devices have been disabled pursuant to court orders, and in what jurisdictions? Has the process been overly burdensome or costly and are there jurisdictions where court orders cannot be obtained and why not? CTIA also claims that the approach of disabling contraband devices added to the Stolen Phone Database is working. The Bureau invites comment from all stakeholders on the effectiveness of using this database to disable contraband wireless devices and render them unusable across multiple wireless provider networks. The Bureau would welcome comment on specific advantages or disadvantages associated with this approach.

        Second, the Bureau seeks to refresh the record on requiring notification to solutions providers of wireless provider system technical changes, recognizing that lack of timely notice of wireless provider system upgrades can render contraband interdiction systems ineffective. What is the current state of communications between wireless providers seeking to upgrade networks and solutions providers that must react to network changes? Have increased coordination efforts substantially improved the ability of solutions providers to ensure effective contraband interdiction system deployments, or is Commission action appropriate to facilitate enhanced communications? CTIA indicates it has developed a Managed Access System Stakeholder Checklist that emphasizes the need for vendors, corrections officials, and wireless providers to establish points of contact to enhance stakeholder communication and coordination on the deployment of future spectrum bands. Are stakeholders using the Checklist and taking into consideration, in particular, the technical recommendations? If not, why not? Are financial considerations a factor? Are there additional issues that should be added to the Checklist, and is there any action the Commission could take to facilitate its implementation? Would further standardization of best practices involving notification of network changes be beneficial? If so, what type of notice, and what additional best practices should be included? Relatedly, the Bureau also seeks comment on the ability of wireless providers to configure their networks and make system changes to avoid the need for major contraband interdiction system upgrades. If these network configurations are achievable, the Bureau seeks comment on whether wireless providers would, as a matter of best practices, implement them in areas proximate to correctional facilities or, alternatively, compensate solutions providers to make contraband interdiction systems upgrades required to adjust to wireless provider network technical changes that significantly impact contraband interdiction system effectiveness. The Bureau understands that this approach has been adopted internationally and seeks specific comment on whether it has been successful.

        Third, the Bureau invites further comment on other technological solutions addressed in the Further Notice, including quiet zones, network-based solutions, and beacon technology. The Bureau seeks to refresh the record on any developments for these and any other technological solutions, and the regulatory steps the Commission should take to facilitate the development and deployment of these new technologies. The Bureau requests focused comment on the state of carrier network solutions, or the concept of “geofencing” in the contraband wireless device context. The Bureau seeks to update the record on whether there have been technical developments making such an approach a feasible solution to identifying the location of, and ultimately terminating, contraband wireless devices. The Bureau seeks comment on whether the Commission should require wireless providers to not exceed a specific signal strength in the proximity of a correctional facility, or to minimize or remove service-quality signals entirely in the proximity of a facility. For example, should the Commission require a wireless provider to treat the walls of a correctional facility (or some subset of such facilities) the same as the edge of the license areas? The Bureau also seeks to refresh the record on what network modifications, if any, would be required to track and identify contraband devices on carrier networks to a sufficient degree of location accuracy, and at what cost. Should the Commission require wireless carriers to use existing and future network capabilities to accomplish detection and disabling of contraband devices? What advances in location technology could enable carriers to accurately locate contraband devices in correctional facilities for disabling? Are there technical, privacy, legal, or other considerations that are relevant to this approach?
        Fourth, the Bureau notes that the evolution of wireless technology from 2G to widespread 3G/4G and ultimately 5G deployments requires continued managed access system upgrades to maintain long-term effectiveness. The Bureau understands that many managed access system solutions depend largely on forcing contraband devices from 3G/4G to 2G services, which carriers are rapidly phasing out, and current network security issues can prevent these systems from capturing calls made from 5G phones. In April 2019, CTIA and the Association of State Correctional Administrators submitted a Task Force Status Report that described next generation managed access system solutions as “MAS Evolved.” The report recommended that wireless providers establish roaming agreements with solutions providers for network security reasons to enable newer generation services on managed access system networks. The Bureau understands that a key feature of a MAS Evolved solution involves use of roaming agreements allowing a MAS Evolved system to block calls by preventing authentication on the network, and enabling newer generation services on managed access system networks where calls are captured without forcing the devices down to 2G.
        The Bureau seeks comment on how this approach can be more effective, less complex, easier to manage, and less costly to implement when compared to a more traditional managed access system deployment. If full roaming partners, can solutions providers leverage their small cell deployments to create a virtual fence and enhance the ability to identify and block contraband phones? Would this approach lead to a greater diversity in types and areas of contraband interdiction system deployments? What steps can the Commission take to facilitate the widespread implementation of MAS Evolved as a solution? The Bureau seeks comment on how the wireless providers are working with vendors to promote MAS Evolved and how the Commission can support these efforts. Would a standardized template roaming agreement improve the effectiveness of MAS deployments and encourage expansion? The Bureau seeks focused comment on the status of the development and execution of roaming agreements in order to promote MAS Evolved solutions. The Bureau requests that commenters be specific regarding how many states and how many correctional facilities have been involved in testing or deploying MAS Evolved solutions. In addition to the execution of roaming agreements, are there other approaches that could be developed by the wireless providers and/or the vendors to add features or services and help defray the cost of MAS deployments and operations? Are there specific approaches or other examples of which the Commission should be aware? How can the Commission further support these efforts? Are there specific steps the Commission can take to help coordinate stakeholder efforts? Are there other voluntary actions that stakeholders have taken in order to promote MAS Evolved?
        Fifth, given the development of newer technologies and applications for addressing contraband device use, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the leasing rules adopted in 2017 remain effective in facilitating spectrum use agreements between wireless providers and solutions providers. Should the Commission revise these rules or implement further streamlining initiatives in its secondary markets processes? The Bureau recognizes that, for budgetary reasons, some correctional facilities are seeking more mobile solutions with less reliance on permanent fixed deployments. Should the Commission amend its rules or update its licensing policies/databases to better accommodate these newer solutions and if so, how?

