        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 090218199-91091-01]
        RIN 0648-AX38
        Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Pelagic Fisheries; Vessel Identification Requirements

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to revise identification requirements for U.S. vessels that fish for pelagic management unit species on the high seas of the central and western Pacific. The new measures would require vessels to display their International Telecommunication Union Radio Call Sign (IRCS). If an IRCS has not been assigned to the vessel, the vessel would be required to display its official number, preceded by the characters “USA ”. The intent of this proposed rule is to make existing Federal vessel identification requirements conform with other regulations being proposed to implement international requirements.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received by August 3, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on this proposed rule, identified by 0648-AX38, may be sent to either of the following addresses:

          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov; or
          • Mail: William L. Robinson, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700.

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared a regulatory amendment that contains background information on the issue, analyses of biological and economic impacts, and proposed changes to the regulations. Copies of the regulatory amendment are available from www.regulations.gov, and from the Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, www.wpcouncil.org.

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202-395-7285.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jarad Makaiau, Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2108.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This Federal Register document is also accessible at www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
        The Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPFC) was established under the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Convention). The Convention's objective is to ensure, through effective management, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks in the western and central Pacific Ocean, including measures to manage and conserve tunas and to minimize impacts on protected resources, such as sea turtles and seabirds. The Convention Area includes waters around Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Marianas Islands, and U.S. Pacific remote island areas. Thus, it encompasses the operational areas of U.S. purse seine, pelagic longline, and troll and handline fisheries, as well as local pelagic fisheries.

        Under the Convention, vessels that are authorized to fish on the high seas in the Convention Area are required to be identified in accordance with the Standard Specifications for the Marking and Identification of Fishing Vessels of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. NMFS is in the process of implementing those standards in new requirements for U.S. fishing vessels under the authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (WCPFCIA, Public Law 109 479, Sec 501, et seq., and codified at 16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). On May 22, 2009, NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (74 FR 23965), seeking public comment on pending vessel identification requirements. Specifically, U.S. vessels used for commercial fishing for pelagic management unit species (i.e., highly migratory species) on the high seas with a NMFS-issued Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Area Endorsement would be required to display its IRCS on the port and starboard sides of the hull or superstructure and deck surface. If an IRCS has not been assigned, the vessel must display its official number (i.e., USCG documentation number or other registration number) preceded by the characters “USA” and a hyphen (i.e., “USA-”). Only these markings would be allowed on the hull or superstructure, apart from the vessel's name and hailing port.
        This proposed rule would be consistent with the proposed requirements under the WCPFCIA by revising existing western Pacific vessel identification regulations at Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 665.16). United States vessels that are issued a permit under 50 CFR 665.21, i.e., longline, troll & handline, and squid jig vessels, and that fish for pelagic management unit species highly migratory species) in the high seas of the Convention Area would be required to display vessel markings as described above. Vessels that fish for pelagic species only within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or on the high seas outside the Convention Area would have the option to be marked pursuant to the vessel identification requirements being proposed under the WCPFCIA, or maintain markings pursuant to existing vessel identification requirements. The proposed rule would modify only the manner in which federally-permitted pelagic fishing vessels are marked with their official numbers, and does not modify vessel operations or other aspects of the pelagic fisheries.
        To be considered, comments on this proposed rule must be received by August 3, 2009, not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.
        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 vessel identification regulatory amendment, provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS analyzed this proposed rule under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, and concluded that there are no factors that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under sections 5.05 and 6.03.c.3.(i) of that order. Therefore, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from further environmental consideration because the proposed actions are administrative in nature and do not have the potential to individually or cumulatively pose significant impacts to the quality of the human environment.
        Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities
        The Chief Council for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Council 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 Council and NMFS are proposing to revise western Pacific vessel identification regulations by requiring U.S. vessels that fish for pelagic species on the high seas of the western and central Pacific to be marked with the vessel's IRCS. The revisions will also provide that if an IRCS has not been assigned to the vessel, the marking will consist of the vessel's official number, preceded by the characters “USA-.” Vessels that fish for pelagic species only within the EEZ or on the high seas outside the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Area would have the option to either apply the high seas markings or maintain markings pursuant to existing requirements.
          The intent of the proposed action is to bring the existing vessel identification requirements at 50 CFR 665.16 into conformity with international vessel identification requirements agreed to by the WCPFC, as they would be applied in a separate proposed action, for U.S. vessels fishing for pelagic species on the high seas in the Convention Area. The United States, as a Contracting Party to the Convention, will soon be implementing the vessel identification requirements under the Convention. This action will result in a consistent set of identification requirements applicable to United States vessels fishing in the EEZ and on the high seas within the Convention Area. The proposed rule affects only the manner in which Federally-permitted fishing vessels are marked with their official number, and does not modify vessel operations or other aspects of the fishery.

