        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        RIN 0648-BK31
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 14

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

          ACTION:
          Announcement of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted Amendment 14 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Off Alaska (Salmon FMP) to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for review. If approved, Amendment 14 would incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea into the Salmon FMP's West Area, thereby bringing the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea and the commercial salmon fisheries that occur within it under Federal management by the Council and NMFS. Amendment 14 would manage the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea by applying the prohibition on commercial salmon fishing that is currently established in the West Area to the newly added Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. Amendment 14 is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Salmon FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than July 19, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2021-0018, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-2021-0018 in the Search box. Click the “Comment” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

            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 a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of proposed Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP, the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Social Impact Analysis prepared for this action (the Analysis), and the draft Finding of No Significant Impact prepared for this action may be obtained from www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Doug Duncan, 907-586-7228 or doug.duncan@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Council has submitted Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP to the Secretary for review. If approved, Amendment 14 would incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea into the Salmon FMP's West Area, thereby bringing the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea and the commercial salmon fisheries that occur within it under Federal management by the Council and NMFS. Amendment 14 would manage the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea by applying the prohibition on commercial salmon fishing that is currently established in the West Area to the newly added Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. Amendment 14 is necessary to make the Salmon FMP consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and to comply with a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling requiring the Salmon FMP be amended to include the Cook Inlet EEZ area within its fishery management unit. Amendment 14 is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Salmon FMP, and other applicable laws.

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a document in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. This document announces that proposed Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP is available for public review and comment.
        The Council prepared, and the Secretary approved, the Salmon FMP under the authority of sections 302(h)(1) and 303(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1852(h)(1) and 1853(b)). The Salmon FMP is implemented by Federal regulations governing U.S. fisheries at 50 CFR part 679. The Council is authorized to prepare and recommend an FMP amendment for the conservation and management of a fishery covered under the FMP.
        Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP was adopted by the Council in December 2020. The Council worked from 2017 to 2020 developing Amendment 14, ultimately concluding that federally managing the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea by prohibiting commercial salmon fishing optimized conservation and management of the Cook Inlet salmon fishery when considering the costs and benefits of the available management alternatives, which are described in Section 2 of the Analysis. Important factors in the Council's decision were that maintaining the status quo would be inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Ninth Circuit ruling, and that the State of Alaska (State) would not accept a delegation of management authority for the Cook Inlet EEZ. The only other viable management alternative considered but not selected by the Council would have created a new Federal management regime for the commercial salmon fishery in the Cook EEZ separate and distinct from the adjacent State water salmon fishery.
        Federal management of the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea through closure of the area to commercial salmon fishing (1) takes the most precautionary approach to minimizing the potential for overfishing, (2) provides the greatest opportunity for maximum harvest from the Cook Inlet salmon fishery, (3) avoids creating new management uncertainty, (4) minimizes regulatory burden to fishery participants, (5) maximizes management efficiency for Cook Inlet salmon fisheries, and (6) avoids the introduction of an additional management jurisdiction into the already complex and interdependent network of Cook Inlet salmon fisheries.

        The proposed closure is consistent with the Council's longstanding salmon management policy, which is to facilitate salmon management by the State. As with the existing West Area, this policy would be achieved by prohibiting commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea so that the State can manage Cook Inlet salmon stocks as a unit within State waters. Except for maximum sustained yield (MSY), optimum yield (OY), and annual catch limits (ACL), all West Area management measures would apply to the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. MSY and OY would be separately specified for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery, and ACL would be separately specified for the commercial salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea, reflecting the fact that Cook Inlet salmon stocks have historically been harvested in both State and Federal waters. MSY would be established for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery as the maximum amount of harvest possible under the State's escapement goals, which is the largest long-term average catch that can be taken by the fishery under prevailing ecological, environmental conditions and fishery technological characteristics (e.g., gear selectivity), and the distribution of catch among fishery sectors (50 CFR 600.310(e)(1)(i)). The OY range for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery would be the combined catch from all salmon fisheries occurring within Cook Inlet (State and Federal water catch), which results in a post-harvest abundance within the escapement goal range for stocks with escapement goals, and below the historically sustainable average catch for stocks without escapement goals, except when management measures required to conserve weak stocks necessarily limit catch of healthy stocks. Amendment 14 would establish an ACL of zero for the commercial salmon fishery in Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea.

        To delineate these separate reference points from those currently specified for the West Area, the Cook Inlet EEZ would be defined as the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. Amendment 14 would make no changes to management measures applicable to the remainder of the West Area (i.e., the West Area outside of the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea). Amendment 14 would not modify State management measures, nor would it preclude the State from adopting additional management measures that could provide additional harvest opportunities for harvesters within State waters.

