        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Research and Special Programs Administration
        49 CFR Part 173
        [Docket No. RSPA-01-10741 (HM-220C)]
        RIN 2137-AC86
        Hazardous Materials: Filling of Propane Cylinders; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

          AGENCY:
          Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Denial of petition for rulemaking and termination of docket HM-220C.

          SUMMARY:
          RSPA is denying a petition for rulemaking filed by the Barbecue Industry Association requesting we require the registration of facilities that fill liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders having a water capacity of less than 200 pounds.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Gigi Corbin or Eileen Edmonson, (202) 366-8553, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, Research and Special Programs Administration.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        On August 23, 1996, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA, we) published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (61 FR 43515) to solicit comments on the merits of a petition for rulemaking filed by the Barbecue Industry Association (BIA) (P-1298). In its petition, BIA requested we amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) to require the registration of persons who fill DOT specification cylinders that have a water capacity of less than 200 pounds (about 24 gallons); are used for liquefied petroleum gas, a Division 2.1 (flammable) gas; and that come under the jurisdiction of the HMR. To obtain this registration, BIA proposed that the fillers' facilities and qualifications be reviewed by an independent inspection agency approved according to § 173.300a of the HMR. BIA proposed that registrants submit an application containing the following documentation:
        (1) A certification of employee training;
        (2) A certification that the filling equipment is suitable for use with LPG to provide for accurately filling the cylinders by weight according to current § 173.304(c);
        (3) Proof of financial responsibility in the minimum amount of one million dollars; and
        (4) An inspection report prepared by an independent inspection agency.
        BIA's major concern is overfilling of propane cylinders used for barbecue grills. These cylinders are commonly called 20-pound cylinders, hold about five gallons, and are usually sold directly to consumers. BIA states that more than 5 million barbecue grills were sold in 1993, that the National Petroleum Gas Association (NPGA) estimates 50 million propane cylinders are currently in use, and that an additional 5 to 6 million are produced annually. BIA states that these market conditions have encouraged fill stations to use untrained employees to fill and service 20-pound cylinders. BIA asserts that the wide variations in current training and filling practices and inadequate regulations by state and local jurisdictions result in consumer injuries and deaths. BIA suggests Federal regulation will eliminate these differences and promote safer use of propane cylinders. BIA provided no estimates on the number of fillers that potentially would be affected by the proposal. The text of the petition was published verbatim in the ANPRM.
        Comment Summary
        To determine the possible impacts of BIA's proposal, the ANPRM included a request of commenters to provide estimates of the proposal's anticipated costs and safety benefits, burden hours, and the potential impact on small businesses and the environment. We received 11 comments from persons representing state and local agencies, trade associations, cylinder fillers and requalifiers, and the general public. The commenters unanimously oppose BIA's proposals, primarily because the costs associated with their implementation would be extremely high.

        Most commenters agree that training is necessary for propane refillers; however, they object to BIA's training proposal. They state that existing state and Federal requirements cover most propane filling scenarios, including training, and that additional Federal regulations would be duplicative and confusing, and would increase costs. The NPGA states that the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 58, titled “Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases,” is consistent with the HMR and is used as the basis of LPG regulation “in virtually every state.” This pamphlet discusses how to fill and transport these cylinders, even when customer-owned, and how to train employees performing these operations. The Railroad Commission of Texas (RCT) maintains that the BIA proposal would not enhance safety in Texas; it notes that Texas had only two reported overfilling accidents in the past five years, neither of which was serious.
        Most commenters agree that certification of scales to ensure their accuracy is a necessary safety practice, but note that these activities are currently regulated by the states. As the NPGA states:

          At present, the Hazardous Materials Regulations do not contain a provision that a company weighing a package as part of a manufacturing or hazmat filling operation must use a scale certified in accordance with NIST/NCWM Handbook 44 Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices. It has always been understood that such weighing operations are subject to state weights and measure laws and regulations and, therefore, are not a matter of DOT jurisdiction. Consequently, NPGA believes that the amendments proposed by BIA to require certified scales for cylinder filling is beyond the scope of the HMR and should therefore be denied.

        Commenters objecting to the BIA proposal to require each propane filler to carry one million dollars in liability insurance state that the proposal is excessive and few small businesses can afford the amount. Three commenters report existing insurance requirements in their states. The Louisiana Liquefied Gas Commission states that it requires propane filling businesses to carry a minimum of $100,000 in insurance. RTC states that Texas requires licensed small cylinder fillers “to carry a general liability policy including premises and operations in an amount of at least $25,000 per occurrence and $300,000 in the aggregate.” This latter commenter estimates that carrying one million dollars in liability insurance would increase the insurance costs of its licensees from an average of $750 a year to $2,000 a year.
        Finally, commenters object to the use of an independent inspection agency for inspecting a filler's qualifications and operations. They state that these agencies are not prepared to assume these additional responsibilities. One commenter notes that his state's Division of Weights and Measures requires all propane refilling scales to be tested yearly by an independent inspection agency and documented with the state.
        Discussion

        Federal hazardous materials transportation law (federal hazmat law), codified at 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. The regulations apply to persons who: (1) Transport hazardous materials in commerce; (2) cause hazardous materials to be transported in commerce; or (3) manufacture, mark, maintain, recondition, repair, or test packagings (or components thereof) that are represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce. 49 U.S.C. 5103(b)(1)(A).
        The HMR apply to hazardous materials in cylinders offered for transportation or transported in commerce. For example, DOT specification cylinders must be designed, manufactured, and maintained in accordance with applicable HMR requirements. In addition, cylinders offered for transportation and transported in commerce must be filled as specified in § 173.304 of the HMR. Further, persons who fill and offer such cylinders for transportation in commerce must be trained. A company that fills cylinders intended for use in barbecue grills and offers such cylinders for transportation to a distribution or retail facility is subject to all applicable HMR requirements.
        Many state and local governments have adopted and are enforcing the standards contained in NFPA Standard 58. The 1998 edition of this standard requires certain propane cylinders having capacities from 4 to 40 pounds to be fitted with overfilling prevention devices (OPDs). The standard defines an OPD as “a safety device that is designed to provide an automatic means to prevent the filling of a container in excess of the maximum permitted filling limit.” The standard requires an OPD and a fixed maximum liquid level gauge to be fitted on any cylinder manufactured after September 30, 1998, requalified after September 30, 1998, or filled on or after April 1, 2002. These newer OPDs are easily recognizable by a unique trilobular handwheel. The OPD handwheel is connected to the valve stem in a tamper-proof manner to prevent interchanging with a non-OPD valve. The use of OPDs on propane cylinders is supported by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
        Conclusion
        We agree with commenters to the ANPRM that the BIA proposal would impose significant costs on the industry. Further, the BIA proposals would not address safety problems involving refilling of consumer-owned barbecue cylinders since these are outside the scope of the Department's jurisdiction. Moreover, as commenters suggest, the BIA proposals unnecessarily duplicate state and local regulations applicable to refilling of cylinders. Finally, the NFPA 58 standard for OPDs on certain propane cylinders appears to address the safety issue of concern to BIA. For these reasons, we are denying BIA's petition. In consideration of the foregoing, Docket No. RSPA-01-10741 (HM-220C) is terminated.

          Issued in Washington, DC, on January 2, 2002, under the authority delegated in 49 CFR part 106.
          Frits Wybenga,
          Deputy Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.

      [FR Doc. 02-445 Filed 1-7-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 033001B]
        Fisheries off the West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Intent to Prepare an  Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Fishing Conducted Under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP).