          A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule. All vessels having the potential to participate in this fishery are considered to be small entities under the current Small Business Administration definition of small fish-harvesting businesses (gross receipts not in excess of $4 million).
          There are up to 230 longline, pole-and-line, and troll and handline vessels that could be affected by this rulemaking. The estimated one-time cost for the required marking for each of 230 vessels would be up to $100. Estimated 2006 average gross revenues per vessel for the Hawaii- and American Samoa-based longline fisheries were approximately $300,000. Therefore, the cost of vessel marking for those vessels represents far less than one percent of gross revenues per vessel. The remaining affected vessels, including other longline, pole-and-line, and troll and handline vessels, would most likely have a higher cost-to-gross revenue percentage. However, it is unlikely that any of the percentages would exceed three percent (which would translate to $3,300 in annual revenues).
          This proposed action contains no fishery management controls that affect the operations of the fishery, other than vessel identification. Thus, significant impacts to the profitability of a substantial number of small entities are not anticipated. This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules. There are no disproportionate economic impacts from this rule based on home port, gear type, or relative vessel size.
          Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 605(b), NMFS has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities based on the pre-existing status of pelagic fisheries of the central and western Pacific.

        As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

        This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and which has been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0360. The one-time public reporting burden for vessel identification requirements is estimated at 45 minutes and $100 in supplies per vessel. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202-395-7285.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessel identification, Western and central Pacific.

          Dated: July 13, 2009.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 665 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

        1. The authority citation for part 665 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 665.16, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:

          § 665.16
          Vessel identification.
          (a) Applicability. Each fishing vessel subject to this part, except those identified in paragraph (e) of this section, must be marked for identification purposes, as follows:
          (1) A vessel that is registered for use with a valid permit issued under § 665.21 and used to fish on the high seas within the Convention Area as defined in § 300.211 of this title must be marked in accordance with the requirements at §§ 300.14 and 300.217 of this title.
          (2) A vessel that is registered for use with a valid permit issued under § 665.21 of this part and not used to fish on the high seas within the Convention Area must be marked in accordance with either:
          (i) Sections 300.14 and 300.217 of this title, or
          (ii) Paragraph (b) of this section.
          (3) A vessel that is registered for use with a valid permit issued under §§ 665.41, 665.61, 665.81, or 665.602 of this part must be marked in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.
          (b) Identification. Each vessel subject to this section must be marked as follows:
          (1) The vessel's official number must be affixed to the port and starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull, and on an appropriate weather deck, so as to be visible from enforcement vessels and aircraft. Marking must be legible and of a color that contrasts with the background.
          (2) For fishing and receiving vessels of 65 ft (19.8 m) LOA or longer, the official number must be displayed in block Arabic numerals at least 18 inches (45.7 cm) in height, except that vessels subject to § 665.81 that are 65 ft (19.8 m) LOA or longer must be marked in block Arabic numerals at least 14 inches (35.6 cm) in height.
          (3) For all other vessels, the official number must be displayed in block Arabic numerals at least 10 inches (25.4 cm) in height.

