        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 64
        [CC Docket No. 96-128; FCC 03-119]
        Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          This document seeks comment on whether the Commission needs to amend its payphone compensation rules, which are designed to provide fair per-call compensation, pursuant to section 276 of the Act, to payphone service providers (PSPs). On a petition for review, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit), on January 21, 2003, remanded the Second Order on Reconsideration, 66 FR 21105-01 (2001) in this proceeding. The Second Order on Reconsideration had amended the Commission's payphone compensation rules. The D.C. Circuit, however, held that the Commission violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it modified its rules pursuant to a Common Carrier Bureau—issued notice that was not published in the Federal Register. The D.C. Circuit held that the Commission should have issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The D.C. Circuit vacated the Commission's order, but stayed its mandate and its vacatur of the Second Order on Reconsideration through September 30, 2003. As a result, the rules promulgated in the Second Order on Reconsideration remain in effect through September 30, 2003. Accordingly, the Commission adopts this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on whether to retain the rules or to adopt alternative ones by this deadline.

          DATES:
          Comments are due June 23, 2003, and Reply Comments are due July 3, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. See Supplementary Information for further filing instructions.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Darryl Cooper, Attorney-Advisor, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-7131, or via the Internet at dcooper@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 96-128, FCC 03-119, adopted May 23, 2003, and released May 28, 2003. The complete text of this FNPRM is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com. It is also available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

        Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. All filings should refer to CC Docket No. 96-128. Comments filed through ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, postal service mailing address, and the applicable docket number, which in this instance is CC Docket No. 96-128. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfshelp@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the regarding line of the message: “get form<your e-mail address>.” A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.
        Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. 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 we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail).
        For hand deliveries, the Commission's contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, D.C. 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes 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 mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.
        All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

        Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments and reply comments must also comply with 47 CFR 1.48 and all other applicable sections of the Commission's rules. The Commission directs all interested parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. All parties are encouraged to utilize a table of contents, regardless of the length of their submission. The Commission also strongly encourages that parties track the organization set forth in this FNRPM in order to facilitate our internal review process.
        Synopsis of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
        1. Background. In the Second Order on Reconsideration, 66 FR 21105-01 (2001), in this proceeding, the Commission found that payphone service providers (PSPs) were not receiving fair compensation when a switch-based long distance reseller completed a payphone-originated call. The Commission found that, prior to the adoption of the order, there was confusion in the marketplace as to which facilities-based carrier—the interexchange carrier (IXC) or the switch-based reseller—was responsible for tracking payphone-originated calls to completion and compensating the PSP (switchless resellers are not required to track calls or compensate the PSP). The Commission also found that, because of the way telephone calls are switched, PSPs do not have the ability to track calls to completion. Thus, the Commission, in the Second Order on Reconsideration in this proceeding, amended its rules to specify that the first IXC to receive a payphone call from a local exchange carrier (LEC) was responsible for tracking the call to completion and for compensating the PSP for the call. The first IXC was also required to prepare reports of completed payphone calls so that the PSPs could verify that they were being adequately compensated. The Commission permitted the IXC to then seek reimbursement from its switch-based reseller customer for both the payment to the PSP and its expenses in tracking and preparing tracking reports.
        2. Discussion. The Commission tentatively concludes that, prior to the adoption of our current rules, PSPs were not receiving fair per call compensation. The Commission bases this conclusion on the record amassed prior to the release of the Second Order on Reconsideration, which shows that payphone service providers are not fairly compensated and that they face myriad difficulties in identifying resellers that complete calls. The item discusses how the very structure of the PSP industry may exacerbate this problem and solicits further comment on this issue. The Commission invites comment on this tentative conclusion and its bases, and on what rules, if any, the Commission should adopt to ensure that PSPs are fairly compensated. Specifically, to assist the Commission in its analysis of the PSP marketplace and whether to retain or amend the payphone compensation rules, this FNRPM requests comment on whether the Commission should retain the rules adopted in the Second Order on Reconsideration or whether it should adopt alternative rules to ensure that PSPs receive fair compensation. To assist the Commission in its analysis of whether to maintain or alter the current payphone compensation rules, it invites comments on four questions: (1) Whether PSPs are not receiving fair compensation when a switch-based reseller is involved in the routing of a payphone originated call; (2) which facilities-based carrier in the call path is best able to track a completed call made from a payphone; (3) which facilities-based carrier is best situated both to compensate the PSP and seek reimbursement from other carriers that derive an economic benefit from the call; and (4) what types of contractual relationships for tracking and payment of payphone calls should the Commission permit as exceptions to its payphone compensation rules. The item then poses a series of detailed questions to flesh out each of these four over-riding questions.
        Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
        3. This FNRPM contains a proposed information collection requirement. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, the Commission invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections contained in this FNPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due June 23, 2003, and Reply Comments are due July 3, 2003. OMB comments are due August 1, 2003. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