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to prepare an EIS; request for written comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NOAA announces its intention to prepare an EIS, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to assess the impacts of Federal management of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery on the human environment.  The scope of the EIS analysis will include issues related to the conduct of the fishery, including the effects of the groundfish fishery on essential fish habitat (EFH).

          DATES:

          Written comments will be accepted on or before June 30, 2001.  Public scoping meetings are scheduled for May 22-23, May 29-30, June 5 and June 12, 2001 (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments on suggested alternatives and potential impacts should be sent to Donna Darm, Acting Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA  98115-0070.  Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 206-526-6736.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.  See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          William L. Robinson, Northwest Region, NMFS, 206-526-6140; fax: 206-526-6736 and e-mail: bill.robinson@noaa.gov or Svein Fougner, Southwest Region, NMFS, 562-980-4000; fax: 562-980-4047 and e-mail: svein.fougner@         noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Dates and Times for the Meetings
        The following locations and times have been set for scoping meetings:
        1.  Oregon - Hatfield Marine Science Center, meeting Room 9, 2040 SE Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR, May 22, 2001, beginning at 7 p.m.;
        2.  Oregon - Oregon State University, Seafood Laboratory, 2021 Marine Drive, Astoria, OR, May 23, 2001, beginning at 7 p.m.;
        3.  California -  Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District, Woodley Marina, 601 Startare Drive, Eureka, CA, May 29, 2001, beginning at 5 p.m.;
        4.  California - California Department of Fish and Game, 4665 Lampson Avenue, Los Alamitos, CA, May 30, 2001, beginning at 3 p.m.;
        5.  Washington - NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Building 9,  Seattle, WA, June 5, 2001, beginning at 7 p.m.; and
        California - Park Plaza International Hotel, 1177 Airport Blvd., Burlingame, CA, June 12, 2001, beginning at 7 p.m.
        There are 82 species managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, seven of which have been declared overfished. The groundfish stocks support an array of commercial, recreational, and tribal fishing interests in state and Federal waters off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California.  In addition, groundfish are also harvested incidentally in non-groundfish fisheries, most notably the trawl fisheries for pink shrimp, spot/ridgeback prawns, California halibut, and sea cucumber.  To rebuild overfished species, restrictive management measures for most commercial and recreational fishing sectors have recently been adopted.
        To define management issues and provide a clear basis for public comments, a summary of the current Federal management system for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery will be reviewed during the public scoping hearings.  A principal objective of the scoping and public input process is to identify a reasonable set of management alternatives that, with adequate analysis, will sharply define critical issues and provide a clear basis for choice among the alternatives. Therefore, the EIS will include a range of reasonable management alternatives and an analysis of their impacts.

        The intent of the EIS is to present an overall picture of the environmental effects of fishing as conducted under the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP.  Alternatives will be analyzed for impacts on essential fish habitat, target and non-target species of fish, discarded fish, marine mammals, and other protected species present in the Pacific Coast ecosystem.  In addition, the environmental consequences section of the EIS will contain an analysis of impacts from fishery management measures on the following groups of individuals:  (1) those who participate in harvesting the fishery resources and other living marine resources; (2) those who process and market the fish and fish products; (3) those who are involved in allied support industries; (4) those who consume fish products; (5) those who rely on living marine resources in the management area, either for subsistence needs or for recreational benefits; (6) those who benefit from non-consumptive uses of living marine resources; (7) those involved in managing and monitoring fisheries; and (8) fishing communities.

        This EIS also responds to the U.S. District court's order in American Oceans Campaign v. Daley, No 99-982, (D.D.C. Order dated September 14, 2000), ordering NMFS to perform a new NEPA analysis on the EFH provisions originally developed as part of Amendment ll to the Groundfish FMP, which became effective on October 12, 1999 (64 FR 49092 September 10, 1999).  Accordingly, the EIS will also evaluate alternatives to describe and identify EFH and to minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH.
        Scoping documents which identify the management issues, initial alternatives, and an outline of the proposed analysis will be made available at all scoping meetings.
        Special Accommodations
        These meetings are accessible to people with physical disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to William L. Robinson 206--526-6140 (voice) or 206-526-6736 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the scheduled meeting date.

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

          Dated: April 4, 2001.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-8815 Filed 4-9-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 150112035-5035-01]
        RIN 0648-BE80
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan; Revision to Prohibited Species Regulations

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS is proposing regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) to revise the prohibited species regulations so that each of the exceptions to the policy in the Fishery Management Plan are explicitly identified in the regulations. The specific exceptions will allow HMS fishermen to retain: (1) Salmon and Pacific halibut, if all of the necessary regulations for those respective fisheries are followed; and (2) basking, megamouth, and great white sharks, if they are sold or donated to a scientific or educational organization. This action is necessary to more accurately reflect the intent of the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP).

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before June 19, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0006, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0006, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Taylor Debevec, NMFS West Coast Region Long Beach Office, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Include the identifier “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0006” in the comments.

            Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure they are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Copies of the draft Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and other supporting documents are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA-NMFS-2015-0006 or contact the Regional Administrator, William W. Stelle, Jr., NMFS West Coast Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, or RegionalAdministrator.WCRHMS@noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Taylor Debevec, NMFS, 562-980-4066.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The HMS FMP was implemented in a final rule published on April 7, 2004 (69 FR 18444). NMFS was recently informed of a discrepancy between the implementing regulations and the intent of the HMS FMP regarding the policy on prohibited species. The HMS FMP identifies several fish as “prohibited species” (salmon, Pacific halibut, basking shark, megamouth shark, and great white shark) that cannot be retained in HMS fisheries, with the following exceptions: (1) Any can be kept for examination by an authorized observer or to return tagged fish as specified by the tagging agency; (2) salmon and Pacific halibut can be kept provided all applicable state and Federal regulations are followed (e.g., gear, permits, season, fishing area); and (3) basking, megamouth, and great white sharks can be kept provided they are sold or donated to recognized scientific and educational organizations for research or display purposes. The implementing regulations, however, only identify the first exception above; the second and third are not included in the regulations. The prohibited species policy of the FMP was designed with the second and third exceptions to: Prevent salmon and Pacific halibut from being retained as incidental catch in HMS fisheries, and not preclude fishermen from legally participating in salmon and Pacific halibut fisheries (permits, closures, gears, etc.); and discourage targeting of the rare and low productivity sharks, and not waste them if caught.

        The current regulations refer to prohibited species in three sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (in title 50 part 660 subpart K), which, collectively, do not convey the full prohibited species policy of the HMS FMP. The definition of “prohibited species” (§ 660.702) does not specify a list of prohibited species and is vague about the exceptions. The regulations on prohibitions (§ 660.705(e)) describe the action that should be taken if a prohibited species is caught (i.e., return the fish to sea), but does not incorporate the exceptions. Finally, the regulations on general catch restrictions (§ 660.711(a)) identify the species that are prohibited in HMS fisheries. The lack of clarity and cohesion with the HMS FMP has prompted NMFS to modify the three sections of the regulations that govern prohibited species.
        Proposed Regulations
        The proposed rule would codify at § 660.705(e) the second and third exceptions in the prohibited species policy of the HMS FMP, as described above. The definition of “Prohibited species” at § 660.702 would be revised to remove the general description of what a prohibited species means, and instead simply set forth the species names; the prohibited species themselves would not change. As a result, the regulations at § 660.711(a), which currently include the species names, would be redundant and, therefore, would be deleted. By correcting the language at § 660.705(e) to explicitly identify all the exceptions and revising the definition of prohibited species, the regulations would be consistent with the HMS FMP.
        Classification