        The Council considered Amendment 14's consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act's 10 National Standards and how the Amendment balances competing demands within the National Standards (16 U.S.C. 1851). While all 10 of the National Standards were considered, 5 national standards were particularly relevant to the Council's decision: National Standard 1, National Standard 2, National Standard 3, National Standard 7, and National Standard 8.
        By prohibiting commercial salmon harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea, Amendment 14 would avoid creating new management uncertainty and reduce the risk of overfishing or foregone yield inherent to an independent Federal management regime that would not be well-suited to respond to in-season data as necessary to adjust harvest levels. Amendment 14 would enable the State to continue managing salmon fisheries within escapement goals, as described in Sections 3.1 and 11 of the Analysis, in order to achieve optimum yield and prevent overfishing, consistent with National Standard 1. The Council continues to recognize that the State is best situated to respond to changing conditions inseason to maximize utilization of salmon stocks under the constraints of weak stock management in a mixed stock fishery, and that the State's escapement goals are based on the best scientific information available, consistent with National Standard 2. Under Amendment 14, all commercial salmon fishing in Cook Inlet would occur in State waters under State management, unifying management of Cook Inlet salmon stocks across their range consistent with National Standard 3. Further, closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ would create the most efficient Cook Inlet salmon management arrangement of the two available management approaches, minimizing direct costs and regulatory burdens on participants and avoiding unnecessary duplication of management measures, consistent with National Standard 7. The Council considered the impact of Amendment 14 on fishing communities and determined that, while fishery benefits may be redistributed among sectors within fishing communities, Amendment 14 would provide for the sustained participation of those communities and, to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities within the constraints of conservation and management goals as described in Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis, consistent with National Standard 8.
        If approved, Amendment 14 would close an area historically used by the Upper Cook Inlet (UCI) drift gillnet fleet. The UCI drift gillnet fleet currently operates in both State and EEZ waters without specific reference to the boundary and is the only commercial salmon fishery that would be directly regulated by this action. This action would not close, or otherwise modify management of, salmon fishing in State waters where the UCI drift gillnet fleet could continue to operate.
        Amendment 14 would amend the Salmon FMP as described below. Most importantly, Section 2.1 “Salmon Management Area” would be modified to remove the “Cook Inlet Area” from the “Areas Excluded from the Salmon Management Area.” This would incorporate the Cook Inlet Area into the rest of the West Area where commercial salmon fishing is prohibited. Further, the Cook Inlet Area would be redefined as the “Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea,” to indicate that it is part of the larger West Area for many management measures but to distinguish it from the West Area for distinct reference points to account for the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea's unique history. Section 6.2 “West Area” would be updated to separately specify MSY, OY, and ACL for the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea, reflecting the fact that Cook Inlet salmon stocks have historically been harvested in both State and Federal waters. Two traditional net fishing areas, the Prince William Sound Area and the Alaska Peninsula Area, would remain excluded from the salmon management area. Figure 1 would be revised to display the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea within the Salmon Management Area.
        Section 2.3.3 “Commercial Salmon Fishery in the West Area” would be modified to describe conditions for the fishery under Amendment 14 and make technical corrections for clarity. The first paragraph would revised to specify that under Amendment 14, “most of” the West Area has been historically closed to commercial salmon fishing. The third paragraph of the section would be modified to include additional descriptions of historical salmon management under the 1990 version of the Salmon FMP when the traditional net fishing areas were included in the Salmon FMP's fishery management unit, but not subject to the West Area prohibition on commercial salmon fishing. A technical clarification to the fourth paragraph of the section would improve the historical description of traditional net fishing areas under Amendment 12. The last change to this section would be the addition of a concluding paragraph describing Amendment 14's reincorporation of the Cook Inlet Area into the West Area, and the application of the West Area prohibition on commercial salmon fishing to the reincorporated Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea.
        Several other changes would be made throughout the Salmon FMP for consistency and clarity. Section 5 “Regulation of the Salmon Fisheries” would clarify that closing the “West Area” rather than “EEZ Waters” to commercial salmon fishing enables the State to manage Alaska salmon stocks. A similar clarification would be made in Section 8.2 “Safety” to indicate that commercial salmon fisheries operating in the EEZ are outside of the West Area. Section 6.2 “West Area” would also be updated to specify that under Amendment 14, “most of” the West Area has been closed to commercial salmon fishing since the Salmon FMP's inception in paragraph 2. In Section 8.1.8 “Bycatch Management”, a paragraph would be added to explain that no Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) is applicable to the West Area because no commercial fisheries are authorized there, but that SBRM would be implemented if commercial salmon fishing were authorized in the future. The Salmon FMP introductory summary section, Section 1.1 “History of the FMP”, and Table 1 would be updated with concise language describing conditions established under Amendment 14. Finally, the table of contents and list of figures would be updated to reflect all of these changes to the Salmon FMP.

        NMFS is soliciting public comments on proposed Amendment 14 through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish in the Federal Register and seek public comment on a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 14, following NMFS's evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 14, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 14. Comments received after that date may not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 14. To be certain of consideration, comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day of the comment period.

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

          Dated: May 13, 2021.
          Jennifer M. Wallace,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2021-10450 Filed 5-17-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 162
        [Docket Number USCG-2019-0899]
        RIN 1625-AC04
        Inland Waterways Navigation: St. Marys River, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard is proposing to exempt vessels under 20 meters (65 feet) in length operating in the St. Mary's River along Michigan's eastern Upper Peninsula from certain speed rules. Exempting such vessels from these rules is necessary because enforcement is impractical and the rules impede the operations of public response vessels. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

          DATES:
          Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 12, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2019-0899 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LTJG Blake Bonifas, Waterways Management, Ninth Coast Guard District, Cleveland, OH, telephone (216) 902-6066, email Blake.E.Bonifas@uscg.mil.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Table of Abbreviations

          CFR Code of Federal Regulations
          DHS Department of Homeland Security
          FR Federal Register
          NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
          § Section
          U.S.C. United States Code

        II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
        The inland navigation rules for the St. Marys River along Michigan's eastern Upper Peninsula are prescribed by 33 CFR 162.117. These rules include speed limits for stretches of the St. Marys River demarcated by lights.
        U.S. Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) St. Mary's River monitors and directs vessel traffic movement within the VTS St. Marys River area through a Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS). This VTS area overlaps the length of the St. Marys River governed by the speed rules in §  162.117(g). The VMRS requires users, generally including commercial vessels of 20 meters or more, to report information, including their position, course, and speed. These users report their information through radio communications and Automatic Identification System (AIS). Because VTS St. Marys River tracks speed for VMRS users, it can and does enforce the speed rules in §  162.117(g) on these users.
        Many non-VMRS vessels transit the length of the St. Marys River governed by the speed rules in §  162.117(g). These vessels generally include private vessels under 20 meters. As non-VMRS users, these vessels are not required to report their speed to the VTS St. Marys River. Additionally, unlike commercial vessels of 20 meters or more, these vessels are not required to operate with AIS, the prevalent means of reporting location, course, and speed to VTS St. Marys River. Because the VTS St. Marys River cannot track these non-VMRS vessels, it cannot, realistically, enforce the speed rules in §  162.117(g) on these vessels.
        The speed rules in §  162.117(g) also impact the operational effectiveness of public response vessels in the St. Marys River. These vessels include small boats, generally under 20 meters, operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and federal, Canadian, state, and local partners. These small boats respond to pollution incidents, marine casualties, and perform search and rescue and law enforcement operations throughout the St. Marys River. These operations require public vessels to deploy and be on-scene rapidly. The speed rules impede response times and degrade operational effectiveness to the detriment of the boating public and industry.
        Because the speed rules in 162.117(g) are not enforceable on non-VMRS users and impact operational effectiveness of public response boats, this rule proposes to exempt vessels under 20 meters (65 feet) from these speed rules.
        This proposed exemption is not anticipated to impact the St. Marys River VTS, VMRS, or its users. Additionally, it is not intended to relieve vessels under 20 meters from the responsibility to boat safely and exercise good seamanship. This proposed rule is issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 70034.
        III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
        The Coast Guard is proposing to amend the speed rules in 33 CFR 162.117(g), because, as they are currently written, they are too broad and unnecessarily restrict vessel operations. Specifically, this rule proposes to exempt vessels under 20 meters (65 feet) from the speed rules in 162.117(g). The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
        IV. Regulatory Analyses
        We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
        A. Regulatory Planning and Review
        Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

        This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that we do not anticipate that it will adversely affect the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant of loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. Rather, permitting vessels under 20 meters to operate free of the speed rules in 33 CFR 162.117(g) will lessen restrictions on the public and enable public vessels to engage unimpeded in response operations.
        B. Impact on Small Entities
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        This proposed amendment will lessen navigation restrictions on public entities, a large majority of recreational vessel owners and private businesses who operate small commercial vessels.