        Sixth, the Bureau notes that the Commission has not pursued regulatory action on jamming technologies by state or local entities given the prohibition against willful or malicious interference in section 333 of the Communications Act, as amended. The Bureau recognizes that limited testing of jamming technologies has occurred with federal oversight, consistent with the statute, and the Commission continues to support efforts to obtain more data on this type of solution when tested in authorized environments. As a substantial number of corrections officials continue to seek a “jamming” solution or its equivalent, the Bureau does seek comment, however, on the potential for wireless providers to voluntarily deploy base stations in the vicinity of a correctional facility that would, in effect, result in the blocking of their own signals in all or part of a correctional facility, thereby not resulting in a violation of section 333. Would such a solution be feasible in certain areas of the country and at what cost? Wireless providers presumably have all relevant information about the radiofrequency signal environment surrounding a correctional facility they serve. Accordingly, would this type of wireless provider-driven approach alleviate concerns regarding difficulties in coordinating communications with third party solutions providers and the associated need for contraband interdiction system upgrades?

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Amy Brett,
          Chief of Staff, Competition and Infrastructure Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2020-17335 Filed 8-14-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [I.D. 012802C]
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs)

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notification of a proposal for EFPs to conduct experimental fishing; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Regional Administrator proposes to issue EFPs that would allow up to four federally permitted vessels in the limited access multispecies fishery to conduct fishing operations otherwise restricted by the regulations governing the fisheries of the Northeastern United States.  The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has made a preliminary determination that the subject exempted fishing permit (EFP) application contains all the required information and warrants further consideration.  The Regional Administrator has also made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under the EFP would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP).  However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue EFPs.  The vessels would collect catch data to support the development of trawl mesh selectivity curves for the Southern New England (SNE) yellowtail flounder fishery.  Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs.

          DATES:

          Comments on this action must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES) on or before February 21, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Rhode Island EFP Proposal”.  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9135.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Regina L. Spallone, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9221, e-mail regina.l.spallone@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Division of Fish and Wildlife (applicant) submitted an application for EFPs on December 20, 2001.  The EFPs will facilitate the collection of additional catch data that will support the development of trawl mesh selectivity curves for the SNE yellowtail flounder fishery.  The catch data will supplement the data collected under EFPs in 2001, which were determined to be inconclusive due to the temporal nature of SNE yellowtail abundance in the study area and the resulting small sample size.  The applicant intends to provide the trawl mesh selectivity curves to fisheries managers as a tool for matching the minimum legal yellowtail flounder size with the size of yellowtail flounder retained by the appropriate mesh size.
        In June 2001, NMFS granted a request for EFPs to the State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (applicant).  The applicant investigated the selectivity of 6.0-inch (15.2-cm) diamond, 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) square, 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) diamond, and 7.0-inch (17.8-cm) square mesh codends using alternate tow methods for yellowtail flounder in southern Rhode Island waters during the summer of 2001.  The applicant’s intent was to investigate alternative measures that would achieve the mortality reductions for this stock of fish needed to achieve Sustainable Fisheries Act objectives to be met in the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan.  The New England Fishery Management Council’s (Council) Plan Development Team (PDT) has indicated that, in order to rebuild this stock of yellowtail flounder, fishing mortality must be reduced 50 to 70 percent from its current level.  To address these reductions, the PDT and the Council’s Groundfish Oversight Committee (Committee) have developed a wide range of management measures, including trip limits, increases in the minimum fish and/or mesh sizes, year-round and/or seasonal area closures, and day-at-sea (DAS) reductions.  Of those measures being considered, the applicant has expressed specific concern over the potential implementation of area closures as such closures would likely have a severe impact on the SNE commercial fishing community.  Therefore, the applicant is seeking additional information that may support minimum fish and/or mesh size measures as alternatives to closures.
        Under the EFP approved last year, the applicant developed selectivity curves upon which to base the lengths for yellowtail flounder at 50-percent retention (L50's).  In summary, they were:

            Shape
            Mesh size, inches (cm)
            Retention size, inches (cm)

            Diamond
            6.0 (15.2)
            14.7 (37.3)

            6.5 (16.5)
            15.6 (39.6)

            Square
            6.5 (16.5)
            13.0 (33.0)

            7.0 (17.8)
            14.3 (36.3)

        However, additional analyses of the mean number of yellowtail flounder retained that were in compliance with the minimum size requirements under 50 CFR part 648.83 (a), indicate no significant differences between each experimental codend.  The applicant compared length frequency distributions of the catches retained in the codends, which indicated some similarities in the catch performance of the experimental codends.  The applicant attributes the equivocal results of the 2001 study to low catch numbers (26) of yellowtail flounder per tow.  The applicant further explains that the summer months (June-July) during which the 2001 study was conducted typically exhibit low catches of yellowtail flounder.  While the study suggests potential fishery benefits by increasing mesh size for yellowtail, the small sample size led to inconclusive results upon which fishery managers could rely.  The applicant would therefore like to repeat the mesh selectivity study during March and April 2002, when yellowtail flounder would be in the nearshore waters and adequate sample sizes could be obtained.
        As in 2001, the applicant proposes to examine differences between the mesh selectivity of 6-inch (15.2cm) diamond and 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) square mesh to 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) diamond and 7-inch (17.8-cm) square mesh.  To accomplish this, the applicant will use an alternate tow design for a comparison of mesh selectivity.  Each net configuration will be tested with and without a 3-inch (7.6-cm) liner.
        The applicant will charter up to four federally permitted vessels in the limited access multispecies fishery.  Participating vessels will take 4-5 day trips (totaling 16-20 trips).  The applicant will select participating vessels based on their owners’ or operators’ knowledge of the trawl fishery for yellowtail flounder, familiarity with local fishing methodology, familiarity with the survey area, and possession of trawl gear (except netting).  The applicant will provide the proper mesh configuration.
        All trips will be completed during daylight hours and must include at least two scientific personnel.  A minimum of 12 comparisons per codend are required, for a total of 48 experimental comparisons.  Five tows at a duration of 1.5 hours will be conducted during each sampling day, for a total of three experimental comparisons per day.
        Vessels would be required to comply with all conditions of the EFP.  The EFPs would allow participating vessels to be exempt from the multispecies minimum mesh size restrictions (§ 648.80 (b)(2)(i)) in order to permit the vessels to use a 3- inch (7.6-cm) mesh liner for the purposes of comparing catch.  All other regulations specified under 50 CFR part 648 would apply.  Vessels would be fishing under the multispecies DAS program, and thus would be authorized to retain and sell all groundfish and non-targeted species up to the regulatory amounts for each species that meet the minimum size requirements under 50 CFR part 648.  The proceeds generated from the sale of the fish will help defray the cost associated with the experimental fishing.  The experimental fishing will be conducted in areas open to commercial fishing within statistical areas 537 and 539 from the date of issuance of the EFPs through April 30, 2002.
        Participating vessels would be required to fish in accordance with a sampling plan designed by the applicant, maintain logbooks documenting fishing activities, carry on-board observers trained in fish taxonomy, and allow biological information to be collected from the catches.

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

          Dated: February 1, 2002.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-2879  Filed 2-5-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        RIN 0648-XF559
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Essential Fish Habitat Amendments

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notification of availability of fishery management plan amendments; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted Amendment 115 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, Amendment 105 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, Amendment 49 to the FMP for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs, Amendment 13 to the FMP for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ Off Alaska, and Amendment 2 to the FMP for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area, (collectively Amendments) to the Secretary of Commerce for review. If approved, these Amendments would revise the FMPs by updating the description and identification of essential fish habitat (EFH), and updating information on adverse impacts to EFH based on the best scientific information available. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMPs, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments on the amendments must be submitted on or before May 4, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit your comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0087, 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=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0087, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit 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.

