        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 020412085-2085-01; I.D. 022102B]
        RIN 0648-AP66
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Electronic Reporting Requirements

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues a proposed rule to amend regulations governing the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (Observer program).  This action is necessary to refine requirements for the facilitation of observer data transmission and improve support for observers.  The proposed rule is intended to ensure continued timely transmission of high-quality observer data to support the management objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (BSAI) and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (groundfish FMPs) for those industry sectors already subject to such requirements.  It would improve the timely transmission of high-quality observer data for a sector of catcher vessels in these fisheries.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule must be received by  August 26, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments should be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK  99802, Attn: Lori Gravel, or delivered to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK.  Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for this proposed regulatory action may be obtained from the same address.  Send comments on information collection requests to NMFS and to OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC  20503 (Attn: NOAA Desk Officer).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Bridget Mansfield, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management areas in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) under the groundfish FMPs.  The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  Regulations at 50 CFR part 679 implement the FMPs.  General regulations that also pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.  Regulations implementing the interim Observer Program were published November 1, 1996 (61 FR 56425), amended December 30, 1997 (62  FR 67755) and December 15, 1998 (63 FR 69024), and extended through 2002 under a final rule published December 21, 2000 (65 FR 80381).  The Observer Program provides for the collection of observer data necessary to manage the Alaska groundfish fisheries by providing information on total catch estimation, discard, prohibited species catch (PSC) and biological samples that are used for stock assessment purposes.  The observers also provide information related to compliance with regulatory requirements.
        The regulations implementing the Observer Program at § 679.50 require observer coverage aboard fishing vessels and shoreside processors that participate in the Alaska groundfish fisheries.  Timely communication between the fishing industry and NMFS through catch reports submitted to NMFS by both industry and observers is crucial to the effective in-season monitoring of the groundfish quotas and PSC allowances.  At its June 1995 meeting, the Council recommended that NMFS issue regulations that would require all catcher/processors, motherships, and shoreside processors that process groundfish to have computer hardware and software that would enable observers to send electronic data to NMFS.  Catcher/processors and motherships were recommended to have satellite communications technology to allow transmission of the data from the vessel.
        Regulations requiring electronic submission of observer reports were implemented in 1995 at § 679.50(f) for catcher/processors, motherships and shoreside processors through the application of an observer communications system (OCS), previously referred to as the “ATLAS” system.  This system is composed of specified electronic hardware supplied by the vessel or shoreside processor and dedicated software provided by NMFS that together allow observers to communicate daily with NMFS, including transmitting data.  This permits real-time data processing, improves timeliness of making data available to managers, and allows managers to assess daily activities of the fishing fleet.  These data have led to fishery closures that more accurately reflect actual catch levels and facilitate conservation and optimal management of this valuable living marine resource.
        In a letter dated February 7, 2000, NMFS informed the Council that the agency intended to initiate rulemaking that would implement upgrades in the specifications for required hardware and software that support the OCS, and would extend these requirements to some catcher vessels.  At its February 2000 meeting, the Council noted its support for this initiative.
        NMFS proposes to require operations already subject to OCS requirements to adopt hardware upgrades to meet current technology standards necessary to support the OCS software and to require hardware installed in vessels to be maintained in a functional mode.  NMFS further proposes to exclude some catcher vessels from the requirements, thereby amending an error in the final rule implementing the 1995 OCS requirements, which erroneously included all catcher vessels.  This proposed rule would, however, require all catcher vessels required to carry observers during 100 percent of their fishing days to comply with the regulations at § 679.50(f) governing the installation and maintenance of necessary equipment supporting the OCS system.

          Hardware Upgrades. Current regulations stipulate that any vessel required to carry one or more observers must facilitate transmission of observer data to NMFS by providing equipment consisting of a computer and communications equipment that meet certain specifications.  Hardware requirements specified in these regulations to support OCS were considered state of the art at the time they were implemented in 1995.  Computer technology has advanced at a rapid rate since then.  As a result, the current minimum hardware requirements are technologically out of date and are difficult to maintain or even obtain.  The OCS software application developed by NMFS to effect at-sea communication with observers has been updated recently to be more effective and now requires more powerful computers on which to run.  Requiring the updated hardware is necessary to meet current technology standards.
        Included in this hardware update is a requirement that allowable communications equipment provide point-to-point communications, which is a necessary function to support all of the operations that OCS requires.  A point-to-point communications system allows the computer with OCS software to connect directly to the NMFS host computer and modem.  Point-to-point communication connections would allow direct confidential communication between NMFS and observers, which has been shown to be necessary for effective problem solving in various at-sea situations.  Examples of communication systems that provide point to point communications are INMARSAT Standard-A, Standard-B, mini-M, and Iridium.  Vessels using INMARSAT Standard C terminals and associated software to transmit data, which are allowed under current regulations, do not provide point-to-point communication connections and would not meet the hardware requirement proposed in this rule.  The inability of INMARSAT Standard C to allow observers and NMFS to maintain secure communications without interfacing with vessel personnel is of particular concern.

          Functionality. Current regulations requiring the communications equipment aboard vessels to support OCS do not require that the hardware be functional.  The equipment would be considered functional when specified equipment aboard a vessel can initiate a data transmission to a device, such as a satellite, that provides a point-to-point communication connection with minimum specifications outlined in the regulations.  The vessel would not be responsible for ensuring the actual reception of the data by the satellite or other device.  Regulations for shoreside processor communication equipment do require the equipment to be maintained in a functional mode.
        The inadvertent omission of an equipment functionality requirement for vessels has resulted in NMFS’ lack of ability to receive electronic observer data from up to nine catcher processors (approximately 10 percent of all catcher processors required to have this equipment) that have not properly installed or maintained the communications equipment.  Additionally, other vessels have taken up to 7 months to repair or complete initial installation of functional equipment.  This has compromised in-season monitoring of harvest quotas and has resulted in or contributed to events leading to quotas being exceeded.  Therefore, NMFS proposes to amend the regulations to require that equipment be functional.