        If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

        Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
        C. Collection of Information
        This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
        D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
        A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

        Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
        F. Environment

        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves an amendment to navigation regulations for speed limits within a waterway. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
        G. Protest Activities

        The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.
        V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
        We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

        We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

        We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this document, see DHS's Correspondence System of Records notice (84 FR 48645, September 26, 2018).

        Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

          List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 162
          Navigation (water), Waterways.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 162 as follows:

          PART 162—INLAND WATERWAYS NAVIGATION REGULATIONS

        1. The authority citation for part 162 is revised to read as follows:

          Authority:
          46 U.S.C 70034; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

        2. In § 162.117, revise paragraph (g)(1) to read as follows:

          § 162.117
           St. Marys River, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.

          (g) Speed Rules. (1) The following speed limits indicate speed over the ground. Vessels, other than those under 20 meters (65 feet) in length, must adhere to the following speed limits.

          Dated: June 9, 2020.
          D.L. Cottrell,
          Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.

      [FR Doc. 2020-14100 Filed 7-10-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 040106005-4005-01; I.D. 121603C]
        RIN  0648-AP73
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Full Retention of Demersal Shelf Rockfish in the Southeast Outside District of the Gulf of Alaska

          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 that would require full retention of demersal shelf rockfish (DSR) by certain vessels fishing in the Southeast Outside District (SEO) of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA).  This proposed rule would require that the operator of a federally-permitted catcher vessel using hook-and-line or jig gear in the SEO must retain and land all DSR caught while fishing for groundfish or for Pacific halibut under the Individual Fishing Quota program (IFQ) in the SEO.  Under existing Federal and State of Alaska regulations, all landed fish must be weighed and reported on State of Alaska fish tickets or, in the case of fish landed in a port outside of Alaska, on equivalent Federal or State documents.  Current maximum retainable amounts (MRAs) for DSR in the SEO would be eliminated for catcher vessels but would remain in place for catcher/processors (CPs) in the SEO.  This action is necessary to improve estimates of fishing mortality of DSR.  This proposed rule is intended to further the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP).

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by February 20, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments may be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK  99802, Attn:   Lori Durall, or delivered to room 420 of the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK.  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to 907-586-7557.  As an agency pilot test for accepting comments electronically, the Alaska Region, NMFS, will accept e-mail comments on this rule.  The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments on this rule is DSR-0648-AP73@noaa.gov.  Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for the proposed rule may be obtained from the Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn:  Lori Durall, or by calling the Alaska Region, NMFS, at (907) 586-7228.  Send comments on collection-of-information requirements to NMFS, Alaska Region, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attn:  NOAA Desk Officer).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Nina Mollett, 907-586-7462 or Nina.Mollett@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the GOA are managed under the FMP.  One of the species groups managed under the FMP is DSR, an assemblage of seven rockfish species.  The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.

        The State manages all fisheries occurring within State waters, i.e., within three nautical miles of Alaska's coastline.  The FMP defers to the State some management responsibility for the DSR fishery in the SEO, subject to Council and federal oversight.  The State management regime must be consistent with the goals of the FMP.  Commercial harvests of DSR are managed within the total allowable catch (TAC) specified annually by NMFS in consultation with the Council.  The DSR TAC for 2003 was published March 3, 2003 (68 FR 9924).
        In accordance with the division of management under the FMP, existing State regulations for DSR establish fishing seasons (5 AAC 28.130) and gear restrictions (5 AAC 28.130), set harvest guidelines for directed DSR fishing based on the TAC (5 AAC 28.160), and limit the amount of DSR that can be retained as bait (5 AAC 28.190).  Also, the State has a full retention requirement for DSR caught in State waters (5 AAC 28.171).  The Council and NMFS establish the annual TAC for DSR (see § 679.20),  regulate the catch of prohibited species in the DSR directed fishery (see § 679.21), set recordkeeping and reporting requirements (see § 679.5), and impose a maximum retention requirement for DSR caught incidentally in Federal fisheries (see § 679.20(d)-(e); Table 10 to Part 679).
        Management Background and Need for Action