        The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the MSA and other applicable laws.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act because the rule falls within the scope of alternatives addressed in the environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared for the HMS FMP in 2003. The EIS determined that the prohibited species policy would ensure that neither the sharks nor the strict management of Pacific halibut and salmon are compromised by HMS fisheries.
        Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Chief Counsel for 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 economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale for the certification is as follows:
        This proposed rule, in accordance with the HMS FMP and the recommendation of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, will revise the prohibited species regulations so that the exceptions to the policy as outlined in the FMP are explicitly identified in the regulations. The specific exceptions will allow HMS fishermen to retain: (1) Salmon and Pacific halibut if all of the necessary regulations for those respective fisheries are followed, and (2) basking, megamouth, and great white sharks if they are sold or donated to a scientific or educational organization.
        The main entities to which this action would apply are fishermen that fish for albacore using surface hook-and-line gear, as they often have the opportunity to fish for salmon with the same gear and on the same trip. Typically, albacore are available off of the coast of Oregon and Washington around May or June, while the salmon season is also open. Though albacore is caught beyond 10 miles off the coast, fishermen sometimes stop to catch salmon when returning to port and generally inside of 5 miles from the coast.
        On June 12, 2014, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued an interim final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33467). The rule increased the size standard for Finfish Fishing from $19.0 million to $20.5 million, Shellfish Fishing from $5.0 million to $5.5 million, and Other Marine Fishing from $7.0 million to $7.5 million. NMFS conducted its analysis for this action in light of the new size standards. On average, there are 28 commercial vessels, and 4 charter/recreational vessels per year that would be impacted by this rule. NMFS considers all entities subject to this action to be small entities as defined by the revised size standards.
        The clarification of these regulations will enable all fleets to operate their businesses as intended by the HMS FMP. This rule is expected to have a positive effect on income because HMS fishermen will be allowed to retain and sell salmon and halibut (provided the vessel is fishing under a salmon or halibut permit). This positive impact is expected to be modest, however, because not many fishermen actively participate across these fisheries, especially on the same trip. If this proposed rule were not finalized, fishermen would be more restricted than the HMS FMP intended; they would not be allowed to be in possession of, or land, species listed as prohibited while also possessing or landing HMS.
        Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed action is considered to equally affect all of these small entities in the same manner. Based on the disproportionality and profitability analysis above, the proposed action, if adopted, will not have adverse or disproportional economic impact on these small business entities.
        Because this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required, and one was not prepared for this proposed rule.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Administrative practice and procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

          Dated: May 29, 2015.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

        2. In § 660.702, revise the definition for “Prohibited species” to read as follows:

          § 660.702
          Definitions.

            Prohibited species means any highly migratory species for which quotas or catch limits under the FMP have been achieved and the fishery closed; salmon; great white shark; basking shark; megamouth shark; and Pacific halibut.

        3. In § 660.705, revise paragraph (e) to read as follows:

          § 660.705
          Prohibitions.

          (e) When fishing for HMS, fail to return a prohibited species to the sea immediately with a minimum of injury, except under the following circumstances:
          (1) Any prohibited species may be retained for examination by an authorized observer or to return tagged fish as specified by the tagging agency.
          (2) Salmon may be retained if harvested in accordance with subpart H of this part, and other applicable law.
          (3) Great white sharks, basking sharks, and megamouth sharks may be retained if incidentally caught and subsequently sold or donated to a recognized scientific or educational organization for research or display purposes.
          (4) Pacific halibut may be retained if harvested in accordance with part 300, subpart E of this title, and other applicable law.

          § 660.711
          [Amended]

        4. In § 660.711, remove paragraph (a) and redesignate paragraphs (b) through (d) as (a) through (c).

      [FR Doc. 2015-13637 Filed 6-3-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 151124999-8985-01]
        RIN 0648-BF57
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Approval of New Gear Under Small-Mesh Fisheries Accountability Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          We propose to approve new selective trawl gear for use in several non-groundfish fisheries when subject to the Georges Bank yellowtail flounder accountability measure. The proposed selective gear would reduce bycatch of groundfish species, while allowing the target fisheries to continue operating when selective trawl gear is required. Approving this selective trawl gear would provide the fishing industry with more flexibility because there are limited selective trawl gears currently approved for use. We also propose to disapprove the use of this gear in the southern windowpane accountability measure areas.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before December 17, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0119, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
          1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0119;
          2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon and complete the required fields; and
          3. Enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on the Proposed Rule for Selective Gear.”

            Instructions: All comments received that were timely and properly submitted are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by us.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Emily Keiley, Fishery Management Specialist, phone: (978) 281-9116; email: Emily.Keiley@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        The Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) requires the use of selective trawl gear in certain times and areas. The FMP specifies the list of selective trawl gear that meet the required selectivity standards. The FMP also authorizes NMFS to approve additional selective gear, at the request of the New England Fishery Management Council, if the gear meets the regulatory requirements for new selective gear. The regulations (§ 648.85(b)(6)(iv)(J)(2)(i)) require that new selective gear must either: Demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in catch of at least 50 percent, by weight, on a trip-by-trip basis, of each regulated species stock of concern, or, catch of stocks of concern must be less than 5 percent of the total catch of regulated groundfish (by weight, on a trip-by-trip basis). The Council submitted two requests to add the large-mesh belly panel to the list of approved selective gears: (1) For the Georges Bank yellowtail accountability measure (AM); and (2) for the southern windowpane AM.
        The small-mesh trawl fishery (e.g., whiting and squid) has a sub-annual catch limit (sub-ACL) and AM for Georges Bank yellowtail flounder. If catch exceeds the sub-ACL, the AM requires small-mesh trawl vessels to use selective trawl gear that reduces flatfish catch in certain areas for the subsequent fishing year.
        Southern windowpane flounder is allocated to three fishery components: Groundfish; scallops; and, other non-groundfish fisheries. The other (non-groundfish) component is primarily the scup, fluke, squid, and whiting fisheries. If the AM for the other (non-groundfish) component is triggered, vessels fishing with any trawl gear with a codend mesh size greater than, or equal to 5 in (12.7 cm), are required to use one of the approved selective trawl gears to reduce flatfish bycatch in certain areas in Southern New England in a subsequent year.
        The selective trawl gears approved for use under these AMs are: Haddock separator trawl; Ruhle trawl; and rope separator trawl. When we adopted the AMs for the non-groundfish fisheries, many industry members expressed concern that the selective trawl gears currently approved for use were not suitable for their fisheries. To address this concern, Cornell University conducted a series of studies to test the effectiveness of a new selective gear, the large-mesh belly panel, in several non-groundfish fisheries. The experimental gear included a large-mesh panel to replace the first bottom belly of the trawl net that allows flatfish such as windowpane and yellowtail flounder to escape.
        Cornell University conducted two studies in 2014 to investigate using a large-mesh belly panel in a small-mesh trawl net typical of those used in the squid and whiting fisheries on Georges Bank. Both experiments demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in catch of more than 50 percent of Georges Bank yellowtail flounder on a trip-by-trip basis, as required by regulations, without a significant reduction in squid and whiting catch. These studies also demonstrated that the large-mesh belly panel reduced catch, by more than 50 percent per trip, of stocks that are overfished or subject to overfishing.

        Cornell University conducted an additional study in 2015 to investigate using a large-mesh belly panel in a trawl net typical of those used in the scup fishery in southern New England waters. The experiment demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in southern windowpane flounder catch of more than 50 percent, without a significant reduction in catch of legal-sized scup. Catch in the large-mesh belly panel gear was compared to catch in the standard net, and three regulated stocks of concern were caught in significant numbers in the standard net. The percent reduction by trip, and the mean percent reduction, for each species is presented in Table 1; trips that do not meet the 50 percent reduction standard are highlighted in gray. Catches, on average, of yellowtail and winter flounder were only reduced by 48 percent when the large-mesh belly panel was used.