          Catcher Vessels Requirements. Current regulations stipulate that any vessel required to carry one or more observers must facilitate transmission of observer data to NMFS by providing equipment meeting specifications outlined by regulations cited above.  The original intent of the regulations was to apply these requirements to all catcher/processors, motherships, and shoreside processors subject to observer coverage requirements.  Catcher-only vessels were not intended to be included in these requirements.  The proposed rule for implementing these regulations (60 FR 45393, August 31, 1995) and the preamble to the final rule (61 FR 63759, December 2, 1996) correctly reflect the original intent to restrict the requirements to catcher/processor vessels, motherships, and shoreside processors.  However, the regulatory language in the final rule incorrectly extends the regulations to all vessels subject to observer coverage, including all catcher vessels.  This proposed rule would correct that error by amending the requirement so that it would not include indiscriminately all catcher vessels but would require all catcher vessels that are required to maintain 100-percent observer coverage as specified in regulations at § 679.50(c)(1)(iv) to install and maintain hardware and software supporting the OCS communications system as amended in this proposed rule.
        Prior to 2000, all shoreside harvest data from processors were faxed to NMFS in a weekly production report.  Weekly submission of these reports roughly matched the availability of observer data from shoreside processors.  In 2000, an electronic reporting system (distinct from OCS) was implemented to replace the weekly production report.  Daily electronic reports from shoreside processors of shoreside deliveries provide NMFS with landings information within one day of a delivery.  This allows for partial real-time management of the groundfish species such as pollock that are specifically allocated to the inshore sector or of harvest restrictions specific to catcher vessels under the American Fisheries Act sideboard provisions.  However, availability to NMFS of observer PSC and discard data for a given delivery does not match the timeliness of the landings data.
        The necessary timely monitoring for in-season management of PSC and discard data is not possible under the observer data reporting system currently used by catcher vessels delivering to inshore processors.  Shoreside catcher vessel observers opportunistically transmit data via fax to NMFS from a shoreside processor, which can be between 5 and 14 days after a given haul is made.  This delay is caused in part by the fact that an observer usually must return to sea immediately upon completion of the delivery, leaving no time for the observer to compile data into a format appropriate for fax transmission to NMFS, most often several hours worth of work.  Once received by NMFS, the faxed data subsequently must be hand entered into an electronic database, further delaying the availability to in-season managers.  Even if a catcher vessel observer had time available for data compilation and transmission from the shoreside processor, logistical problems remain.  Shoreside processors do support OCS communication systems for transmission of observer data.  However, OCS software on these systems is designed specifically for shoreside processor applications and does not support observer data collected at sea.  While the shoreside system could be adapted to support data collected by vessel observers, other logistical problems prevent reliable use of these systems by catcher vessel observers.  These difficulties include vessel observers having to return to sea prior to data input and transmission via the OCS communications system, as well as the lack of reliance on access to shoreside computers and communications equipment that support the OCS system.  Offices that house this equipment at the shoreside processors generally are not open 24 hours a day, while deliveries may be completed at any time during the day.
        Installation of OCS software, in combination with point-to-point modem communication capability aboard shoreside catcher vessels would allow daily electronic transmission of catch data.  This would provide NMFS with observer data from catcher vessels within 24 hours of receiving their delivery reports from the shoreside processor.  At-sea discards and PSC could then be accounted for together with the landings data in real-time for each OCS-equipped vessel.  Such real-time, in-season management would be expected to result in fisheries closures that better approximate actual quotas.
        Additionally, observer data quality problems can have a significant impact on PSC estimates and fishery closure projections.  Resulting management errors can include early closure of a fishery, which results in direct lost revenue to the fleet, or over-harvest of a PSC fishery allowance, which can impact other fisheries as the total annual PSC limit is reached.
        The OCS program provides several advantages and improvements to NMFS’ current management systems which result in higher quality data.  These include:
        Improved data recording efficiency.  Observers using OCS initially record data on deck forms.  These data are then entered into the vessel's computer and sent electronically to NMFS.  Data received by NMFS are automatically screened for errors and may be accessed by users in a database in a timely manner.  Without OCS, data are transcribed from deck forms to paper and faxed to NMFS for subsequent electronic entry.  Less paperwork provides observers with more time to dedicate to sampling.
        Consistent, secure communications with observer program staff and a reduction in the overall frequency of errors.  OCS communications allow NMFS to assign to each deployed observer an in-season advisor who screens data for errors and advises the observer throughout their deployment, resulting in improved observer performance and a reduction in errors.  The quality of timely data available for in-season management decisions is thus greatly improved.
        Faster, more efficient, and higher quality debriefing.  The OCS application automatically screens out many potential data errors at the point of entry.  These data are further screened by the in-season advisor, and all data are again screened by computer programs and corrected at the point of debriefing.  These processes eliminate hand checking of paper data forms, further reducing debriefing time and allowing for faster availability of the final data.
        Installation and maintenance of OCS aboard catcher vessels requiring 100-percent observer coverage would eliminate 1,100 faxed observer reports and the associated processing per year.  Availability of timely data on PSC by this sector of the fleet, which is largely made up of American Fisheries Act-qualified catcher vessels that are members of inshore cooperatives, would improve in-season management of the BSAI pollock and Pacific cod trawl fisheries.  In the BSAI pollock trawl fishery, salmon and herring PSC are of concern, and in the BSAI Pacific cod trawl fishery, halibut bycatch is of concern.  Although the few Pacific cod trawl fishery closures that have occurred since 1998 have been based primarily on TACs being reached, prior to 1998, BSAI Pacific cod trawl fishery closures were based on halibut bycatch allowances being caught before the TAC was reached.  Improved timeliness of PSC data transmission would allow NMFS resources to be reallocated to processing faxed data received from observers aboard vessels that are subject to 30-percent coverage requirements.  Overall, this would result in the expedited availability to managers and improved quality of all in-season data from all catcher vessels in the BSAI and the Gulf of Alaska (GOA).  This timely information is also of benefit to industry through access via NMFS web sites.  Fleets coordinate their activity to avoid bycatch hot spots, reducing costly PSC closures.  This can only work where rapid access to the information is available.