            Instructions: NMFS may not consider comments if they are sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the comment period ends. All comments received are a part of the public record, and NMFS will post the comments for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), 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).

          Electronic copies of the Amendments, maps of the EFH areas, the Environmental Assessment (the analysis), and the Final EFH five-year Summary Report prepared for this action may be obtained from www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Megan Mackey, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a FMP amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. This notice announces that Amendment 115 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI Groundfish FMP); Amendment 105 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA Groundfish FMP); Amendment 49 to the FMP for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP); Amendment 13 to the FMP for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ Off Alaska (Salmon FMP); and Amendment 2 to the FMP for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area (Arctic FMP) are available for public review and comment.

        The Council prepared the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR parts 600, 679, and 680. Section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each FMP describe and identify EFH, minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH, and identify other measures to promote the conservation and enhancement of EFH. The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines EFH as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. Implementing regulations at § 600.815 list the EFH contents required in each fishery management plan and direct councils to conduct a complete review of all EFH information at least once every five years (referred to here as “the 5-year review”).

        The Council developed the Amendments as a result of a new information available through the 5-year review that began in 2014 (2015 5-year review) and adopted the Amendments in April 2017. The 2015 5-year review is the Council's third review of EFH in the FMPs. Prior 5-year reviews were conducted in 2005 and 2010. The Council recommended amendments to the description and identification of EFH in the FMPs with new information and improved mapping as described in the Final EFH 5-year Summary Report for the 2015 5-year review (Summary Report, see ADDRESSES). The Council also recommended updates to EFH information based on the best available information in the Summary Report (see ADDRESSES). The Council recommended updates to EFH for all FMPs except for the Scallop FMP because no new information is available to update EFH descriptions for scallops.
        The Amendments would make the following changes to the FMPs:

        • Amendment 115 to the BSAI Groundfish FMP and Amendment 105 to the GOA Groundfish FMP (Amendments 115/105) would update the EFH descriptions for all managed species and update the identification of EFH for those managed species for which new population density or habitat suitability information is available. Sections 4.2.1 and 5.2.1 of the Environmental Assessment (see ADDRESSES) describe which EFH updates would be made for each species and life stage. Amendments 115/105 would also update information in Appendix F on adverse impacts to EFH based on the best scientific information available in the Summary Report (see ADDRESSES).

        • Amendment 49 to the Crab FMP would update the EFH descriptions for all managed species and update the identification of EFH for those managed species for which new population density or habitat suitability information is available. Section 6.2.1 of the Environmental Assessment (See ADDRESSES) describes which EFH updates would be made for each species and life stage. Amendment 49 would also update information in Appendix F on adverse impacts to EFH based on the best scientific information available in the Summary Report (see ADDRESSES).

        • Amendment 13 to the Salmon FMP would replace Appendix A, “Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC),” with a new Appendix A based on the best available information in the Summary Report (see ADDRESSES). Amendment 13 to the Salmon FMP would update the marine EFH descriptions for all salmon species and update the identification of marine EFH for each species and life stage for which new population density or habitat suitability information is available. Section 7.2.1 of the Environmental Assessment (see ADDRESSES) describes which EFH updates would be made for each species and life stage. Amendment 13 would also update information in Appendix A on adverse impacts to EFH based on the best scientific information available in the Summary Report (see ADDRESSES).

        • Amendment 2 to the Arctic FMP would update the EFH descriptions for all managed species for which new information is available, and update the identification of EFH for snow crab. Section 8.2.1 of the Environmental Assessment (See ADDRESSES) describes which EFH updates would be made for each species and life stage. Amendment 2 would also update information in Appendix C on adverse impacts to EFH based on the best scientific information available in the Summary Report (see ADDRESSES).

        NMFS is soliciting public comments on the Amendments through the end of the comment period (see DATES). All relevant written comments received by the end of the applicable comment period will be considered by NMFS in the approval/disapproval decision for the Amendments and addressed in the response to comments in the final decision. Comments received after end of the applicable comment period will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the Amendments. To be considered, comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day of the comment period (see DATES).

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

          Dated: February 27, 2018.
          Samuel D. Rauch, III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2018-04351 Filed 3-2-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P