          EP15NO18.001

        Proposed Action

        Based on the results of the studies described above (copies available from NMFS at the mailing address listed under ADDRESSES), we have preliminarily determined that the large-mesh belly panel meets the necessary gear performance standards for use in the Georges Bank yellowtail AM area, and we are proposing to approve the use of this gear in that area. The large-mesh belly panel would be added to the list of three existing selective gears currently authorized for use in the Georges Bank yellowtail AM area. We have also preliminarily determined that the large-mesh belly panel does not meet the gear standard in the southern windowpane AM area, and we are proposing to disapprove its use in that area.
        This action would define the large-mesh belly panel in the regulations in § 648.80. The proposed gear specifications included in this rule are based on the experimental gear used in the Cornell studies. The experimental selective gear was a 4-seam 3-bridal otter trawl, modified to include a large-mesh panel to replace the first bottom belly that allows escapement of flatfish. The large-mesh panel was made from 5 mm (3/16 in) poly webbing and the mesh size was approximately 32 in (81.3 cm) knot-center to knot-center diamond mesh. The panel was two meshes deep and was sewn into the standard mesh of the first bottom belly using a “saw-toothing” technique. This resulted in an effective area for fish escapement of three full 32-in (81.3-cm) meshes, or an opening in the belly of the net that is approximately 8 ft (2.4 m) deep from front to back. The large-mesh belly panel was attached approximately 1 ft (30.5 cm) behind the footrope and extended widthwise across the entire belly of the net (from gore to gore). Because it is important that the large-mesh belly panel gear definition balance the conservation requirements and adaptability of the gear modifications across multiple fisheries, we are requesting specific comments on this gear configuration.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with Framework 51, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. In making the final determination, we will consider the data, views, and comments received during the public comment period.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
        This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism or takings implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.
        The Chief Counsel for 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 economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual determination for this determination is as follows.
        The Council requested that we approve a new selective trawl gear (the large-mesh belly panel) for use in several non-groundfish fisheries to reduce groundfish bycatch. For some stocks, non-groundfish fisheries have an AM that requires the use of selective trawl gear when the ACL has been exceeded. Most of the approved selective trawls are not designed for use in these fisheries, and the large-mesh belly panel would provide these fisheries a better alternative than what is currently available. The requirement to use selective trawl gear was adopted in 2013. This rule would provide vessels an alternative selective gear for meeting that requirement, which would provide additional fishing opportunities, increase operational flexibility, and improve economic efficiency. This action is necessary to allow the fisheries to more effectively harvest its optimum yield, while continuing to reduce bycatch of windowpane and yellowtail flounder. This action seeks to fulfill the purpose and need while meeting the overarching goals and objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP.

        For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NMFS established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The determination of whether the entity is large or small is based on the average annual revenue for the most recent 3 years for which data are available (in this case, from 2014 through 2016).
        The small-mesh exempted fishery allows vessels to harvest species in designated areas using mesh sizes smaller than the minimum mesh size required by Regulated Mesh Area regulations. To participate in the small-mesh multispecies exempted fishery, vessels must possess either a limited access multispecies permit (categories A, C, D, E, or F) or an open access multispecies permit (category K). Limited access multispecies permit holders can target small-mesh multispecies with different possession limit requirements depending on fishing region and mesh size used. Open access, Category K permit holders may fish for small-mesh multispecies when participating in an exempted fishing program. Therefore, entities holding one or more multispecies permits (permit type A, C-F, K) are the entities that have the potential to be directly impacted by this action. According to the commercial database, there were 853 distinct ownership entities, based on entities' participation during the 2014-2016 time-period, that could potentially target small-mesh multispecies. This includes entities that could not be classified into a business type because they did not earn revenue from landing and selling fish in 2014-2016 and thus are considered to be small. Of the 853 total firms, 844 are categorized as small business entities and 9 are categorized as large businesses. While 853 commercial entities have the potential to be impacted by the proposed action, not all of these entities actively land small-mesh multispecies for commercial sale. There are 406 distinct entities that commercially sold small-mesh multispecies from 2014-2016 and may be directly affected by the proposed action. Of those, 404 are categorized as small businesses.
        The measures proposed are expected to have a positive economic effect on small entities. It could increase catch of target stocks, in a scenario when fishing would otherwise be prohibited. Providing increased fishing opportunities should increase landings and profits. This action is not expected to have a significant or substantial effect on small entities. The effects on the regulated small entities identified in this analysis are expected to be positive relative to the no action alternative, in which this new selective trawl gear would not be added to the list of approved selective gears. Under the proposed action, small entities would not be placed at a competitive disadvantage relative to large entities, and the regulations would not reduce the profit for any small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement will be submitted to OMB for approval. Public reporting burden for the selection of the gear code is estimated to average one minute per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

        Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS at the ADDRESSES above, and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-7285.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: November 9, 2018.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 648.84, add paragraph (f) to read as follows:

          § 648.84
           Gear-marking requirements and gear restrictions.

          (f) Large-mesh belly panel trawl. A large-mesh belly panel trawl is defined as a four-seam bottom trawl net (i.e., a net with a top and bottom panel and two side panels) modified to include a large-mesh panel to replace the first bottom belly, as further specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
          (1) Mesh size. The minimum mesh size applied throughout the body of the trawl, as well as the codend mesh size, must be consistent with mesh size requirements specified in § 648.80. If a vessel is fishing in an exemption area or an exempted fishery, it must comply with all of the requirements and conditions of the exemption.
          (2) Large-mesh belly panel. The large-mesh belly panel must have a minimum mesh size of 30 in (76.2 cm) measured using the standard defined in § 648.80(f)(2). The width of the panel must extend the full width of the bottom panel (i.e., from one bottom gore to the other bottom gore). The depth must be at least 90 in (228.6 cm) and at least 3 meshes deep (2 meshes deep with a 15-in (38.1-cm) sewing seam on top and bottom). No more than six meshes of the small-mesh net may be left behind the sweep, before the large-mesh panel is sewn in.

        3. In § 648.90, revise paragraph (a)(5)(v), to read as follows:

          § 648.90
          NE multispecies assessment, framework procedures, and specifications, and flexible area action system.
          (a) * * *
          (5) * * *
          (v) AM if the small-mesh fisheries GB yellowtail flounder sub-ACL is exceeded. If NMFS determines that the sub-ACL of GB yellowtail flounder allocated to the small-mesh fisheries, pursuant to paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(G) of this section, is exceeded, NMFS shall implement the AM specified in this paragraph consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act. The AM requires that small-mesh fisheries vessels, as defined in paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(G)(1) of this section, use one of the following approved selective trawl gear in the GB yellowtail flounder stock area, as defined at § 648.85(b)(6)(v)(H): A haddock separator trawl, as specified in § 648.85(a)(3)(iii)(A); a Ruhle trawl, as specified in § 648.85(b)(6)(iv)(J)(3); a rope separator trawl, as specified in § 648.84(e); a large-mesh belly panel trawl, as specified in § 648.84(f); or any other gear approved consistent with the process defined in § 648.85(b)(6). If reliable information is available, the AM shall be implemented in the fishing year immediately following the year in which the overage occurred only if there is sufficient time to do so in a manner consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act. Otherwise, the AM shall be implemented in the second fishing year after the fishing year in which the overage occurred. For example, if NMFS determined after the start of Year 2 that the small-mesh fisheries sub-ACL for GB yellowtail flounder was exceeded in Year 1, the applicable AM would be implemented at the start of Year 3. If updated catch information becomes available subsequent to the implementation of an AM that indicates that an overage of the small-mesh fisheries sub-ACL did not occur, NMFS shall rescind the AM, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.