        Additional need for more timely harvest data from catcher vessels comes from management measures implemented to temporally and spatially disperse some groundfish fisheries in near shore areas of the EEZ off Alaska (67 FR 956, January 8, 2002).  These measures were developed in response to a Biological Opinion initiated as part of a formal consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act on the impact of federally managed groundfish fisheries on endangered Steller sea lions in Alaska.  The measures involve some time-area restrictions for the pollock, Pacific cod and Atka mackerel fisheries including harvest limits in Steller sea lion critical habitat.  To ensure compliance with these measures, levels of groundfish harvest must be monitored on a real-time basis.
        Catcher vessels delivering to catcher/processors and motherships deliver unsorted codends with no fish retained aboard the catcher vessel.  They, therefore, require no observer coverage.  These catcher vessels would not be required to install and maintain the OCS on board.  Catcher vessels greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA fishing for groundfish using pot gear are subject to 30-percent observer coverage during a calendar quarter and would therefore be unaffected by this proposed rule.

          Shoreside Processor Requirements. Shoreside processor responsibilities are clarified.  Specifically, all shoreside processors required to maintain observer coverage at any time during the year are also required to install and maintain electronic reporting equipment—hardware and software—as specified in the rule.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        NMFS prepared an RIR/IRFA, which describes the impact this proposed rule would have on small entities, if adopted.
        An estimated five to 10 catcher/processors or motherships vessels would be required to upgrade their computers to meet the requirements in this proposed rule.  Current market prices for a reliable computer at this level are about $800.  An estimated 22 vessels would be required to upgrade their communications systems from INMARSAT Standard C communications hardware and would have to choose between Standard B hardware at about $20,000 per unit, Mini-M hardware at about $4,500, or Iridium at $2,200.  The initial investment from all catcher processors and motherships required by these proposed requirements would be approximately $56,000, with annual maintenance and data transmission savings of $1,000.  These savings relate to aggregate maintenance and data transmission costs for the catcher/processor or mothership class of vessels.  The net savings of about $1,000 represent aggregate data transmission savings of about $2,263 minus aggregate additional annual maintenance costs of about $1,208.
        Of the 27 shoreside processors that would be subject to requirements in this proposed rule, 15 are estimated to already be capable of using the new system.  Eleven of the remaining shoreside processors need to install both the computer and the communications system; one shoreside processor needs to upgrade its computer.  The initial investment from this sector as a whole would be approximately $34,000, with little change in annual maintenance and data transmission costs.
        Assuming that none of the 31 catcher vessels required to carry an observer for 100 percent of their fishing days have installed the necessary communications equipment, but that approximately 30 percent of them have computers compatible with OCS specifications, the initial investment from this sector as a whole would be approximately $86,000, with annual maintenance and data transmission costs of about $19,000.
        Catcher vessels requiring 30-percent observer coverage that deliver to shoreside processors would not be required by this proposed rule to install and maintain hardware and software needed to support the OCS.  Although catcher vessels are not covered, had they been included in these requirements, the estimated initial investment from this sector as a whole would have been approximately $311,000, with annual maintenance and data transmission costs of $9,000.  The $9,000 cost figure would have represented the aggregate cost for maintenance on catcher vessels requiring 30-percent observer coverage.  Because the proposed rule does not apply to such catcher vessels, these costs are not incurred.
        However, the benefits of real-time data reporting that the OCS would afford are significant.  More timely availability of halibut PSC data from the GOA deep and shallow trawl complexes, as well as from the GOA Pacific cod hook-and-line gear fishery, is needed to improve the accuracy of those fisheries’ closures.  Catcher vessels subject to 30-percent observer coverage requirements are a considerable component of the fleets in these fisheries.  Closures in the flatfish trawl fisheries in the GOA are based entirely on halibut caps being reached, and the lack of timely halibut bycatch data is a significant contributor to GOA trawl halibut mortality caps being frequently exceeded.  The GOA Pacific cod hook-and-line gear fishery closures have been based on halibut caps, but those caps are often reached nearly concurrently with the TAC.  However, availability of observer halibut bycatch data in this fishery is critical, because a significant portion of this fleet is less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA, and therefore not subject to any observer coverage.
        NMFS is seeking to eventually fully implement electronic reporting of observer data fleet-wide for those operations subject to observer coverage requirements in a practicable manner.  Methods to implement this will be considered in the next few years.   Options for consideration will include equipping observers with their own laptop computers or other electronic devices capable of supporting the OCS software, as well as options for linking the observer OCS with electronic logbook reporting requirements that are currently being considered for fleet-wide implementation.  NMFS is specifically seeking comments on this issue.
        An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was conducted in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
        In the IRFA, the proposed alternatives could affect the following estimated numbers of small regulated entities: 38 small catcher/processors, no motherships, 5 processing plants, 31 catcher vessels with 100-percent observer coverage, 389 catcher vessels with 30-percent observer coverage, and 6 community development quota groups representing 65 western Alaska communities.  The preferred alternative, Alternative C, would affect 38 small catcher/processors, no motherships, 5 processing plants, 31 catcher vessels with 100-percent observer coverage, and no catcher vessels with 30-percent observer coverage.
        Under the preferred alternative (Alt. C), small catcher/processors would incur average investment expenses equal, on average, to about 0.2 percent of one year’s gross revenues, and no additional annual operating expenses.  Small catcher vessels required to have 100-percent coverage would incur average investment expenses equal, on average, to about 0.3 percent of one year’s gross revenues and average annual expenditures equal to about 0.1 percent of a year’s gross revenues.  Small shoreside processors would incur average investment expenses equal to about 0.1 percent of annual gross revenues, and no significant additional expenses.  The CDQ groups would be affected by the investments and joint ventures in catcher/processors, catcher vessels, and shoreside plants.  The impacts on these entities were described above.