        4. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to Judith Boley Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Kim A. Johnson, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, or via the Internet to KimA.Johnson@omb.eop.gov.

        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

        5. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared the present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM provided above. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
        Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

        6. On a petition for review, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit), on January 21, 2003, remanded the Second Order on Reconsideration in this proceeding. The Second Order on Reconsideration had amended the Commission's payphone compensation rules. The D.C. Circuit did not address the merits of these rules, but instead found that the Commission had violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in adopting them.
        7. In the Second Order on Reconsideration in this proceeding, the Commission found that payphone service providers (PSPs) were not receiving fair compensation when a switch-based long distance reseller completed a payphone-originated call. The Commission found that, prior to the adoption of the order, there was confusion in the marketplace as to which facilities-based carrier—the interexchange carrier (IXC) or the switch-based reseller—was responsible for tracking payphone-originated calls to completion and compensating the PSP (switchless resellers are not required to track calls or compensate the PSP). The Commission also found that, because of the way telephone calls are switched, PSPs do not have the ability to track calls to completion. Thus, the Commission, in the Second Order on Reconsideration in this proceeding, amended its rules to specify that the first IXC to receive a payphone call from a local exchange carrier (LEC) was responsible for tracking the call to completion and for compensating the PSP for the call. The first IXC was also required to prepare reports of completed payphone calls so that the PSPs could verify that they were being adequately compensated. The Commission permitted the IXC to then seek reimbursement from its switch-based reseller customer for both the payment to the PSP and its expenses in tracking and preparing tracking reports.
        8. The overall objective of this FNPRM is to ensure that PSPs receive fair per-call compensation pursuant to section 276 of the Act. In this regard, the FNPRM asks whether the Commission should retain the PSP compensation rules adopted in the Second Order on Reconsideration or whether any alternative rules should be adopted to address PSP problems in receiving fair compensation.
        Legal Basis