      [FR Doc. 2018-24975 Filed 11-14-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 64
        [CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51; DA 12-1644]
        Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Commission seeks comment on matters related to access technology and enhanced database operations for video relay service (VRS) raised in recent filings submitted by CSDVRS, LLC, a VRS provider. In order for the Commission to be in a position to set new rates as it moves forward with the next phase of VRS reform, it also seeks comment on a proposal by the Fund administrator, Rolka Loube Saltzer Associates (RLSA), to modify VRS compensation rates.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before November 14, 2012. Reply comments are due on or before November 29, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51, by any of the following methods:

            Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal service mailing address, and CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51. 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 hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
           All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
           Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
           U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.

           In addition, parties must serve one copy of each pleading with the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, or via email to fcc@bcpiweb.com.

          For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Gregory Hlibok, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (202) 559-5158 (voice/videophone), (202) 418-0431 (TTY), or email at Gregory.Hlibok@fcc.gov, or Robert Aldrich, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-0996 (voice), or email at Robert.Aldrich@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Bureau's Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, Public Notice (VRS Reform and Rates Notice), document DA 12-1644, released October 15, 2012, in CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51, seeking comments on access technologies and compensation rates for VRS. The full text of the VRS Reform and Rates Notice and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. They may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (202) 488-5300, fax: (202) 488-5300, or Internet: www.bcpiweb.com. This document can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (“PDF”) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html. 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). Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200 et. seq., this matter 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 § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) 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.

          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).
        Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

        Document DA 12-1644 does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
        Synopsis
        Background

        1. In June 2010, the Commission began a comprehensive review of the rates, structure, and practices of the VRS program. Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, Notice of Inquiry, (2010 VRS NOI), CG Docket No. 10-51, published at 75 FR 41863, July 19, 2010. The Commission's goal in beginning that review, and ever since then, has been to reform the VRS program, which for many years had been beset by waste, fraud, and abuse and by compensation rates that had become inflated well above actual cost. Since that time, the Commission has acted to improve the program so that it can continue to provide a valuable service to deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers as efficiently as possible.

        2. The Commission's actions over the past two years have saved the program approximately $300 million to date. Most significantly, in June 2010, at the same time the Commission issued the 2010 VRS NOI asking questions about potential fundamental changes to the VRS program, the Commission cut the compensation rate for the bulk of VRS traffic by more than $1.00 per minute, the first substantial VRS rate reduction in six years. Stressing its “obligation to protect the integrity of the Fund and to deter and detect waste,” the Commission stated that it would no longer tolerate “the large discrepancy between actual costs and provider compensation” that had resulted from earlier VRS ratesetting orders. Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Order, (2010 TRS Rate Order), CG Docket No. 03-123, published at 75 FR 49491, August 13, 2010. See also Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2011 VRS Rate NPRM), CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51, published at 76 FR 24442, May 2, 2011.

        3. The Commission has taken significant further steps to protect the VRS program's integrity and increase its efficiency since that time. In April 2011, the Commission adopted additional wide-ranging measures to improve oversight of and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse by VRS providers. The Commission required providers to submit detailed call records to justify their requests for compensation, instituted annual as well as unscheduled provider audits, banned providers from tying their employees' wages to the number of calls processed, and prohibited revenue-sharing arrangements between certificated, Fund-eligible service providers and unregulated companies. In July 2011, the Commission tightened the eligibility and certification requirements for VRS providers to ensure that only providers operating in compliance with the Commission's rules would be permitted to provide this service to the public. And in December 2011, the Commission proposed additional substantial reforms to the VRS market structure and the practices of providers. Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (2011 VRS Reform FNPRM), CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123, published at 77 FR 4948, February 1, 2012. These reforms were intended to ensure that the program continues to support services that offer functional equivalence to all eligible users and becomes as immune as possible from the waste, fraud, and abuse that could threaten its viability.
        4. Document DA 12-1644 is the next step in these ongoing reform efforts. CGB, on delegated authority, seeks comment on matters raised in recent filings submitted by CSDVRS, LLC, a VRS provider. Moreover, in order for the Commission to be in a position to set new rates as it moves forward with the next phase of VRS reform, the Bureau also seeks comment in document DA 12-1644 on a proposal by the Fund administrator, Rolka Loube Saltzer Associates (RLSA), to modify VRS compensation rates.
        Additional Comment on Structural Reform Options
        5. As discussed in the 2010 VRS NOI, VRS communications require the interaction of three separate yet interlinked components: VRS access technologies, video communication service, and relay service provided by American Sign Language (ASL)-fluent communications assistants (CAs). The Bureau now seeks additional comment on specific proposals to disaggregate these components. The Bureau emphasizes that neither the Commission nor CGB has decided to adopt any of these proposals; CGB is simply seeking input to help develop a more complete record to enable the Commission to better evaluate the various issues in this proceeding.
        VRS Access Technology
        6. As noted above, CSDVRS has submitted two structural reform proposals to the Commission. The first of these proposes that the Commission facilitate migration of all VRS access technologies to a standard, software based VRS access technology (“application”) that could be used on commonly available off-the-shelf hardware as a means of furthering the Commission's interoperability and portability goals. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal, and seek particular comment on the following related questions:

        7. The Commission proposed to establish standards for iTRS Access Technology, including VRS Access Technology, in the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM. Would the process for establishing and maintaining standards discussed in the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM be appropriate for developing an application or establishing standards for an application? Should the application or key components thereof be open source?
        8. Should the Commission mandate use of a single application or allow development of multiple, interoperable applications? Who should be responsible for application development? For example, should the Commission develop, by contract, such an application? How should the developer of the application be compensated?
        9. Should providers be able to continue to offer their own internally developed applications? If so, under what conditions? For example, should there be an interoperability testing process? How would such an interoperability testing process be structured?

        10. Should the application be full executable, or a core executable or set of libraries (“core”) that can be customized by interested parties (e.g., using published APIs), or both? If core, what key functions should this core contain, such as video encoding, video decoding and session signaling? If core, should there be a certification process before calls placed with the application are compensable? How should that process be structured? Who should be responsible for maintaining and updating applications?
        11. What off-the-shelf hardware and operating system platforms should be supported? Should users be responsible for procuring their own off-the-shelf equipment, or should providers be involved in the acquisition and distribution of end user equipment to VRS users?
        12. How should consumers be involved in the development, selection, certification and on-going enhancement of either the core or the application?

        13. How would users obtain support for issues relating to the application or its use on their equipment (e.g., network firewall issues, troubleshooting problems)?
        14. What other approaches might be considered to select an application or applications for use in the VRS system? For example, should the Commission host a competition among existing VRS access applications and/or commercial standards-based off-the-shelf video conferencing applications? What would be the benefits and drawbacks of these or other alternate approaches?
        15. How would a transition to a VRS system that relies exclusively on a common application be accomplished, and over what period of time?
        16. What changes in the Commission's rules would be necessary to adopt this proposal or one of the alternatives described above?
        Enhanced iTRS Database Operations
        17. CSDVRS also has proposed an industry structure in which all providers of ASL relay CA services would utilize an enhanced version of the TRS numbering directory to provide features such as user registration and validation, call routing, and usage accounting. In effect, this would separate the video communication service component of VRS from the ASL relay CA service component by providing the functions of the former from an enhanced database (“enhanced iTRS database”). The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal, and seek particular comment on the following related questions:
        18. What functions and services should the enhanced iTRS database provide? Some possibilities include:

        • Development and distribution of VRS access technology, such as a common application
        • User registration and validation (account and credential creation)
        • Per-call user verification (authentication)
        • TRS numbering directory functions
        • Usage accounting
        • Call routing
        ○ To the user-chosen default or the per-call ASL relay CA service provider
        ○ To/from other end users (i.e., point-to-point calls)
        ○ To/from the PSTN
        ○ 911 call processing
        • Vertical features such as video mail and address book

        19. How would ASL relay CA service providers interface with the enhanced iTRS database? Would each ASL relay CA service provider be required to establish its own internal routing system for distributing calls among its call centers, or should the enhanced iTRS database allow providers to specify provider-internal call routing rules?