        The RFA requires that the IRFA describe significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statutes and minimize any impact on small entities.  The IRFA must discuss significant alternatives to the proposed rule such as (1) establishing different reporting requirements for small entities that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) consolidating or simplifying reporting requirements; (3) using performance rather than design standards; and (4) allowing exemptions from coverage for small entities.
        An additional alternative that would have further reduced the burden on small entities was considered for implementation but was rejected.  This alternative would have increased data entry staff at NMFS to ensure speedier input of faxed data into the electronic database for availability to in-season managers. However, this alternative would not sufficiently address the timeliness of data availability and could not match the inherent data quality control of the OCS.

        Additionally, the overall implementation of the Interim Observer Program includes measures that minimize the significant economic impacts of observer coverage requirements on at least some small entities.  Vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA are not required to carry an observer while fishing for groundfish.  Similarly, vessels 60 ft (18.3 m) and longer, but less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA, have lower levels of observer coverage than those 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA and above.  These requirements, which have been incorporated into the requirements of the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program since its inception in 1989, effectively mitigate the economic impacts on some small entities without significantly adversely affecting the implementation of the conservation and management responsibilities under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.  The collection of this information has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget, OMB Control Number 0648-0318.

        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.  Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR part 679

        Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: July 19, 2002.
          Rebecca Lent
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

          1.  The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.

          2.  In § 679.50, paragraphs (f)(1)(iii)(A), (f)(1)(iii)(B), (f)(1)(iii)(C), (f)(2) introductory text, (f)(2)(iii)(B), and (f)(2)(iii)(C) are revised and paragraph (f)(3) is added to read as follows:

            § 679.50
            Groundfish Observer Program applicable through December 31, 2002.

            (f) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (iii) * * *
            (A) Observer use of equipment. Allowing NMFS-certified observers to use the vessel’s communications equipment and personnel, on request, for the confidential entry, transmission, and receipt of work-related messages, at no cost to the NMFS-certified observers or the nation.
            (B) Communication equipment requirements. In the case of an operator of a catcher/processor or mothership that is required to carry one or more observers, or a catcher vessel required to carry an observer as specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section:
            (1) Hardware and software. Making available for use by the observer a personal computer in working condition that contains a full Pentium 120 Mhz or greater capacity processing chip, at least 32 megabytes of RAM, at least 75 megabytes of free hard disk storage, a Windows 9x or NT compatible operating system, an operating mouse, and a 3.5-inch (8.9 cm) floppy disk drive.  The associated computer monitor must have a viewable screen size of at least 14.1 inches (35.8 cm) and minimum display settings of 600 x 800 pixels.  The computer equipment specified in paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(B) of this section must be connected to a communication device that provides a point-to-point modem connection to the NMFS host computer and supports one or more of the following protocols: ITU V.22, ITU V.22bis, ITU V.32, ITU V.32bis, or ITU V.34.  Processors utilizing a modem  must have at least a 28.8kbs Hayes-compatible modem.
            (2) NMFS-Supplied software. Ensuring that the catcher/processor, mothership, or catcher vessel specified in paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(B) of this section obtains and has installed the data entry software provided by the Regional Administrator for use by the observer.
            (C) Functional and operational equipment. Ensuring that the communications equipment required at paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(B) of this section, and that is used by observers to enter and transmit data, is fully functional and operational, where “functional” means that data transmissions to NMFS can be initiated effectively aboard the vessel by such communications equipment.

            (2) Shoreside processor responsibilities. A manager of a shoreside processor that is required to maintain observer coverage as specified under (d) of this section must:
            (iii) * * *
            (B) Communication equipment requirements—(1) Hardware and software. Making available for use by the observer a personal computer, in working condition, with a full Pentium 120 Mhz or greater capacity processing chip, at least 32 megabytes of RAM, at least 75 megabytes of free hard disk storage, a Windows 9x or NT compatible operating system, an operating mouse, and a 3.5-inch (8.9 cm) floppy disk drive.  The associated computer monitor must have a viewable screen size of at least 14.1 inches (35.8 cm) and minimum display settings of 600 x 800 pixels.  The computer equipment specified in this paragraph must be connected to a communication device that provides a point-to-point modem connection to the NMFS host computer and supports one or more of the following protocols: ITU V.22, ITU V.22bis, ITU V.32, ITU V.32bis, or ITU V.34.  Processors utilizing a modem must have at least a 28.8kbs Hayes-compatible modem.
            (2) NMFS-supplied software. Ensuring that the shoreside processor obtains and installs the data entry software provided by the Regional Administrator for use by the observer.
            (C) Functional and operational equipment. Ensuring that the communications equipment required at paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(B) of this section and that is used by observers to enter and transmit data, is fully functional and operational, where functional means that data transmissions to NMFS can be initiated effectively by that equipment.

            (3) The owner of a vessel, shoreside processor, or buying station is responsible for compliance and must ensure that the operator or manager of a vessel or shoreside processor required to maintain observer coverage under paragraphs (c) or (d) of this section complies with the requirements given in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section.