        9. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the FNPRM is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 276, and §§ 1.1, 1.48, 1.411, 1.412, 1.415, 1.419, and 1.1200-1.1216, of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.48, 1.411, 1.412, 1.415, 1.419, and 1.1200-1.1216.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply
        10. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
        11. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific definition of small providers of incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that SBA definition, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the most recent Telephone Trends Report data, 1,335 incumbent local exchange carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,335 carriers, 1,037 reported that they have 1,500 or fewer employees and 298 reported that, alone or in combination with affiliates, they have more than 1,500 employees. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are either dominant in their field of operations or are not independently owned and operated, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of incumbent local exchange carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 1,037 or fewer providers of local exchange service are small entitles that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
        12. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific definition for small providers of competitive local exchange services. The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that SBA definition, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the Commission's Telephone Trends Report data, 349 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 349 companies, 297 reported that they have 1,500 or fewer employees and 52 reported that, alone or in combination with affiliates, they have more than 1,500 employees. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are either dominant in their field of operations or are not independently owned and operated, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of competitive local exchange carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates that fewer than 297 providers of competitive local exchange service are small entities that may be affected by the rules.
        13. Competitive Access Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to competitive access providers (CAPS). The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that SBA definition, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the Commission's most recent Telephone Trends Report data, 349 CAPs or competitive local exchange carriers and 60 other local exchange carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 349 competitive access providers and competitive local exchange carriers, 297 reported that they have 1,500 or fewer employees and 52 reported that, alone or in combination with affiliates, they have more than 1,500 employees. Of the 60 other local exchange carriers, 56 reported that they have 1,500 or fewer employees and 4 reported that, alone or in combination with affiliates, they have more than 1,500 employees. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of CAPS or other local exchange carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are 297 or fewer small entity CAPS and 56 or fewer other local exchange carriers that may be affected by the rules.
        14. Local Resellers. SBA has developed a definition for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that SBA definition, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the Commission's most recent Telephone Trends Report data, 87 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these 87 companies, 86 reported that they have 1,500 or fewer employees and one reported that, alone or in combination with affiliates, it had more than 1,500 employees. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these local resellers that are not independently owned and operated, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of local resellers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are 86 or fewer local resellers that may be affected by the rules.
        15. Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a definition for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that SBA definition, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the Commission's most recent Telephone Trends Report data, 454 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of these 454 companies, 423 reported that they have 1,500 or fewer employees and 31 reported that, alone or in combination with affiliates, they have more than 1,500 employees. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these toll resellers that are not independently owned and operated, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of toll resellers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are 423 or fewer toll resellers that may be affected by the rules.
        16. Payphone Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to payphone service providers (PSPs). The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that SBA definition, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the Commission's most recent Trends in Telephone Service data, 758 PSPs reported that they were engaged in the provision of payphone services. Of these 758 payphone service providers, 755 reported that they have 1,500 or fewer employees and 3 reported that, alone or in combination with affiliates, they have more than 1,500 employees. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these payphone service providers that are not independently owned and operated, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of PSPs that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are 755 or fewer PSPs that may be affected by the rules.
        17. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to providers of interexchange services. The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that SBA definition, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the most recent Telephone Trends Report data, 204 carriers reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange services. Of these 204 carriers, 163 reported that they have 1,500 or fewer employees and 41 reported that, alone or in combination with affiliates, they have more than 1,500 employees. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of IXCs that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are 163 or fewer small entity IXCs that may be affected by the rules.
        18. Operator Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to operator service providers. The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that SBA definition, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the Commission's most recent Telephone Trends Report data, 21 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these 21 companies, 20 reported that they have 1,500 or fewer employees and one reported that, alone or in combination with affiliates, it had more than 1,500 employees. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these operator service providers that are not independently owned and operated, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of operator service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are 20 or fewer local resellers that may be affected by the rules.
        19. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a definition for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that SBA definition, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the Commission's most recent Telephone Trends Report data, 21 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these 21 companies, 20 reported that they have 1,500 or fewer employees and one reported that, alone or in combination with affiliates, it had more than 1,500 employees. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these local resellers that are not independently owned and operated, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of prepaid calling card providers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are 20 or fewer local resellers that may be affected by the rules.

        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
        20. The rules adopted in the Second Order on Reconsideration, which are subject to review in the item, require IXCs to produce and provide reports to PSPs detailing which payphone-originated calls were completed over a IXC's or a switch-based reseller's network so that the PSPs may verify whether they are being fairly compensated pursuant to section 276 of the Act. The FRNRM asks whether these rules should be retained or whether other reporting requirements should be adopted.
        Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
        21. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

        22. The current rules requiring an IXC to track and report payphone calls completed on an IXC's or switch-based reseller's network impose a minimal burden on the IXC or switch-based reseller. This is because IXCs and switch-based resellers already keep track of such data for their own billing and collection purposes. In addition, the Commission allows IXCs to diminish their expenses by (1) recovering their reporting costs from other carriers in the call path and (2) outsourcing their reporting obligations to clearinghouses. In this FNRPM, the Commission seeks comment on the burdens of these reporting requirements and asks whether alternative requirements should be adopted.
        Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules
        23. None.
        Ordering Clauses
        24. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 276, this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

        25. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 03-13722 Filed 5-30-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-02-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 170828822-7822-01]
        RIN 0648-XF669
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Scup Fishery; 2018 and Projected 2019 Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes revised scup specifications for the 2018 fishing year and projected specifications for 2019. Updated scientific information regarding the scup stock indicates that higher catch limits may be implemented to achieve optimum yield. This action is intended to inform the public of the proposed specifications for the 2018 fishing year and projected specifications for 2019.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by 5 p.m. local time, on November 22, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for this action and describes the proposed measures and other considered alternatives, and provides an analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of the Specifications Document, including the EA, are available on request from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. These documents are also accessible via the Internet at http://www.mafmc.org.
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0121, by either of the following methods:

            Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
          1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0121,

          2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and

          3. Enter or attach your comments.

          —OR—

            Mail: Submit written comments to John Bullard, 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 Revised Scup Specifications.”