      [FR Doc. E9-17073 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
        49 CFR Part 1201
        [Docket No. EP 763]
        Montana Rail Link, Inc.—Petition for Rulemaking—Classification of Carriers
        On February 14, 2020, Montana Rail Link, Inc. (MRL), filed a petition for rulemaking to amend the Board's rail carrier classification regulation set forth at 49 CFR part 1201, General Instructions section 1-1(a), which describes the revenue thresholds for the classes of carriers for the purposes of accounting and reporting.1

           Currently, Class I carriers have annual operating revenues of $489,935,956 or more, Class II carriers have annual operating revenues of less than $489,935,956 and more than $39,194,876, and Class III carriers have annual operating revenues of $39,194,876 or less, all when adjusted for inflation. 49 CFR pt. 1201, General Instructions section 1-1(a) (setting thresholds unadjusted for inflation); Indexing the Annual Operating Revenues of R.R.s., EP 748 (STB served June 14, 2019) (calculating revenue deflator factor and publishing thresholds adjusted for inflation based on 2018 data).2

            1 The revenue thresholds for each class of carrier are adjusted annually for inflation and published on the Board's website.

            2 “The railroad revenue deflator formula is based on the Railroad Freight Price Index developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The formula is as follows: Current Year's Revenues × (1991 Average Index/Current Year's Average Index).” 49 CFR pt. 1201, Note A.

        MRL requests that the Board increase the above revenue threshold for Class I carriers to $900 million. (Pet. 1.) In support of its request, MRL contends that it continues to be a regional railroad operationally and economically but may exceed the Class I revenue threshold within two years. (Id.) Citing principles drawn from the Interstate Commerce Commission's 1992 rulemaking in which the revenue thresholds were last raised,3

           MRL asks that the Board address “whether a regional carrier such as MRL should be treated as a Class I carrier, taking into account (1) the financial and operational differences between MRL and existing Class I carriers, and (2) the cost-benefit analysis of imposing Class I requirements on MRL.” (Id. at 12.) From an operational standpoint, MRL states that it is clearly differentiated from a typical Class I carrier because of its heavy dependence on a single Class I railroad and because approximately 95% of its mainline track is located in Montana. (Id. at 5-6.) From a financial standpoint, MRL also notes, among other things, that the average operating revenue for Class I railroads in 2018 was more than 27 times MRL's total revenue for that year and that the operating revenue for the smallest Class I railroad was about 3.5 times the total revenue of MRL. (Id. at 8). Because of its operational and financial characteristics, MRL contends that there would be no offsetting benefit from imposing the cost of Class I reporting requirements on MRL. (Id. at 12.) MRL submitted eight letters of support with its petition.4
           No replies to MRL's petition were received.

            3 Pet. at 1-2 (citing Mont. Rail Link, Inc. & Wis. Cent. Ltd., Joint Pet. for Rulemaking with Respect to 49 CFR part 1201, 8 I.C.C.2d 625 (1992)).

            4 Letters of support were included from the Montana Contractors' Association, Montana Agricultural Business Association, Montana Grain Elevator Association, Montana Petroleum Association, Inc., Montana Taxpayers Association, Montana Chamber of Commerce, Treasure State Resources Association, and Montana Wood Products Association.

        The Board will open a rulemaking proceeding to consider MRL's petition and consider issues related to the Class I carrier revenue threshold determination. The Board invites comment about whether it should amend 49 CFR part 1201, General Instructions section 1-1(a), to increase the revenue threshold for Class I carriers, and, if so, whether $900 million or another amount would be appropriate.
        Any interested stakeholders may file comments regarding potentially amending 49 CFR part 1201, General Instructions section 1-1(a), to increase the revenue threshold for Class I carriers by June 15, 2020. If any comments are filed, replies will be due by July 6, 2020.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1201
          Railroad, Uniform System of Accounts.