        20. CSDVRS' proposal appears to contemplate the existence of multiple video communication service providers. Is this necessary? How would the user or application choose among these providers? If the choice of the communication service provider is independent of the ASL relay CA service, based on what criteria or metrics would users or applications make that choice? Given that VRS providers currently compete primarily on quality of CA service, should the Commission contract for a single provider of the enhanced iTRS database functions, including video communication service, that allows users to access the ASL relay CA service of their choice? If the Commission does choose to contract for these functions, should there be a single contract or multiple contracts?
        21. What changes in the Commission's rules would be necessary to implement such a structure?
        Rate Proposals
        22. As noted above, in the 2010 TRS Rate Order, the Commission stated it would no longer tolerate the “large discrepancy between actual costs and provider compensation” that had resulted from earlier VRS ratesetting orders. Stressing its “obligation to protect the integrity of the Fund and to deter and detect waste,” the Commission also released the 2010 VRS NOI to consider, among other issues, “the most appropriate way to calculate and set future [VRS] rates.” Subsequently, in the 2011 VRS FNPRM, the Commission proposed that, if a per-minute VRS rate was retained, it should be set based on the weighted average of actual per-minute provider costs for the most recently completed fund year. These steps have made clear the Commission's determination to review rate issues as part of its VRS reform proceeding and to obtain VRS rates that better reflect actual expenses of VRS providers.
        23. Under § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E) and (H) of the Commission's rules, the Fund administrator is required to file the Fund payment formulas and revenue requirements for VRS with the Commission on May 1 of each year, to be effective the following July 1. However, on April 30, 2012, the Bureau waived the Fund administrator's obligation to file proposed rates and revenue requirements for VRS for the 2012-13 Fund year by May 1, 2012. In its order adopting rates for the 2012-13 Fund year, the Bureau indicated that the current interim rates for VRS would remain in place pending the Commission's completion of the current proceeding on reforming the structure and practices in the VRS market. In anticipation of the completion of the VRS reform proceeding, or of the current phase thereof, the Commission requested the Fund administrator, RLSA, to submit proposed VRS rates for the remainder of the 2012-13 Fund year. In document DA 12-1644, the Bureau seeks comment on RLSA's proposed VRS compensation rates, as well as on alternative rate methodologies, for the remainder of the 2012-13 Fund year and subsequent years.
        24. The Bureau urges parties that disagree with RLSA's proposed rates to offer specific and detailed alternatives. Further, the Bureau expects parties to focus their comments, to the maximum extent practicable, on publicly available data and to make public the details of their views and arguments, including the specific dollar amounts that they believe the Commission should adopt for specific rates or cost elements.
        RLSA's Rate Proposals
        25. In the 2012 VRS Rate Filing, RLSA presents a proposal for determining how VRS providers are to be compensated by the Fund. Based on its analysis of the cost and demand data received from providers, the Fund administrator states that VRS providers' weighted average actual per-minute costs were $3.5740 for 2010 and $3.1900 for 2011, and that VRS providers' weighted average projected per-minute costs are $3.4313 for 2012. RLSA proposes that rates be based on an average of these three numbers, with appropriate adjustments to reflect rate tiers. Using this proposed methodology, RLSA proposes that cost based rates be phased in over a multi-year time period, with the rates restructured in two tiers instead of the current three tiers. Based on a three-year phase-in, RLSA proposes that rates be set initially for Tiers I and II (up to 500,000 minutes each month) at $5.2877 per minute, and for Tier III (over 500,000 minutes each month) at $4.5099 per minute. RLSA also presents data that reflects several of the categories of compensable and non-compensable costs. The Bureau invites comment on RLSA's proposed rate structure, proposed rates, and cost calculations, including its weighting of individual providers' costs. Commenters who advocate alternative rates to those proposed by RLSA are urged to discuss any resulting changes that will be necessary in the TRS revenue requirement and contribution factor if the rate(s) they advocate are adopted.
        Open Ratemaking Issues

        26. The Commission's determination regarding VRS compensation for the remainder of the 2012-13 Fund year and subsequent years may be affected by how the Commission resolves various ratemaking issues raised in the 2011 VRS Reform FNPRM, the 2011 VRS Rate NPRM, and the 2010 VRS NOI. Therefore, the Bureau invites commenters to refresh the record of CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51 on the following issues that may affect the establishment of a VRS rate for the remainder of the 2012-13 Fund year and subsequent years:
        27. Should the following cost categories, which RLSA has included in its calculation of the proposed rates, be allowable as part of the cost basis for rates:
        • Marketing (calculated by RLSA as $0.0504 (2010), $0.0441 (2011), and 0.0466 (2012) per minute);
        • Outreach (calculated by RLSA as $0.2741 (2010), $0.2606 (2011), and 0.2594 (2012) per minute); and
        • Research and development (calculated by RLSA as $0.0486 (2010), $0.0542 (2011), and $0.0523 (2012) per minute)?
        28. Should the Commission continue to limit the kinds and amount of capital costs that are allowed to be recovered? Thus, RLSA's proposed rate would allow an 11.25% return on invested capital, an element which has long been used as the basis for calculating TRS rates, as well as other common carrier rates, and which previously has been found to address adequately the recovery of interest and principal payments on debt, income taxes, and profits. RLSA calculates the weighted-average-per-minute return on investment, with allowance for taxes, to be $0.0949 per minute in 2010, $0.0778 per minute in 2011, and $0.0594 per minute (projected) in 2012. The Bureau invites commenters to refresh the record on the appropriate treatment of capital costs, rate of return, and related issues. Parties that advocate a particular alternative for treatment of capital costs should specify the type of investment on which they believe providers should be authorized to recover a return, the percentage return that they believe is appropriate in light of current market conditions, an estimate of the dollar amount that their proposed capital cost element would add to proposed VRS rates, and the specific reasons why investment and return should be so defined for purposes of Fund-compensated VRS.
        29. Should the Commission retain, modify, or eliminate the current tiered VRS rate structure?
        30. Should there be a phase-in of the new VRS compensation rate or rates? How long should such a phase-in period last and how should rates be set during such an initial period? For example, should the Commission establish a three-year phase-in period, as RLSA suggests, with equal yearly adjustments to reach the new rate?
        31. How long should the new rate remain in effect? In the 2007 TRS Rate Methodology Order, the Commission determined that VRS and IP Relay compensation rates should be set for a three-year period, subject to certain adjustments. Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, (2007 TRS Rate Methodology Order), CG Docket No. 03-123, published at 73 FR 3197, January 17, 2008. In the 2010 TRS Rate Order, the Commission again adopted a three-year rate for IP Relay, but it adopted a one-year interim rate for VRS. That interim VRS rate, however, was extended in 2011 and 2012. Should the new VRS rate likewise be instituted for a three-year period, or a different period?
        32. As noted above, parties that disagree with RLSA's proposed cost categories or rate tiers, or have views on the timing and duration of the rate, should offer specific and detailed alternatives and should focus their comments, to the maximum extent practicable, on data, views, and arguments that can be made publicly available, including the specific dollar amounts and percentages.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Karen Peltz Strauss,
          Deputy Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2012-26553 Filed 10-26-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 190215127-9273-01]
        RIN 0648-BI73
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Multi-Year Harvest Specifications for the Central Subpopulation of Northern Anchovy