      [FR Doc. 02-18862 Filed 7-24-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 141219999-5174-01]
        RIN 0648-BE74
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2015 Tribal Fishery for Pacific Whiting

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues this proposed rule for the 2015 Pacific whiting fishery under the authority of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the Pacific Whiting Act of 2006. This proposed rule would allocate 17.5% of the U.S. Total Allowable Catch of Pacific whiting for 2015 to Pacific Coast Indian tribes that have a Treaty right to harvest groundfish, and would revise the regulation authorizing NMFS to reapportion unused allocation from the tribal allocation to the non-tribal sectors earlier in the fishing season.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule must be received no later than April 9, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0017, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= NOAA-NMFS-2015-0017, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070, Attn: Miako Ushio.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Miako Ushio (West Coast Region, NMFS), phone: 206-526-4644, and email: miako.ushio@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access

        This proposed rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register Web site at https://www.federalregister.gov. Background information and documents are available at the NMFS West Coast Region Web site at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/management/whiting/pacific_whiting.html and at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Web site athttp://www.pcouncil.org/.
        Background
        The regulations at 50 CFR 660.50(d) establish the process by which the tribes with treaty fishing rights in the area covered by the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) request new allocations or regulations specific to the tribes, in writing, during the biennial harvest specifications and management measures process. The regulations state that “the Secretary will develop tribal allocations and regulations under this paragraph in consultation with the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with tribal consensus.” The procedures NOAA employs in implementing tribal treaty rights under the FMP, were designed to provide a framework process by which NOAA Fisheries can accommodate tribal treaty rights by setting aside appropriate amounts of fish in conjunction with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) process for determining harvest specifications and management measures.
        Since the FMP has been in place, NMFS has been allocating a portion of the U.S. total allowable catch (TAC) (called Optimum Yield (OY) or Annual Catch Limit (ACL) prior to 2012) of Pacific whiting to the tribal fishery, following the process established in 50 CFR 660.50(d). The tribal allocation is subtracted from the U.S. Pacific whiting TAC before allocation to the non-tribal sectors.
        There are four tribes that can participate in the tribal whiting fishery: The Hoh, Makah, Quileute, and Quinault. The Hoh tribe has not expressed an interest in participating to date. The Quileute Tribe and Quinault Indian Nation have expressed interest in commencing participation in the whiting fishery. However, to date, only the Makah Tribe has prosecuted a tribal fishery for Pacific whiting. They have harvested whiting every year since 1996 using midwater trawl gear. Tribal allocations have been based on discussions with the tribes regarding their intent for those fishing years. Table 1 below provides a history of U.S. OYs and annual tribal allocation in metric tons (mt).

          Table 1—U.S. Optimum Yields (OYs) and Annual Tribal Allocation in Metric Tons (mt)

            Year
            U.S. OY
            Tribalallocation

            2005
            269,069 mt
            35,000 mt.

            2006
            269,069 mt
            32,500 mt.

            2007
            242,591 mt
            35,000 mt.

            2008
            269,545 mt
            35,000 mt.

            2009
            135,939 mt
            50,000 mt.

            2010
            193,935 mt
            49,939 mt.

            2011
            290,903 mt
            66,908 mt.

            2012
            186,037 mt TAC 1

            48,556 mt.

            2013
            269,745 mt TAC
            63,205 mt.

            2014
            316,206 mt TAC
            55,336 mt.

            1 Beginning in 2012, the United States started using the term Total Allowable Catch, based on the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on Pacific Hake/Whiting.

        In 2009, NMFS, the states of Washington and Oregon, and the Treaty tribes started a process to determine the long-term tribal allocation for Pacific whiting; however, no long-term allocation has been determined. In order to ensure Treaty tribes continue to receive allocations, this rulemaking proposes the 2015 tribal allocation of Pacific whiting. This is an interim allocation not intended to set precedent for future allocations.
        Tribal Allocation for 2015
        In exchanges between NMFS and the tribes during December of 2014, the Makah tribe indicated their intent to participate in the tribal whiting fishery in 2015. The Makah tribe has requested 17.5% of the U.S. TAC. The Quileute tribe and the Quinault Indian Nation indicated that they are not planning to participate in 2015. NMFS proposes a tribal allocation that accommodates the Makah request, specifically 17.5% of the U.S. TAC. NMFS believes that the current scientific information regarding the distribution and abundance of the coastal Pacific whiting stock suggests that the 17.5% is within the range of the tribal treaty right to Pacific whiting.
        The Joint Management Committee (JMC), which was established pursuant to the Agreement between the United States and Canada on Pacific Hake/Whiting (the Agreement), is anticipated to recommend the coastwide and corresponding U.S./Canada TACs no later than March 25, 2015. The U.S. TAC is 73.88% of the coastwide TAC. Until this TAC is set, NMFS cannot propose a specific amount for the tribal allocation. The whiting fishery typically begins in May, and the final rule establishing the whiting specifications for 2015 is anticipated to be published by early May. Therefore, in order to provide for public input on the tribal allocation, NMFS is issuing this proposed rule without the final 2015 TAC. However, to provide a basis for public input, NMFS is describing a range of potential tribal allocations in this proposed rule, applying the proposed approach to determining the tribal allocation to a range of potential TACs derived from historical experience.
        In order to project a range of potential tribal allocations for 2015, NMFS is applying its proposed approach to determining the tribal allocation to the range of U.S. TACs over the last 10 years, 2005 through 2014 (plus or minus 25% to capture variability in stock abundance). The range of TACs in that time period was 135,939 mt (2009) to 316,206 mt (2014). Applying the 25% variability results in a range of potential TACs of 101,954 mt to 395,258 mt for 2015. Therefore, using the proposed allocation rate of 17.5%, the potential range of the tribal allocation for 2015 would be between 17,842 and 69,170 mt.

        This proposed rule would also modify the regulatory mechanism whereby NMFS may, upon determining based on discussion with the participating tribes and consideration of available catch information that some portion of the tribal allocation will not be used during the fishing year, reapportion that part to the non-tribal sectors of the whiting fishery. Currently, regulations at 50 CFR 660.131(h) call for reapportionment to occur on September 15 or as soon as practicable thereafter. NMFS has reapportioned Pacific whiting from the tribal sector to the non-tribal sectors in four of the past five years, after consultation with the participating (Makah) tribe to ensure such reapportionments will not limit tribal harvest opportunities. The timing of reapportionment in the regulation was intended to allow for the tribal fishery to proceed to the point where it could determine whether the full allocation was likely to be used, while providing time for the non-treaty sectors to catch the reallocated fish prior to the onset of winter weather conditions. In some years, the participating tribes may determine prior to September 15 that they will not use a portion of the tribal allocation. In late 2014, representatives of the Makah expressed an interest in possibly supporting earlier reapportionments to be used in situations such as this, and NMFS proposes amending regulations via this rulemaking to allow for that possibility.