        The DSR species group is composed of seven species of nearshore, bottom-dwelling rockfishes:  Canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), China rockfish (S. nebulosus), copper rockfish (S. caurinus), quillback rockfish (S. maliger), rosethorn rockfish (S. helvomaculatus), tiger rockfish (S. nigrocinctus), and yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus).  These species have been managed as a group in the GOA since 1988.  All of them occur on the continental shelf and are generally associated with rugged, rocky demersal habitat.  The dominant species in the group is yelloweye rockfish, which accounts for 90 percent of DSR landings over the past 5 years.  Quillback rockfish accounts for 8 percent of DSR landings, and the other five species make up the remaining 2 percent.  Compared to many fish species, DSR grow slowly, are extremely long-lived, and have a very low natural mortality rate.  They are highly susceptible to overexploitation and are slow to recover once driven below the level of sustainable yield.  Accurate estimates of DSR fishing mortality are important to avoid overfishing.
        In 1996, NMFS and State stock assessment scientists identified the unreported mortality of DSR as a potential problem in preparing the annual DSR stock assessments.  Strong anecdotal evidence pointed to a high level of unreported DSR discard mortality in the Pacific halibut hook-and-line gear fishery, which is the primary fishery that encounters incidental catch of DSR in the SEO.
        When the DSR fishery is closed to directed fishing, existing regulations at § 679.20(d)-(f) require fishermen to discard at sea any DSR that exceeds the MRAs set forth in Table 10 to Part 679 at any time during a fishing trip.  At this time, the GOA fisheries that are prosecuted with hook-and-line or jig gear in the SEO are IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish, and to some extent Pacific cod and “other species.”  The remaining GOA groundfish species are either prosecuted with trawl gear, which is prohibited in the SEO, or closed to directed fishing during the fishing year.  Under the current regulations, if fishing for IFQ halibut, Pacific cod, or “other species,” the MRA for DSR is an amount that is equivalent to 10 percent of the aggregate round weight of retained catch of halibut, Pacific cod, and some other species; if fishing for IFQ sablefish and certain other species, the MRA for DSR is an amount that is equivalent to 1 percent of the aggregate round weight of retained catch.  If any IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish is aboard, under § 679.7(f)(8) fishermen must retain all rockfish that they are not required to discard.  The MRAs were established to discourage fishermen from targeting on DSR while fishing for halibut or groundfish species open to directed fishing.  However, in some places the natural incidental catch rate of DSR may be much higher than the specified MRA, forcing fishermen to discard DSR that they cannot avoid catching.  DSR do not survive being caught and discarded because rockfish have a closed swim bladder that expands when the fish are brought to the surface and cannot be contracted again.
        In June 1999, the Council adopted a proposal from the State to require full retention of DSR in the SEO for the purpose of improving estimates of DSR bycatch mortality.  A similar proposal was brought to the State Board of Fisheries (Board) to require full retention of DSR caught in State waters.  In June 2000, the Board adopted, and the State enacted, a regulation requiring full retention of all rockfish caught in Inside waters, and of DSR in all State waters.
        NMFS prepared a proposed rule to implement the Council's June 1999 action.  The draft proposed rule would have required full retention of DSR and allowed fishermen to sell amounts of retained DSR that were less than or equal to specified limits of other retained catch.  DSR in excess of those limits could be:   (1) sold, with proceeds from the sale relinquished to the State, or (2) retained and used for personal use or donation; but not traded, bartered or sold.   This draft proposed rule was never published, because NMFS determined that it did not have the authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to regulate the proceeds from the sale of fish under the first option.
        Subsequently, NMFS amended the EA/RIR/IRFA to include two new alternatives that were intended to meet the Council's objective for enhanced accounting of DSR mortality under existing statutory authority.  In February 2003, after review of this analysis, the Council adopted an alternative that is similar to the one previously adopted, except that retained amounts of DSR that are over the specified sale limits would not be allowed to enter the stream of commerce.
        The Council's objectives in designing the original proposed rule, and the variation that it adopted in February 2003, can be summed up as follows:
        1.  To improve data collection on the incidental catch of DSR in the halibut and groundfish hook-and-line fisheries in the SEO in order to more accurately estimate DSR fishing mortality, improve DSR stock assessments, and evaluate whether current MRAs are the appropriate levels for DSR in the SEO;
        2.  To minimize waste to the extent practicable while meeting these goals;
        3.  To avoid either increasing incentives to target on DSR or increasing incentives to discard DSR that is caught in excess of the amount that can legally be sold for profit; and
        4.  To maintain a consistent approach within State and Federal regulations that govern the retention and disposition of DSR.
        These four objectives, and the manner in which they would be achieved under the proposed rule, are discussed in detail below.
        Improving Data Collection

        Some information on DSR is collected from fishermen via logbook requirements under current regulations, but the data obtained this way are incomplete.  NMFS requires groundfish vessel operators of vessels at least 60 feet (18.3 meters) in length overall to record discards in daily fishing logbooks, but most of the vessels that fish with hook-and-line and jig gear in the SEO are less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) in length. The International Pacific Halibut Commission requires all vessels 26 feet (7.9 meters) or greater to keep logbooks of their halibut fishing operations, but does not require them to record rockfish bycatch.  State fish tickets include a box for reporting discards at sea, but anecdotal evidence, supported by data from International Pacific Halibut Commission surveys, indicates that the requirements to report at-sea discards, including DSR, frequently are ignored and the discards go unreported.
        A more thorough reporting system exists for landed fish.  Under State regulations at 5 AAC 39.110(c), all fish caught in State waters or in the EEZ and landed at Alaskan ports must be weighed and reported on Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) fish tickets.  This is the responsibility either of the buyer of raw fish, or of the fisherman who sells to a buyer not licensed to process fish, or who processes his or her own catch.  DSR landed in ports outside of Alaska must also be reported under existing federal and State regulations.  State-licensed fishermen who catch fish in State waters and land it in ports outside of Alaska must, under State regulations, complete an ADF&G fish ticket or equivalent document estimating weights by species, with gear and location information; more precise information is generally obtained from fish tickets filled out by the out-of-State processors.  Fishermen who catch fish in the EEZ and land it outside of Alaska are not covered by these State requirements but, under federal regulations at § 679.5(k), they must submit a vessel activity report estimating the weight of the fish or fish products, by species.
        By mandating the complete retention of all DSR caught by catcher vessels fishing in the SEO, the proposed rule would be likely to result in much better information on the incidental catch of DSR by these vessels, because data on retained and landed fish are more fully captured by the existing reporting system.  NMFS recognizes that improved data collection on incidental catch of DSR under the proposed rule is dependent on fishermen retaining all of the DSR that they catch and that some fishermen, without increased monetary incentives (i.e., the ability to sell all retained DSR), may choose to violate the proposed rule if it is ultimately implemented.  However, the amount of DSR landed has increased substantially under the State's DSR full retention regulations that were promulgated in 2001:  Over 42,000 lbs (19,051 kg) of DSR were forfeited in Southeast Alaska in 2001, compared to less than 16,000 lbs (7,257 kg) in 2000.  A large part of this increase came from fishermen active in Federal waters of the SEO to whom the full retention requirements did not apply.  Deliveries in this category reported from Federal waters rose from 8,760 pounds (3,973 kg) in 2000 to 22,931 pounds (10,401 kg) in 2001.  The increase in deliveries from Federal waters accounted for 45 percent of the total increase in deliveries.
        CPs would not be included in the full retention requirements of this proposed rule, but would be required to observe current MRA limits.  For the observed CPs in the SEO from 2001 through the present, DSR species were infrequently caught, because typically the CPs are fishing for sablefish in deeper waters than that preferred by DSR species.  Only 4.4 percent of 159 sampled sets included DSR species; the average percentage of DSR in the catch was only 0.11.  Therefore, it did not seem necessary and would unduly complicate matters to include CPs in the new DSR full retention and landing requirements.  Because most CPs carry NMFS-certified observers, NMFS will continue to use observer data to estimate DSR mortality within this sector.
        Stock assessments based on improved catch data could lead to changes in management.  If the bycatch mortality of DSR in the groundfish and IFQ halibut fisheries is significantly higher than currently estimated, the directed fishery for DSR could be reduced to decrease the risk of overfishing.  In 2002, the directed fishery for DSR was pre-empted by the IFQ halibut fishery in East Yakutat   a State-designated management area   because the anticipated mortality of DSR in the East Yakutat halibut fishery was greater than its area-specific allowable biological catch.  The reverse might occur the DSR directed fishery quota could be increased in the less likely event that DSR incidental catch rates and fishing mortality are lower than currently estimated.
        In developing this proposed rule, NMFS considered as an alternative the institution of an observer program for the IFQ halibut fishery.  Under this alternative, observers may eventually be used to help collect DSR data in the context of a comprehensive observer program in the Gulf of Alaska.  However, one problem such a program would encounter is the variability of catch in the DSR fisheries.  Yelloweye and the other DSR species have specialized habitat needs, which means that they are more sparsely distributed than most other species.  Statistics from an International Pacific Halibut Commission survey in 2003 measured incidental catch rates of yelloweye in the halibut hook-and-line fishery ranging from 0 to 83 percent for individual sets.  The mean ranged from 3 percent in the East Yakutat subdistrict to 18 percent in the Northern Southeast Outside subdistrict.  A review of similar 1998 survey data by ADF&G concluded that fishing patterns, including area, depth, and season fished, greatly affect incidental catch rates.  Therefore, in order to be effective, a sampling program for DSR likely would require that a high percentage of vessels carry observers.  Such a program would be costly for the halibut fleet as well as impracticable because halibut vessels might be unable to accommodate observers due to space limitations.
        Avoiding Waste
        The second objective of this action is to avoid wasting DSR that are killed as a result of fishing activity.  DSR suffer internal injuries when they are brought to the surface, and the mortality rate for incidentally-caught DSR in Alaska is 100 percent.  Some fishermen have expressed dissatisfaction with the current regulations, which require them to discard dead fish that could otherwise be used for human consumption.  By requiring the retention and landing of all DSR that are caught, the proposed rule would eliminate the discard of DSR at sea and would create the potential for increased human consumption through personal use and charitable donations.
        The extent to which DSR in excess of the amount that could be sold is made available for human consumption under the proposed rule depends partly on whether a workable donation system could be set up in the larger communities involved.  Some of the DSR retained under this rule would  be kept for personal use, but presumably if too much DSR were landed, fishermen would not want to retain it.  A donation program that would distribute the fish to charities locally or nationwide, but one that would not generate profits which could lead to targeting of DSR, is one possibility being explored.  It is not clear however whether such a program will be feasible for DSR even in the larger communities involved   Sitka and Juneau  because of the costs involved in filleting and storing relatively small amounts of fish at a time.  NMFS anticipates that much of the DSR in excess of the amount that could be sold will become part of the processors' waste stream.
        Avoiding Unwanted Incentives