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS issues this proposed rule to revise the annual reference points, including the overfishing limit (OFL), acceptable biological catch (ABC) and annual catch limit (ACL), for the central subpopulation of northern anchovy in the U.S. exclusive economic zone off the Pacific coast under the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). NMFS prepared this rulemaking in response to a January 2018 court decision (Oceana, Inc. v. Ross) that vacated the OFL, ABC, and ACL for the central subpopulation of northern anchovy, followed by subsequent orders requiring NMFS to establish a new OFL, ABC, and ACL through notice and comment rulemaking. NMFS is proposing an OFL of 94,290 metric tons (mt), an ABC of 23,573 mt, and an ACL of 23,573 mt. If the ACL for this stock is reached or projected to be reached, then fishing will be closed until it reopens at the start of the next fishing season. This rule is intended to conserve and manage the central subpopulation of northern anchovy off the U.S. West Coast.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by April 23, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2019-0021 by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0021, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Barry A. Thom, Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 501 W Ocean Blvd., Ste. 420, Long Beach, CA 90802-4250; Attn: Joshua Lindsay.
          • Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joshua Lindsay, West Coast Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4034.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The CPS fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the West Coast is managed under the CPS FMP. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) developed the FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. The six species managed under the CPS FMP are Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, jack mackerel, northern anchovy (northern and central subpopulations), market squid, and krill. The CPS FMP is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 660, subpart I.
        Management unit stocks in the CPS FMP are classified under three management categories: Active, monitored, and prohibited harvest species. Stocks in the active category (Pacific sardine and Pacific mackerel) are managed under catch limits set using regular stock assessments and periodic or annual adjustments of target harvest levels based on those stock assessments. Fisheries for these stocks have biologically significant levels of catch, or biological or socioeconomic considerations requiring this type of relatively intense harvest management procedures. In contrast, stocks in the monitored category (jack mackerel, northern anchovy, and market squid 1
          ), are managed under long-term catch limits and annual qualitative reviews of available abundance data without regular stock assessments or annual adjustments to target harvest levels. Fisheries for monitored stocks do not have biologically significant catch levels and, therefore, do not require intensive harvest management. As a result, monitored stocks have been adequately managed by tracking landings and examining available abundance indices. Species in both categories may be subject to management measures such as catch allocation, gear regulations, closed areas or closed seasons. For example, trip limits and a limited entry permit program apply to all CPS finfish. The prohibited harvest species category is comprised only of krill, which is subject to a complete prohibition on targeting and retention.

            1 Market squid is statutorily exempt from the general requirement to be managed using an ACL because of its short life-cycle.

        In September 2011, NMFS approved Amendment 13 to the CPS FMP, which modified the framework process used to set and adjust fishery specifications and for setting ACLs and accountability measures (AMs). Amendment 13 conformed the CPS FMP with the 2007 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310, which for the first time required ACLs be established for management unit species (with exceptions). Specifically, Amendment 13 maintained the existing reference points and the primary harvest control rules for the monitored stocks (jack mackerel, northern anchovy and market squid), including the large uncertainty buffer built into the ABC control rule for the finfish stocks. Amendment 13 established a management framework under which the OFL for each monitored stock is set equal to its existing maximum sustainable yield (MSY) value, if available, and ABC values are set at 25 percent of OFL, to provide a 75-percent scientific uncertainty buffer. ACLs are then set either equal to or lower than the ABC; annual catch targets (ACTs), if deemed necessary, can be set less than or equal to the ACL, primarily to account for potential management uncertainty.

        Compared to the management framework for stocks in the active category, which uses annual estimates of biomass to calculate annual harvest levels, the ACLs for the monitored finfish stocks are not based on annual estimates of biomass or any single estimate of biomass. As described above, ACLs for monitored finfish are set at the ABC levels, which are no higher than 25 percent of the OFL. OFLs are set equal to estimates of MSY—an estimate that is intended to reflect the largest average fishing mortality rate or yield that can be taken from a stock over the long term if contained in the CPS FMP or set based on a stock specific method if deemed more appropriate. Although the control rules and harvest policies for monitored CPS stocks are simpler than the active category control rules, the inclusion of a large non-discretionary buffer between the OFL and ABC both protects the stock from overfishing and allows for a relatively small sustainable harvest. In recognition of the low fishing effort and landings for these stocks, the Council chose this type of passive management framework for some finfish stocks in the FMP because it has proven sufficient to prevent overfishing while allowing for sustainable annual harvests, even when the year-to-year biomasses of these stocks fluctuate.
        On January 18, 2018, in Oceana v. Ross, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment to Oceana, vacating OFL, ABC, ACL for the central subpopulation of northern anchovy (hereafter, simply “central anchovy”). This ruling, as well as subsequent court rulings require NMFS to re-establish these reference points through a final rule no later than late May. Therefore, NMFS proposes to implement a new OFL, ABC and ACL that would be in effect beginning in the 2019 fishing year and that would remain in place until new scientific information becomes available to warrant changes.
        To determine these new reference points, NMFS reviewed existing data sources, including historical estimates of biomass from the last stock assessment NMFS completed for central anchovy in 1995, as well as more recent NMFS estimates of relative abundance and analyses for determining a new long-term OFL for central anchovy, to use within the FMP's default ABC control rule for monitored stocks. We determined that an OFL and ABC that deviated from the management approach set in the FMP for stocks in the monitored category would be beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

        After this review, NMFS determined that with the limited time to review and analyze complex approaches for setting these reference points, the most appropriate path at this time for setting an OFL for central anchovy in accordance with the FMP is to use an approach similar to the approach used by the Council, and approved by NMFS, for developing reference points for OFL and ABC for the northern subpopulation of northern anchovy (NSNA) in 2010. When the Council developed the OFL and ABC for NSNA a numerical MSY value was not available to set as the OFL. Therefore, instead of basing the OFL on an estimate of MSY, the OFL was calculated by multiplying the average of the only two available biomass estimates by the FMSY (i.e., fishing mortality at MSY) used for Pacific mackerel in the CPS FMP. Pacific mackerel was deemed an appropriate fishing mortality proxy because the life history characteristics of NSNA should allow it to support a fishing rate at least as high as Pacific mackerel while sustaining the population. The established uncertainty buffer of 75 percent was then applied to calculate the ABC for NSNA.
        Consistent with the approach used to set the NSNA reference points, the proposed OFL, ABC, and ACL in this rule are based on averaging three of the available four recent estimates of the relative abundance for central anchovy from NMFS surveys and an estimate of the rate of fishing mortality for central anchovy at MSY.2
           The abundance estimates are from the 2016 and 2018 NMFS acoustic-trawl method (ATM) surveys, which are 151,558 mt and 723,826 mt respectively and the 2017 NMFS daily egg production method (DEPM) survey, which is 308,173 mt. An ATM estimate was also available for 2017. However, NMFS evaluated the 2017 estimate compared to the other ATM estimates, and decided, for this rulemaking, to exclude it from the analysis to generate catch limits. The reason for this was that the ATM survey in the summer of 2017 was focused off the northern portion of the U.S. West Coast as well as the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, and was not designed to sample the complete range of central anchovy. The principle objectives of this survey were to gather data on the northern stock of Pacific sardine, and to some extent, the northern stock of northern anchovy, and therefore the survey chose not to sample south of Morro Bay, California, which is area where central anchovy are typically found.