        This proposed rule would be implemented under authority of Section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which gives the Secretary responsibility to “carry out any fishery management plan or amendment approved or prepared by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” With this proposed rule, NMFS, acting on behalf of the Secretary, would ensure that the FMP is implemented in a manner consistent with treaty rights of four Northwest tribes to fish in their “usual and accustomed grounds and stations” in common with non-tribal citizens. United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 313 (W.D. 1974).
        Classification
        NMFS has preliminarily determined that the management measures for the 2015 Pacific whiting tribal fishery are consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. In making the final determination, NMFS will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
        The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        As required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS.
        Under the RFA, the term “small entities” includes small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. This rulemaking affects vessels engaged in small businesses. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S., including fish harvesting and fish processing businesses. A business involved in fish harvesting is a small business if it is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and if it has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide (79 FR 33647). For marinas and charter/party boats, a small business is defined as one with annual receipts, not in excess of $7.5 million. For purposes of rulemaking, NMFS is also applying the $20.5 million standard to catcher processors (C/Ps) because whiting C/Ps are involved in the commercial harvest of finfish. A seafood processor is a small business if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and employs 500 or fewer persons on a full time, part time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide. A wholesale business servicing the fishing industry is a small business if it employs 100 or fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide.

          Small organizations. The RFA defines small organizations as any nonprofit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

          Small governmental jurisdictions. The RFA defines small governmental jurisdictions as governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than 50,000.
        This proposed rule would allocate 17.5% of the U.S. Total Allowable Catch of Pacific whiting for 2015 to Pacific Coast Indian tribes that have a Treaty right to harvest groundfish. This allocation rule was used for the 2014 fishery. The entities that this rulemaking directly impacts are the Makah Tribe, and the following in the non-tribal fisheries: Quota share (QS) holders in the Shorebased IFQ Program—Trawl Fishery; vessels in the Mothership Coop (MS) Program—Whiting At-sea Trawl Fishery; and the Catcher/Processor (C/P) Coop Whiting At-sea Trawl Fishery. These entities determine how much of their allocations are to be actually fished and what vessels are allowed to fish their allocations. This rulemaking proposes to allocate fish to the Makah Tribe. Based on groundfish ex-vessel revenues and on tribal enrollments (the population size of each tribe), the Makah Tribe is considered a small entity.
        Currently, the Shorebased IFQ Program is composed of 149 Quota Share permits/accounts, 152 vessel accounts, and 43 first receivers. The MS fishery is currently composed of a single coop, with six mothership processor permits, and 34 Mothership/Catcher-Vessel (MS/CV) endorsed permits, with three permits each having two catch history assignments. The C/P Program is composed of 10 C/P permits owned by three companies that have formed a single coop.
        Many companies participate in two sectors and some participate in all three sectors. All of the 34 mothership catch history assignments are associated with a single mothership coop and all ten of the catcher-processor permits are associated with a coop. These coops are considered large entities from several perspectives; they have participants that are large entities, whiting coop revenues exceed or have exceeded the $20.5 million, or coop members are connected to American Fishing Act permits or coops where the NMFS Alaska Region has determined they are all large entities (79 FR 54597; September 12, 2014). After accounting for cross participation, multiple QS account holders, and affiliation through ownership, NMFS estimates that there are 103 non-tribal entities directly affected by these proposed regulations, 89 of which are considered “small” businesses.