        The proposed full retention program is intended to enhance the collection of DSR catch data without encouraging increased “topping off” of DSR by fishermen engaged in directed groundfish and halibut fisheries.  “Topping off” occurs when a vessel operator deliberately targets a valuable species that is closed to directed fishing, in order to ensure that the vessel retains the maximum amount of that species allowed by law.  The current MRAs for DSR in the IFQ Pacific halibut and groundfish fisheries allow fishermen to top off on trips where the rate of incidental DSR catch is less than the specified MRA.  In areas where the rate exceeds the MRA, fishermen are required to discard the overage.
        Maintaining a limit on the amount of retained DSR that may be sold for profit is designed to eliminate any incentive for increased topping off activity.  Under the proposed rule, amounts of DSR that exceed the amount that could be sold would be prohibited from entering the stream of commerce, but, for example, could be retained for personal consumption, donated to a State-recognized charity, or discarded.  A donation program, or the option to keep the fish, would give fishermen who dislike discarding dead fish on principle an incentive for complying with the regulations and bringing the fish to port.
        Maintaining Consistency between State and Federal Regulations
        At present, fishermen are subject to two very different sets of Federal and State regulations concerning management of incidentally caught DSR.  The proposed rule would establish Federal regulations that are very similar, although not identical, to existing State regulations concerning management of incidentally caught DSR.  State regulations require fishermen to surrender the proceeds from the sale of DSR in excess of the MRAs to the State (5 AAC 28.171(a)).  These proceeds are deposited in the State's Fish and Game Fund, and used primarily for research.  Under the proposed rule, however, amounts of DSR caught in Federal waters that exceed the proscribed sale limits could not be sold or allowed to enter the stream of commerce.
        The Council has requested the State to prepare a report within three years of the effective date of this regulation, if adopted as final, analyzing the success of this program in achieving its primary goal of better data collection, and recommending whether the program should continue or whether a maximum retention rate should be reinstated for DSR.
        Elements of the Proposed Rule
        This proposed rule has two main provisions.  The first provision addresses retention and landing requirements.  The operator of a federally-permitted catcher vessel using hook-and-line or jig gear would be required to retain and land all DSR that is caught while fishing for groundfish or IFQ halibut in the SEO.
        The proposed rule contains no new recordkeeping or recording requirements.  As explained in the “Improving Data” collection section of this proposed rule, landed fish must be reported under existing federal and State regulations.
        The second provision addresses disposal of retained amounts of DSR.  Under the proposed rule, if a person wanted to sell retained DSR, he (or she) would be limited to no more than 10 percent of the aggregate round weight equivalent of IFQ halibut and groundfish, other than IFQ sablefish, that he retained onboard the vessel; for IFQ sablefish, the amount of retained DSR a fisherman could sell for profit would be limited to no more than 1 percent of the aggregate round weight equivalent of IFQ sablefish he retained onboard the vessel.  Fishermen could use amounts of retained DSR in excess of these sale limits for other purposes, including personal consumption or donation, but this amount of DSR would be prohibited from entering commerce through sale, barter, or trade.
        Table 10 would be amended by adding a footnote to the DSR column cross referencing § 679.20(j).
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
        There are no federalism implications as that term is defined in E.O. 13132.  However, NMFS has been in contact with state officials to ensure that they are aware of the provisions in this proposed rule.

        NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA).  The IRFA describes any adverse impacts this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on directly regulated small entities.  A copy of this analysis is available from the NMFS (see ADDRESSES).  This IRFA evaluates the effects of the proposed action on regulated small entities.  The reasons for the action, a statement of the objectives of the action, and the legal basis for the proposed rule, are discussed earlier in the preamble.  The directly regulated entities are those vessels taking DSR as incidental catch in halibut and groundfish fisheries in Federal waters of the SEO and the processors buying the DSR from them.  NMFS estimates that 423 vessels participated in these fisheries in 2000 (before the State regulations requiring full retention of DSR caught in State waters were implemented).  Most of these vessels were less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) in length, fishing with hook-and-line gear and jig gear.  Average gross revenues for these vessels from the Alaskan halibut and groundfish fisheries were about $262,000.  Average gross revenues from all fisheries for these entities are undoubtedly higher, since many of these vessels participate in other fisheries.  In the years from 1996 to 2001, between 17 and 26 plants bought groundfish in Southeast Alaska.  In 2000, the average gross revenues for these plants were about $12 million.  NMFS estimates that the fishing and processing operations regulated under this proposed rule are small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
        Under this proposed rule, small entities may experience increased costs associated with handling the additional DSR, storing them on the vessel until it reaches port, and unloading and disposing of the fish.  Some fishermen may incur additional costs as a result of changing their fishing patterns for their target species in order to avoid DSR bycatch.   Handling and delivery costs would take the form of increased work effort required on the vessel, but would not affect the operation's cash flow.  Costs may be higher on smaller vessels using refrigerated sea water (RSW) that lack deck space for special DSR totes, or on vessels that would otherwise have filled their holds with their target fish, but that are unable to given the need to retain a larger amount of DSR.   Fishermen will also face costs of disposing of the excess DSR on shore since they will not be allowed to sell the excess.  Fishermen may only use the excess DSR for personal use, donate it for charitable purposes, or discard it.  Small processors would face the costs of weighing and recording additional DSR that may be landed.  They are likely to play a role in helping vessel owners to dispose of DSR in excess of the amount that could be sold.  These actions could include allowing employees to fillet and take excess DSR, adding DSR waste to the processors' waste streams, or coordinating with donation programs to take excess DSR.  Processors would no longer be able to sell excess DSR from federal waters.  In 2001, excess DSR totaled approximately ten metric tons (the largest annual volume listed), equivalent to about $16,000 in gross revenues from this source.
        The Council's preferred alternative does not impose any new recordkeeping requirements on regulated entities.  NMFS has not been able to identify any relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the preferred alternative.

        The EA/RIR/IRFA evaluated four alternatives:  (1) The status quo, (2) full retention allowing all retained DSR to enter the stream of commerce, (3) full retention prohibiting certain amounts of DSR from entering the stream of commerce, and (4) use of an observer program.  Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative.  Alternative 1 imposes no adverse impacts on small entities, but fails to advance the action objectives of providing new information on DSR, reducing DSR wastage, and maintaining consistency between State and Federal regulations.   Alternative 2 may be less costly than Alternative 3 in that fishermen could allow processors to sell the excess DSR and relinquish the proceeds to the State.  However, if processors sold the DSR under Alternative 2, the possibility would exist for them to find roundabout ways to repay fishermen for bringing in excess DSR, thus adding an incentive for vessels to target on DSR.  Alternative 3 is discussed in detail in the preamble.  Under Alternative 4, fishermen face additional costs for observer coverage, including travel and logistical expenses for observers, and an additional cost of about $330/day for 30 percent of days at sea.  This alternative would provide new information on the status of DSR stocks, but would not reduce DSR waste or reduce the inconsistency between State and Federal regulations.  Using observers for the DSR incidental catch fishery might become more feasible in the future in the context of a comprehensive restructuring of the observer program that would include funding for the observers so that the entire cost did not fall on fishermen.
        The Council considered but rejected several other alternatives because they did not appear to be effective solutions to the stated goals.  Those mentioned in the EA include:  (a) open the directed DSR fishery during halibut IFQ seasons and require full retention, (b) defer all management of DSR to the State, and (c) implement an IFQ fishery for DSR.  The EA also discussed the option of an exempted fishing permit (EFP) conducted in order to obtain bycatch data.  However, although such a program might allow more flexibility in design, it would depend on voluntary participation, and would therefore not enable the State to obtain a full census.
        A copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  These collections are provided below by OMB control number:

          OMB No. 0648-0213 This collection contains the recordkeeping and reporting forms and logbooks in which species, including the DSR, are recorded and reported.  Total public reporting burden for this family of forms is estimated at 32,329 hours.  This estimate covers all forms of logbooks, and is not necessarily indicative of the burden associated with those to whom this rule applies.  No measurable increase in burden is associated with this proposed rule because activity under this proposed rule is included in the existing collection.

          OMB No. 0648-0206 Public reporting burden is estimated to average 21 minutes for a Federal Fisheries Permit application and 20 minutes for a Federal Processor Permit application.  The estimated response times shown include the time to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete and review the collection of information.

        Public comment is sought regarding:  whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.  Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS, Alaska Region at the ADDRESSES above, and e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements

          Dated: January 13, 2004.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For 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:
          Authority:   16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.; Title II of Division C, Pub. L. 105-277; Sec. 3027, Pub L. 106-31, 113 Stat. 57; 16 U.S.C. 1540(f).

        2. In § 679.20, paragraph (j) is added to read as follows:

          § 679.20
          General limitations.

          (j) Full retention of Demersal shelf rockfish (DSR) in the Southeast Outside District of the GOA (SEO)

          (1) Retention and landing requirements. The operator of a catcher vessel that is required to have a federal fisheries permit, or that harvests IFQ halibut with hook and line or jig gear, must retain and land all DSR that is caught while fishing for groundfish or IFQ halibut in the SEO.
          (2) Disposal of DSR when closed to directed fishing. When DSR is closed to directed fishing in the SEO, the operator of a catcher vessel that is required to have a Federal fisheries permit under § 679.4 (b), or the manager of a shoreside processor that is required to have a Federal processor permit under § 679.4(f), must dispose of DSR retained and landed in accordance with paragraph (j)(1) of this section as follows:
          (i) Ten percent limit on sale of DSR caught while fishing with hook-and-line or jig gear for IFQ halibut or groundfish species other than sablefish in the SEO. A person may sell, barter, or trade a round weight equivalent amount of DSR that is less than or equal to10 percent of the aggregate round weight equivalent of IFQ halibut and groundfish species, other than sablefish, that are landed during the same fishing trip.
          (ii) One percent limit on sale of DSR caught while fishing with hook-and-line or jig gear for IFQ sablefish in the SEO. A person may sell, barter, or trade a round weight equivalent amount of DSR that is less than or equal to1 percent of the aggregate round weight equivalent of IFQ sablefish that are landed during the same fishing trip.
          (iii) Disposal of amounts of DSR that are in excess of the sale limits. Amounts of DSR retained by catcher vessels under paragraph (j)(1) of this section that are in excess of the limits specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (ii) may be put to any use, including but not limited to personal consumption or donation, but must not enter commerce through sale, barter, or trade.
          3.  In 50 CFR part 679, Table 10 is revised as follows:

        BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

          EP21JA04.013

          EP21JA04.014

          EP21JA04.015

          EP21JA04.016

          EP21JA04.017

      [FR Doc. 04-1220 Filed 1-20-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-C


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 06-345, MM Docket No. 01-269, RM-10249]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Antlers, OK

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; dismissal.