            2 The calculation uses an EMSY, which is the exploitation rate for deterministic equilibrium MSY.

        The fishing mortality rate estimate is from analysis the SWFSC completed in 2016 as part of an effort examining minimum stock size thresholds for CPS. This analysis used the most current time-series data available for potentially deriving an FMSY which comes from the last model-based stock assessment for central anchovy completed for formal management purposes (Jacobson et al. 1995). This analysis produced estimates of FMSY based on eight alternative models. We have used the average of the four best fitting models from that work to calculate an EMSY of 0.239. The methodology results in a proposed OFL of 94,290 metric tons (mt), an ABC of 23,573 mt, and an ACL of 23,573 mt.
        In determining whether to use the abundance estimates mentioned above, we considered the fact that scientific reviews presented to the Council at its April 2018 meeting stated that because the acoustic estimates cannot be considered absolute estimates of biomass, two things would need to occur before they are used to directly inform management, unless they are used as a data source in an integrated stock assessment model, including: Addressing the area shoreward of the survey that is not sampled, and conducting a management strategy evaluation to determine the appropriate way to incorporate an index of abundance into a harvest control rule. However, because the acoustic estimates represent recent information on the stock and can be considered minimum estimates of the stock size, we are comfortable at this time that using these estimates in a time series to set an OFL will, in combination with reducing the OFL by 75 percent to set the ABC and ACL, prevent overfishing. Therefore, NMFS determined that using these ATM estimates in the manner described above, represent the best available information for determining the proposed reference points in this rule.
        The Council developed, and NMFS approved, the monitored stock management control rules and overfishing specification process as consistent with the best scientific information available. Monitored stock management, including the buffer between the OFL and ABC built into the harvest policy for CPS stocks, appropriately accounts for the various types of scientific uncertainty around the OFL estimate. NMFS has determined that maintaining this approach for the proposed OFL and ABC in this action is sufficient to prevent overfishing for the central anchovy stock. We are proposing that the ACL be set equal to the ABC. Setting a lower ACL or establishing an additional ACT to account for management uncertainty is unnecessary because managers have the ability to track the landings of this fishery and close the fishery if necessary to ensure the ACL is not exceeded.

        The proposed ACL would sufficiently limit harvests of central anchovy on an annual basis and prevent overfishing, as each year the total harvest of the stock will be assessed against the ACL. These reference points would remain in place until changed according to the FMP framework. If the ACL is reached the fishery would be closed until the beginning of the next fishing season. The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator would publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the date of any such closure.

        This action also proposes a minor revision to section § 660.509 to clarify the NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator's authority to close a CPS fishery by announcement in a notice published in the Federal Register, per the CPS FMP, when an ACL is reached. Currently this section describes the Regional Administrator's authority for implementing in-season closures only when a directed fishery allocation or incidental allocation is reached.
        Classification
        NMFS is issuing these proposed regulations under Magnuson-Stevens Act § 305(d), 16 U.S.C. 1855(d).
        Pursuant to the procedures established to implement section 6 of E.O. 12866, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.

        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the RFA (RFA). The IRFA 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 and is not repeated here. The results of the analysis are stated below. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
        The action being implemented through this proposed rule is the establishment of a new OFL, ABC, and ACL for the central anchovy.
        The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are the vessels that harvest central anchovy as part of the West Coast CPS purse seine fleet. The average annual per vessel revenue in 2016 for the West Coast CPS finfish small purse seine fleet, as well as the few vessels that target anchovy off of Oregon and Washington, was below $11 million; therefore, all of these vessels are considered small businesses under the RFA. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed rule is considered to equally affect all of these small entities in the same manner. Therefore, this rule would not create disproportionate costs between small and large vessels/businesses.
        To evaluate whether this proposed rule could potentially reduce the profitability of affected vessels, NMFS compared current and average recent historical landings to the proposed ACL (maximum fishing level for each year). The proposed ACL for central anchovy is 23,573 mt. In 2018, approximately 17,040 mt of central anchovy were landed. The annual average harvest from 2009 to 2018 for central anchovy was 7,020 mt. Central anchovy landings have been well below the proposed ACL in 8 of the past 10 years. Therefore, although the establishment of a new ACL for this stock is considered a new management measure for the fishery, and is lower than the previous ACL level of 25,000 mt, this proposed action should not result in changes in current fishery operations. As a result, it is unlikely that the ACL proposed in this rule will limit the potential profitability to the fleet from catching central anchovy and thus would not impose significant economic impacts.
        The central anchovy fishery is a component of the CPS purse seine fishery off the U.S. West Coast, which generally fishes a complex of species that also includes the fisheries for Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, jack mackerel, and market squid. Currently there are 58 vessels permitted in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California. Annually, 32 of these 58 CPS vessels landed anchovy in recent years.
        CPS finfish vessels typically harvest a number of other species, including Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, and market squid, making the central anchovy fishery only one component of a multi-species CPS fishery. Therefore, the revenue derived from this fishery is only part of determining the overall revenue for a majority of the vessels in the CPS fleet, and the economic impact to the fleet from the proposed action cannot be viewed in isolation. CPS vessels typically rely on multiple species for profitability because abundance of the central anchovy stock, like the other CPS stocks, is highly associated with ocean conditions and seasonality. Variability in ocean conditions and season results in variability in the timing and location of CPS harvest throughout the year. Because each species responds to ocean conditions in its own way, not all CPS stocks are likely to be abundant at the same time. Therefore, as abundance levels and markets fluctuate, the CPS fishery as a whole has relied on a group of species for its annual revenues.
        NMFS reviewed and evaluated other methods and data sources to update the estimate of MSY or develop a new long-term OFL. However, NMFS had limited time to fully review these types of methods; therefore, an alternative such as this was not fully developed. The CPS FMP also states that the ACL is set equal to the ABC or lower if determined necessary to prevent overfishing or for other optimum yield considerations not already build into the ABC control rule. The proposed action sets the ACL equal to the ABC which is the maximum level it can be set; other alternatives for the ACL could only set it lower, creating a higher potential for negative economic impact on the directly affected fishermen. Additionally, the proposed action maintains the management approach set in the FMP for stocks in the monitored category, which dictates how the OFL and ABC can be set, thereby limiting the alternatives for these values.
        Thus, no significant alternatives to this proposed rule exist that would accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statutes while minimizing any significant economic impact of this proposed rule on the affected small entities. However, as stated above, this proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the regulated fishermen.
        This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

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

          Dated: April 2, 2019.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

        2. In § 660.509, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

          § 660.509
           Accountability measures (season closures).
          (a) General rule. When the directed fishery allocation, incidental allocation, annual catch limit is reached for any CPS species, the fishery for that CPS species will be closed until the beginning of the next fishing period or season. The Regional Administrator shall announce in the Federal Register the date of such closure, as well as any incidental harvest level(s) recommended by the Council and approved by NMFS.

         3. In § 660.511, add paragraph (k) to read as follows:

          § 660.511
           Catch restrictions.

          (k) The following ACLs apply to fishing for monitored stocks of CPS finfish:
          (1) Northern Anchovy (Central Subpopulation): 23,573 mt.
          (2) [Reserved]

      [FR Doc. 2019-06790 Filed 4-5-19; 8:45 a.m.]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P