            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).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Emily Gilbert, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9244.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        General Background

        The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission cooperatively manage the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. The Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its implementing regulations outline the Council's process for establishing specifications. Specifications in these fisheries include various catch and landing subdivisions, such as the commercial and recreational sector annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and sector-specific landing limits (i.e., the commercial fishery quota and recreational harvest limit). Annual specifications may be proposed for three-year periods, with the Council reviewing the specifications each year to ensure that previously established multi-year specifications remain appropriate. Following review, NMFS announces the final annual specifications in the Federal Register. The FMP also contains formulas to divide the specification catch limits into commercial and recreational fishery allocations, state-by-state quotas, and quota periods, depending on the species in question. Rulemaking for measures used to manage the recreational fisheries (minimum fish sizes, open seasons, and bag limits) for these three species occurs separately, and typically takes place in the spring of each year. The summer flounder and black sea bass specifications implemented through previous rulemaking remain unchanged by this action.
        On December 28, 2015, NMFS published a final rule implementing the Council's recommended 2016-2018 specifications for the scup fishery (80 FR 80689). The Council intended to reconsider the specifications set for fishing year 2018 following the review of a scup assessment update provided in July 2017.

        The assessment update indicated the scup stock is not overfished and overfishing did not occur in 2016, the most recent year for which information is available. The update estimated that the scup spawning stock biomass (SSB) is 2.1 times the proxy reference point for SSB at maximum sustainable yield (MSY), and fishing mortality (F) in 2016 was about 63 percent of the FMSY proxy reference point. In addition, the update estimated that the 2015 year class was about 2.1 times the average recruitment (i.e., number of age 0 scup) from 1984-2016. The 2016 year class was 46 percent below the 1984-2016 recruitment average. Although the 2016 year class was estimated to be below average, the 2015 year class was so large that the assessment update provided higher revised overfishing limit (OFL) recommendations for 2018 and 2019. Compared to the previously implemented 2018 OFL (29.68 million lb, 13,462 mt), the 2018 recommendation is a 52-percent increase.
        Proposed Specifications
        The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) met on July 19-20, 2017, to discuss the assessment update results and resulting OFL estimates, to identify an updated acceptable biological catch (ABC) level for 2018, and to project an ABC for the 2019 fishing year. To derive the ABC recommendations, the SSC applied the Council's standard risk policy for a species with a typical life history, which produces ABCs estimated to result in a 60-percent probability of not overfishing the stock. The process resulted in ABCs of 39.14 million lb (17,755 metric tons (mt)) for 2018 and 36.43 million lb (16,525 mt) for 2019 (Table 1). The revised 2018 ABC is approximately 45 percent higher than the previously established 2018 ABC. Under the FMP, 22 percent of the ABC is allocated to the recreational fishery, while 78 percent is allocation to the commercial fishery.
        Following the SSC meeting, the Monitoring Committee met on July 24, 2017, to discuss ACLs, ACTs, commercial quotas, and recreational harvest limits for the 2018 and 2019 fishing years. In light of the substantial increase in the ABC, the Monitoring Committee recommended a moderate increase for the fishery and suggested setting the 2018 commercial ACT at 25.85 million lb (11,725 mt) and the recreational ACT at 7.29 million lb (3,307 mt). These recommended ACTs were 15 percent lower than those formulaically resulting from the SSC's ABC recommendation, but 22.5 percent higher than what is currently in place for 2018. The Monitoring Committee also recommended setting the 2019 ACTs at the same level as the 2018 ACTs. The Monitoring Committee decided that there was enough management uncertainty around the upcoming adjustments to the commercial quota periods in 2018 and the outcome of the upcoming recreational harvest estimate revisions through the Marine Recreational Information Program to warrant the inclusion of a buffer between the ACLs and ACTs, which would provide for more stability in the fishery by using constant ACTs for both years.