          SUMMARY:

          At the request of Charles Crawford, the Audio Division dismisses the petition for rule making proposing the allotment of Channel 284A at Antlers, Oklahoma, as the community's third local aural transmission service. See 66 FR 52734, October 17, 2001. We also dismiss the counterproposals filed by Entravision Holdings, LLC and Radio One Licenses, Inc., because both counterproposals were considered and resolved in related proceedings.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sharon P. McDonald, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-269, adopted February 15, 2006, and released February 17, 2006. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20054, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com. This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. The Commission, is, therefore, not required to submit a copy of this Report and Order to GAO, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because the proposed rule was dismissed.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          John A. Karousos,
          Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 06-2131 Filed 3-7-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 680
        [Docket No. 200713-0189]
        RIN 0648-BJ64
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Removing the Prohibition on Continuing To Fish After a Partial Offload in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program

          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 that would remove the regulatory prohibition on continuing to fish after a partial offload in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BS/AI) Crab Rationalization (CR) Program. This proposed action is needed to provide CR crab fishery participants operational flexibility to conduct their business in an efficient manner, in particular when emergencies or special circumstances arise. This proposed rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for BS/AI King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP), and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before September 3, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2020-0034, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2020-0034, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Records Office. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

            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 a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of the draft Regulatory Impact Review (referred to as the “Analysis”) and the draft Categorical Exclusion prepared for this proposed rule may be obtained from www.regulations.gov.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Authority for Action

        NMFS manages the king and Tanner crab fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the BS/AI under the Crab FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the Crab FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations implementing most provisions of the Crab FMP, including the CR Program, are located at 50 CFR part 680. Regulations implementing specific provisions of the Crab FMP that pertain to the License Limitation Permit Program are located at 50 CFR part 679.

        All relevant comments submitted on this proposed rule and received by the end of the comment period (See DATES) will be considered by NMFS and addressed in the response to comments in the final rule.
        Background

        The CR Program was implemented on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005). The CR Program established a limited access program (LAP) for nine crab fisheries in the BS/AI and assigned quota share (QS) to persons based on their historic participation in one or more of those nine BS/AI crab fisheries during a specific period. Each year, a person who holds QS may receive an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of the annual total allowable catch (TAC). This annual exclusive harvest privilege is called individual fishing quota (IFQ).
        NMFS also issued processor quota share (PQS) under the CR Program. Each year, PQS yields an exclusive privilege to process a portion of the IFQ in each of the nine BS/AI CR crab fisheries. This annual exclusive processing privilege is called individual processor quota (IPQ). Only a portion of the QS issued yields IFQ that is required to be delivered to a processor with IPQ. Each year there is a one-to-one match between the total pounds of IFQ that must be delivered to a processor with IPQ with and the total pounds of IPQ issued in each CR crab fishery.
        Under current regulations, a person may offload a portion of CR crab from a vessel at multiple processors. However, except for the Western Aleutian Islands golden king crab fishery, regulations at 50 CFR 680.7(b)(3) prohibit a person from fishing again or taking CR crab on board the vessel until all of the crab originally on board the vessel have been offloaded. The prohibition against resuming fishing once an offload has commenced and until it is completed applies to CR Program crab, which includes IFQ and Community Development Quota (CDQ) crab landings. In December 2019, the Council recommended removing the regulatory prohibition on resuming fishing for CR crab between partial offloads for all CR crab fisheries. This proposed rule is a regulatory amendment that would remove this prohibition against continuing to fish in the BSAI CR crab fisheries once offloading has commenced and until all CR crab are landed.
        Removal of the prohibition would provide IFQ and CDQ participants in CR crab fisheries operational flexibility to conduct their business in an efficient manner, in particular when emergencies or special circumstances arise, such as inclement weather. With adjustments by the State to its data collection protocols, proper catch accounting would be maintained with this proposed action. The following sections of this preamble provide (1) a brief history of the prohibition on crab partial offloads; (2) the expected effects of and need for this action; and (3) a description of the regulatory change made by this proposed rule.
        Brief History of the Prohibition on Crab Partial Offloads