        For the years 2010 to 2014, the total whiting fishery (tribal and non-tribal) averaged harvests of approximately 183,000 mt annually, worth over $43 million in ex-vessel revenues. As the U.S. whiting TAC has been highly variable during this time, so have harvests. In the past five years, harvests have ranged from 160,000 mt (2012) to 264,000 mt (2014). Ex-vessel revenues have also varied. Annual ex-vessel revenues have ranged from $30 million (2010) to $65 million (2013). Total whiting harvest in 2013 was approximately 233,000 mt worth $65 million, at an ex-vessel price of $280 per mt. Ex-vessel revenues in 2014 were over $64 million with a harvest of 264,000 tons and ex-vessel price of $240 per mt. The prices for whiting are largely determined by the world market for groundfish, because most of the whiting harvested is exported. Note that the use of ex-vessel values does not take into account the wholesale or export value of the fishery or the costs of harvesting and processing whiting into a finished product. NMFS does not have sufficient information to make a complete assessment of these values.
        The Pacific whiting fishery harvests almost exclusively Pacific whiting. While bycatch of other species occurs, the fishery is constrained by bycatch limits on key overfished species. This is a high-volume fishery with low ex-vessel prices per pound. This fishery also has seasonal aspects based on the distribution of whiting off the west coast.
        Since 1996, there has been a tribal allocation of the U.S. whiting TAC. Tribal fisheries undertake a mixture of fishing activities that are similar to the activities that non-tribal fisheries undertake. Tribal harvests have been delivered to both shoreside plants and at-sea processors. These processing facilities also process fish harvested by non-tribal fisheries.
        This proposed rule would allocate 17.5% of Pacific whiting to the tribal fishery, and would ultimately determine how much is left for allocation to the non-tribal sectors, which are the Shorebased IFQ Program—Trawl Fishery; Mothership Coop (MS) Program—Whiting At-sea Trawl Fishery; and C/P Coop Program—Whiting At-sea Trawl Fishery. The amount of whiting allocated to both the tribal and non-tribal sectors is based on the U.S. TAC. From the U.S. TAC, small amounts of whiting that account for research catch and for bycatch in other fisheries are deducted. The amount of the tribal allocation is also deducted directly from the TAC. After accounting for these deductions, the remainder is the commercial harvest guideline. This guideline is then allocated among the three non-tribal sectors as follows: 34 percent for the C/P Coop Program; 24 percent for the MS Coop Program; and 42 percent for the Shorebased IFQ Program.
        The effect of the tribal allocation on non-tribal fisheries will depend on the level of tribal harvests relative to their allocation and the reapportioning process. Total whiting harvest in 2014 was approximately 264,000 mt worth $64 million, at an ex-vessel price of $240 per mt. Assuming a similar harvest level and ex-vessel price in 2015, if the tribe were to harvest 17.5%, the approximate value of that harvest would be $11 million. If the tribes do not harvest their entire allocation, there are opportunities during the year to reapportion unharvested tribal amounts to the non-tribal fleets. For example, last year, NMFS executed two such reapportionments. In the first reapportionment, the best available information through September 12, 2014 indicated that at least 25,000 mt of the tribal allocation would not be harvested by December 31, 2014. To allow for full utilization the resource, NMFS reapportioned 25,000 mt to the shorebased IFQ Program, C/P Coop and MS Coop in proportion to each sector's original allocation on September 12, 2014. Reapportioning this amount was expected to allow for greater attainment of the OY while not limiting tribal harvest opportunities for the remainder of the year. Subsequently, the C/P Coop, MS Coop, and Shorebased IFQ sectors expressed an interest in additional harvest of Pacific whiting via written notice to NMFS.
        In the second reapportionment, the best available information on October 22, 2014, indicated that an additional 20,000 mt of the tribal allocation would not be harvested by December 31, 2014. To allow for full utilization the resource, NMFS reapportioned an additional 20,000 mt of the non-tribal sector and distributed to the C/P Coop and MS Coop in proportion to each sector's original allocation on October 23, 2014. The Shorebased IFQ Program's share of the second reapportionment was not distributed due to concerns regarding Chinook salmon catch.
        Reapportioning a combined total of 45,000 mt was expected to allow for greater attainment of the OY while not limiting tribal harvest opportunities for the remainder of the year. The revised Pacific whiting allocations for 2014 were: Tribal 10,336 mt, C/P Coop 103,486 mt; MS Coop 73,049 mt; and Shorebased IFQ Program 127,835 mt.
        NMFS considered two alternatives for this action: The “No-Action” and the “Proposed Action.” NMFS did not consider a broader range of alternatives to the proposed allocation. The tribal allocation is based primarily on the requests of the tribes. These requests reflect the level of participation in the fishery that will allow them to exercise their treaty right to fish for whiting. Under the Proposed Action alternative, NMFS proposes to set the tribal allocation percentage at 17.5%, as requested by the tribes. This would yield a tribal allocation of between 17,842 and 69,170 mt for 2015. Consideration of a percentage lower than the tribal request of 17.5% is not appropriate in this instance. As a matter of policy, NMFS has historically supported the harvest levels requested by the tribes. Based on the information available to NMFS, the tribal request is within their tribal treaty rights. A higher percentage would arguably also be within the scope of the treaty right. However, a higher percentage would unnecessarily limit the non-tribal fishery.
        Under the no-action alternative, NMFS would not make an allocation to the tribal sector. This alternative was considered, but the regulatory framework provides for a tribal allocation on an annual basis only. Therefore, no action would result in no allocation of Pacific whiting to the tribal sector in 2015, which would be inconsistent with NMFS' responsibility to manage the fishery consistent with the tribes' treaty rights. Given that there is a tribal request for allocation in 2015, this alternative received no further consideration.

        NMFS believes this proposed rule would not adversely affect small entities. This reapportioning process allows unharvested tribal allocations of whiting, fished by small entities, to be fished by the non-tribal fleets, benefitting both large and small entities. Nonetheless, NMFS has prepared this IRFA and is requesting comments on this conclusion. See ADDRESSES.
        There are no reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements in the proposed rule.
        No Federal rules have been identified that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

        NMFS issued Biological Opinions under the ESA on August 10, 1990, November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 15, 1999 pertaining to the effects of the Pacific Coast groundfish FMP fisheries on Chinook salmon (Puget Sound, Snake River spring/summer, Snake River fall, upper Columbia River spring, lower Columbia River, upper Willamette River, Sacramento River winter, Central Valley spring, California coastal), coho salmon (Central California coastal, southern Oregon/northern California coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal summer, Columbia River), sockeye salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle and lower Columbia River, Snake River Basin, upper Willamette River, central California coast, California Central Valley, south/central California, northern California, southern California). These biological opinions have concluded that implementation of the FMP for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery was not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
        NMFS issued a Supplemental Biological Opinion on March 11, 2006, concluding that neither the higher observed bycatch of Chinook in the 2005 whiting fishery nor new data regarding salmon bycatch in the groundfish bottom trawl fishery required a reconsideration of its prior “no jeopardy” conclusion. NMFS also reaffirmed its prior determination that implementation of the Groundfish PCGFMP is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the affected ESUs. The effect of the Pacific whiting fishery on protected Chinook salmon is currently under ESA Section 7 consultation to reconsider this “no jeopardy” conclusion. The trigger for this reinitiation of consultation was the 2014 Pacific whiting fishery exceeding the Chinook salmon incidental take statement from the 1999 Biological Opinion by a level similar to 2005. NMFS has considered the effects of this proposed rule on listed salmonids, consistent with ESA Section 7(a)(2) and 7(d). The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect, or would not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
        Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) and Oregon Coastal coho (73 FR 7816, February 11, 2008) were recently relisted as threatened under the ESA. The 1999 biological opinion concluded that the bycatch of salmonids in the Pacific whiting fishery were almost entirely Chinook salmon, with little or no bycatch of coho, chum, sockeye, and steelhead.
        On December 7, 2012, NMFS completed a biological opinion concluding that the groundfish fishery is not likely to jeopardize non-salmonid marine species including listed eulachon, green sturgeon, humpback whales, Steller sea lions, and leatherback sea turtles. The opinion also concludes that the fishery is not likely to adversely modify critical habitat for green sturgeon and leatherback sea turtles. An analysis included in the same document as the opinion concludes that the fishery is not likely to adversely affect green sea turtles, olive ridley sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, sei whales, North Pacific right whales, blue whales, fin whales, sperm whales, Southern Resident killer whales, Guadalupe fur seals, or the critical habitat for Steller sea lions.
        Steller sea lions and humpback whales are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Impacts resulting from fishing activities proposed in this rulemaking are discussed in the FEIS for the 2015-2016 groundfish fishery specifications and management measures. West coast pot fisheries for sablefish are considered Category II fisheries under the MMPA's List of Fisheries, indicating occasional interactions. All other west coast groundfish fisheries, including the trawl fishery, are considered Category III fisheries under the MMPA, indicating a remote likelihood of or no known serious injuries or mortalities to marine mammals. MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) requires that NMFS authorize the taking of ESA-listed marine mammals incidental to U.S. commercial fisheries if it makes the requisite findings, including a finding that the incidental mortality and serious injury from commercial fisheries will have negligible impact on the affected species or stock. As noted above, NMFS concluded in its biological opinion for the groundfish fisheries that these fisheries were not likely to jeopardize Steller sea lions or humpback whales. The eastern distinct population segment of Steller sea lions was delisted under the ESA on November 4, 2013 (78 FR 66140). On September 4, 2013, based on its negligible impact determination dated August 28, 2013, NMFS issued a permit for three years to authorize the incidental taking of humpback whales by the sablefish pot fishery (78 FR 54553).
        On November 21, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a biological opinion concluding that the groundfish fishery will not jeopardize the continued existence of the short-tailed albatross. The FWS also concurred that the fishery is not likely to adversely affect the marbled murrelet, California least tern, southern sea otter, bull trout, nor bull trout critical habitat.
        Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule was developed after meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials from the area covered by the FMP. Consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council is a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. In addition, NMFS has coordinated specifically with the tribes interested in the whiting fishery regarding the issues addressed by this rulemaking.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Fisheries, Fishing, Indian fisheries.