        The Council and Commission's Scup Management Board meet jointly on August 8, 2017, to review the SSC's and Monitoring Committee's recommendations. They found merit in the idea of offering stability in the fishery by allowing for a buffer between the ACLs and ACTs, but did not accept the Monitoring Committee's specific recommendations. Instead, the Council and Commission recommended constant sector-specific ACTs across 2018 and 2019, based on the 2019 ABC and setting the ACLs for 2019 equal to the ACTs (i.e., 8.01 million lb (3,636 mt) for the recreational fishery and 23.98 million lb (10,879 mt) for the commercial fishery).
        After removing the sector-specific estimated discards from the ACTs, the scup commercial quotas and recreational harvest limits would be those shown in Table 1. These values are approximately 40 percent higher than the current 2018 commercial quota and recreational harvest limit. The Monitoring Committee did not recommend any changes to the current commercial measures, including the 9-inch (22.9-cm) minimum fish size, the mesh size requirements and seasonal possession limit thresholds, and the pot/trap gear requirements.

        The Council will revisit its decision on the projected 2019 specifications following the SSC's review next summer. By providing projected specifications for 2019, NMFS hopes to assist fishery participants in planning ahead. Final 2019 specifications will be published in the Federal Register before the start of the 2019 fishing year (January 1, 2019) based on the Council's review.

          Table 1—Council-Recommended Scup Specifications for 2018 and Projected for 2019

            Scup specifications
            2018(current)

            million lb
            mt
            2018(revised)

            million lb
            mt
            2019(projected)

            million lb
            mt

            OFL
            29.68
            13,462
            45.05
            20,433
            41.03
            18,612

            ABC
            27.05
            12,270
            39.14
            17,755
            36.43
            16,525

            Commercial ACL
            21.10
            9,571
            30.53
            13,849
            28.42
            12,890

            Commercial ACT
            21.10
            9,571
            28.42
            12,890
            28.42
            12,890

            Commercial Discards
            3.76
            1,705
            4.43
            2,011
            4.43
            2,011

            Commercial Quota
            17.34
            7,866
            23.98
            10,879
            23.98
            10,879

            Recreational ACL
            5.95
            2,699
            8.61
            3,906
            8.01
            3,636

            Recreational ACT
            5.95
            2,699
            8.01
            3,636
            8.01
            3,636

            Recreational Discards
            0.75
            338
            0.65
            293
            0.65
            293

            Recreational Harvest Limit
            5.21
            2,361
            7.37
            3,342
            7.37
            3,342

        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This action is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.
        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 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council conducted an evaluation of the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed measures in conjunction with an EA. According to the commercial ownership database, 517 affiliate firms landed scup during the 2014-2016 period, with 513 of those business affiliates categorized as small businesses and 4 categorized as large businesses. Scup represented approximately 3.94 percent of the average receipts of the small entities considered and 0.11 percent of the average receipts of the large entities considered over this time period.
        The ownership data for the for-hire fleet indicate that there were 359 for-hire affiliate firms generating revenues from fishing recreationally for various species during the 2014-2016 period, all of which are categorized as small businesses. Although it is not possible to derive what proportion of the overall revenues came from specific fishing activities, given the popularity of scup as a recreational species it is likely that revenues generated from scup are important for some, if not all, of these firms.

        The proposed measure would increase both the 2018 commercial quota and the 2018 recreational harvest limit by around 40 percent. However, the scup fishery is a market-limited fishery (i.e., market conditions are typically the limiting factor, not allowable landings) and it is expected that, unless market conditions change drastically, commercial and recreational landings will likely be similar to current landings. As a result, this action is not expected to adversely impact revenues for vessels that fish for scup commercially. The increase in the recreational harvest limit does not directly impact the party/charter fishery. Future regulatory action may be needed to adjust current scup recreational management measures (i.e., bag limits, seasons, and minimum sizes), and consideration of the impact of those potential future measures on small entities engaged in the for-hire fishery will be evaluated at that time, should such a regulatory action become necessary. Because this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action.

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

          Dated: November 2, 2017.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2017-24205 Filed 11-6-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P