        The regulatory prohibition on returning to fish after a partial offload of crab was originally established with the implementation of the CR Program. NMFS published the final rule to implement the CR Program on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174). Fishing under the CR Program started with the 2005/2006 crab fishing year. The regulatory prohibition on partial offloads at 50 CFR 680.7(b)(3) was intended to address enforcement concerns associated with a potential change in discarding behavior due to the new management of the fisheries. Specifically, there were concerns that undesirable crab (e.g., overages, deadloss, or barnacled crab) would be discarded at sea without being accounted for, and there was a concern that resuming fishing between partial offloads would exacerbate the opportunity to discard crab illegally. The prohibition was intended to ensure that all fishery removals are monitored and reported in the CR Program catch accounting system. The final rule to implement the CR Program has a detailed description of the monitoring and catch accounting provisions in the CR crab fisheries (70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005).
        Experience with the CR Program has shown that illegal (unreported) crab discards are unlikely for several reasons. First, there is no prohibition on sorting crab at the rail, and this is where undesirable crab are often discarded. These discards are accounted for by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and ADF&G has communicated to industry that high levels of discarding at the rail would be reflected in the stock assessments and ultimate crab TACs. Second, while discarding crab later in the trip is prohibited, dumping crab at sea once it has gone into the tanks would be dangerous and impractical. Third, the risk of quota overages has been greatly reduced due to the cooperative structure of the CR Program, online quota transfers, and post-delivery quota transfers, giving the industry many options to resolve a potential overage. Finally, the structure of the CR Program means more people than just the vessel operators are put at risk by this sort of illegal activity. Experience with the CR Program also has shown that the prohibition against continuing to fish for CR crab after an offload has begun and until the offload is complete has simplified dockside sampling and catch accounting.
        In 2016, the Council recommended, and NMFS implemented an exemption from this prohibition specifically for the Western Aleutian Islands golden king crab (WAG) fishery (81 FR 24511, April 26, 2016). This exemption was developed to accommodate harvesting and processing operations in Adak, Alaska for a live crab market. In order to make this live market opportunity economically viable, processors needed vessels to be able to deliver small amounts of crab opportunistically while commercial aircraft were available. The Council wished to promote the product development and market opportunity, the economic efficiency, and potential community benefits this exemption could foster. Additionally, ADF&G determined that, given the small number of vessels prosecuting this fishery (consistently two to four vessels), ADF&G staff could work with these vessel operators to ensure this change would be minimally disruptive to the monitoring and accounting for catch in the WAG fishery.
        In April 2018, the Council received a proposal from the Pacific Northwest Crab Industry Advisory Committee, requesting the same consideration for the rest of the CR crab fisheries. In February 2019, the Council decided to examine the proposal, stating that while the Council was interested in providing operational flexibility, particularly in emergencies or special circumstances, it also wanted to ensure that ADF&G would be able to maintain proper catch monitoring and accounting in the CR crab fisheries.
        The Expected Effects of and Need for This Action
        While fishing after a partial delivery was fairly common practice by vessels racing to catch and deliver crab before the CR Program was implemented, the CR Program has increased coordination between harvesters and processors, allowing for an increase in the efficiency of offloads. Under the CR Program, it is more economically efficient for vessels to offload all crab before resuming fishing in order to avoid deadloss of the crab sitting in tanks on the vessel. For this, and other reasons described earlier, the Council and NMFS do not anticipate that the resumption of fishing after a crab partial offload would become a routine operating procedure if the prohibition on fishing between partial offloads is removed. The flexibility resulting from this action would only be expected to be used in emergency situations, such as inclement weather, or special circumstances related to the economics of the operations. Therefore, the impacts of this action are expected to be minimal and only beneficial.

        While the prohibition at § 680.7(b)(3) may no longer be needed to address enforcement concerns, the prohibition has greatly simplified dockside sampling and catch accounting. Section 2.7.4 of the Analysis for this action examined the effects of removing this prohibition for all CR fisheries on the State's monitoring and catch accounting procedures and indicated whether modifications would be necessary and if necessary, what modifications would be required. Section 2.7.4 concludes that without modifications by ADF&G to accommodate the proposed change, removal of the prohibition could complicate some aspects of the State's dockside sampling, catch accounting, and Observer Program, and may degrade the spatial quality of some of the data collected in these fisheries.
        For example, Section 2.7.4.3 of the Analysis states that ADF&G's protocol for at-sea sampling would likely not have to change under the proposed action, but that the State's Observer Program may need to define and adjust to a new definition of “trip” for some observer sampling purposes. In addition, NMFS requires operators of vessels in the CR crab fisheries to complete a daily fishing log. ADF&G uses data from the daily fishing log to verify landings and to ensure accurate accounting for all fishery removals. These existing accounting protocols will help to mitigate any complications that may arise if a CR crab fishery participant were to continue fishing between partial offloads. Finally, any level of concern with the complexity the proposed action generates regarding management and accounting issues is tied to frequency of use. Because this proposed action is not anticipated to be used often, any complexity regarding catch accounting is expected to be minimal. ADF&G indicated that it could adjust its monitoring and catch accounting procedures and protocols to accommodate the proposed action and maintain data quality, and that it would make those adjustments upon implementation of the action.
        The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that this proposed action would provide CR Program fishery participants with additional operational flexibility to conduct their business in an efficient manner, in particular when emergencies or special circumstances arise, such as inclement weather. The Council also acknowledged that with adjustments by the State to its data collection protocols, proper catch accounting would be maintained with this proposed action.
        Proposed Rule
        This proposed rule would remove the prohibition on continuing to fish after a partial offload of crab in the BS/AI CR crab fisheries. To make that change, this proposed rule would remove the prohibition language in section (b)(3) under 50 CFR 680.7 and renumber subsequent sections under § 680.7(b).
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Council's regulatory amendment, the Crab FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment period.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.
        Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
        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.
        This proposed rule would remove the prohibition against continuing to fish in the BS/AI CR crab fisheries once offloading has commenced and until all CR Program crab are landed. This will allow CR Program fishery participants operational flexibility to conduct their business in an efficient manner, in particular when emergencies or special circumstances arise, while also ensuring proper catch accounting.
        Entities that would be directly regulated by this proposed rule include those that commercially harvest BS/AI CR crab, including holders of IFQ and CDQ crab. These are the participants currently regulated by the prohibition at 50 CFR 680.7(b)(3). Although potentially impacted, regulatory changes from the proposed rule would not directly include processors, processor quota shareholders, individual processing quota holders, or communities. In 2018, the most recent year with vessel revenue data available, there were 68 vessels participating in CR crab fisheries (including harvesting CDQ crab). All of these vessels fished within cooperatives, and all but 8 of these vessels were part of cooperatives whose gross revenues exceeded $11.0 million. Thus, due to their affiliations, 60 harvesters are considered large entities for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and 8 are considered small entities. In recent years, vessels unaffiliated with a cooperative harvested a small amount of quota. If unaffiliated with a cooperative, these entities may also be considered small under the RFA definition. Based on the scope of this action, impacts to small, directly regulated entities are expected to be minimal and beneficial if the entities decide to use the flexibility to continue fishing after a partial offload.
        This action does not place any new regulatory burden on CR Program participants; it allows increased flexibility for vessels that choose to use the voluntary harvest flexibility. This proposed action, therefore, is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of the small entities directly regulated by this proposed action.
        As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.
        Regulatory Impact Review

        A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The Council recommended and NMFS proposes these regulations based on those measures that maximize net benefits to the Nation.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 680
          Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: July 14, 2020.
          Samuel D. Rauch, III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 680 as follows:

          PART 680—SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

        1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 680 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L. 109-241; Pub. L. 109-479.

          § 680.7
           Amended

        2. In § 680.7, remove paragraph (b)(3) and redesignate paragraphs (b)(4) through (7) as (b)(3) through (6), respectively.

      [FR Doc. 2020-15661 Filed 8-3-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P