          Dated: March 3, 2015.
          Eileen Sobeck,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

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

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

        2. In § 660.50, revise paragraph (f)(4) to read as follows:

          § 660.50
          Pacific Coast treaty Indian fisheries.

          (f) * * *
          (4) Pacific whiting. The tribal allocation for 2015 will be 17.5% of the U.S. TAC.

        3. In § 660.131, revise paragraph (h) to read as follows:

          § 660.131
          Pacific whiting fishery management measures.

          (h) Reapportionment of pacific whiting. (1) Upon receipt of written notice to the Regional Administrator from the tribe(s) participating in the fishery that they do not intend to use a portion of the tribal allocation, the Regional Administrator may, no earlier than 7 days following notice to other treaty tribes with rights to whiting, reapportion any remainder to the other sectors of the trawl fishery as soon as practicable after receiving such notice. If no such reapportionment has occurred prior to September 15 of the fishing year, the Regional Administrator will, based on discussions with representatives of the tribes participating in the Pacific whiting fishery for that fishing year, consider the tribal harvests to date and catch projections for the remainder of the year relative to the tribal allocation of Pacific whiting, as specified at § 660.50. That portion of the tribal allocation that the Regional Administrator determines will not be used by the end of the fishing year may be reapportioned to the other sectors of the trawl fishery on September 15 or as soon as practicable thereafter. Subsequent reapportionments may be made based on subsequent determinations by the Regional Administrator based on the factors described above in order to ensure full utilization of the resource. However, no reapportionments will occur after December 1 of the fishing year.
          (2) NMFS will reapportion unused tribal allocation to the other sectors of the trawl fishery in proportion to their initial allocations.
          (3) The reapportionment of surplus whiting will be made effective immediately by actual notice under the automatic action authority provided at § 660.60(d)(1).
          (4) Estimates of the portion of the tribal allocation that will not be used by the end of the fishing year will be based on the best information available to the Regional Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 2015-05384 Filed 3-9-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 64
        [WC Docket No 13-39; Report No. 2997]
        Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petition for reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by W. Scott McCollugh, on behalf of Transcom Enhanced Services, Inc.; Mary C. Albert on behalf of Comptel; David L. Nace, on behalf of Carolina West Wireless, Inc.; Charles W. McKee, on behalf of Sprint Corporation; David Cohen, on behalf of United States Telecom Association; and Genevieve Morelli, on behalf of the Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance.

          DATES:

          Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before March 3, 2014. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before March 11, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For additional information on this proceeding, please contact Gregory Kwan, Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Division, at (202) 418-1191 or by email at Gregory.Kwan@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 2997, released February 4, 2014. The full text of this document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). The Commission will not send a copy of this Notice pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this Notice does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

          Subject: Rural Call Completion, FCC 13-135, published at 78 FR 76218, December 17, 2012 and at 78 FR 76257, December 17, 2013, in WC Docket No. 13-39, and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See § 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules.

          Number Of Petitions Filed: 5

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Gloria J. Miles,
          Federal Register Liaison, Office of the Secretary, Office of Managing Director.

      [FR Doc. 2014-03287 Filed 2-13-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket No. 11-33, RM-11623; DA 11-406]
        Television Broadcasting Services; Topeka, KS

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by KSQA, LLC, permittee of station KSQA(TV), channel 12, Topeka, Kansas, requesting the substitution of channel 22 for channel 12 at Topeka.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before April 14, 2011, and reply comments on or before April 29, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: James L. Winston, Esq., Rubin, Winston, Diercks, Harris & Cooke, LLP, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Adrienne Denysyk, adrienne.denysyk@fcc.gov, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 11-33, adopted February 22, 2011, and released March 2, 2011. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-478-3160 or via e-mail http://www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This document 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).

        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts (other than ex parte presentations exempt under 47 CFR 1.1204(a)) are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1208 for rules governing restricted proceedings.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Television, Television broadcasting.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Barbara A. Kreisman,
          Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.

        Proposed Rules
        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.

            § 73.622
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.622(i), the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments under Kansas, is amended by adding channel 22 and removing channel 12 at Topeka.

      [FR Doc. 2011-6007 Filed 3-14-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P