          It is ordered:

        1. MRL's petition to initiate a rulemaking proceeding is granted, as discussed above.
        2. Comments are due by June 15, 2020; replies are due by July 6, 2020.
        3. This decision will be published in the Federal Register.
        4. This decision is effective on the date of service.

          Decided: May 13, 2020.

          By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Fuchs, and Oberman.
          Tammy Lowery,
          Clearance Clerk.

      [FR Doc. 2020-10764 Filed 5-19-20; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4915-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 7, 8, 12, and 39
        [FAR Case 2005-014; Docket 2007-0001; Sequence 9]
        RIN 9000-AK83
        Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2005-014, SmartBUY

          AGENCIES:
          Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement the Governmentwide Enterprise Software Licensing Program, also known as SmartBUY.  This action is necessary to comply with Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-04-08, Maximizing Use of SmartBuy and Avoiding Duplication of Agency Activities with the President's 24 E-Gov Initiatives, dated February 25, 2004.  By leveraging the Federal Government Enterprise Software Licensing Program, the Government will achieve the maximum cost savings and favorable terms and conditions for acquiring software and software maintenance.  This rule impacts contracting officers and other acquisition officials responsible for reviewing the terms, conditions, and prices for the acquisition of commercial software and software maintenance.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments to the FAR Secretariat on or before December 31, 2007 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by FAR case 2005-014, by any of the following methods:
          Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
          • To search for any document, first select under “Step 1,” “Documents with an Open Comment Period” and select under “Optional Step 2,”  “Federal Acquisition Regulation” as the agency of choice. Under “Optional Step 3,” select “Proposed Rules”. Under “Optional Step 4,” from the drop down list, select “Document Title” and type the FAR case number “2005-014”. Click the “Submit” button. Please include your name and company name (if any) inside the document. You may also search for any document by clicking on the “Search for Documents” tab at the top of the screen. Select from the agency field “Federal Acquisition Regulation”, and type “2005-014” in the “Document Title” field.  Select the “Submit” button.
          • Fax:  202-501-4067.
          • Mail:  General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, ATTN:  Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC  20405.

            Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FAR case 2005-014, in all correspondence related to this case.  All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
          Ms. Jeritta Parnell, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 501-4082 for clarification of content.  For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the FAR Secretariat at (202) 501-4755.  Please cite FAR case 2005-014.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A.  Background
        Pursuant to Section 5112 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 11302), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for improving the acquisition and use of information technology (IT) by the Federal Government and designating Executive Agents for Governmentwide acquisitions of IT.  To ensure that the Federal Government is maximizing its buying power to achieve the cost savings and favorable terms and conditions for commercial software, OMB created the SmartBUY initiative.  GSA is designated as the Executive Agent for the SmartBUY initiative.
        This rule proposes to amend the FAR to ensure SmartBUY is considered during acquisition planning, and prescribes the policies and procedures for using SmartBUY enterprise agreements.
        This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.  This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        B.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The Councils do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule applies to commercial agreements under the SmartBUY Program that are based on existing negotiated contracts.  These agreements direct contracting officers to consider established contracting vehicles.  Small businesses have participated in the SmartBuy Program to date.  In fact, three of the six existing agreements are with small businesses.

        An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been performed.  We invite comments from small businesses and other interested parties.  The Councils will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected FAR Part 7, 8, 12, and 39 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610.  Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (FAR case 2005-014), in correspondence.
        C.  Paperwork Reduction Act

        The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the FAR do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 7, 8, 12, and 39
          Government procurement.

          Dated:  October 22, 2007.
          Al Matera,
          Director, Office of Acquisition Policy.

        Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 7, 8, 12, and 39 as set forth below:
        1.  The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 7, 8, 12, and 39 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).

          PART 7—ACQUISITION PLANNING

        2.  Amend section 7.103 by adding paragraph (v) to read as follows:

          7.103
           Agency-head responsibilities.

        (v)  Ensuring that agency planners fulfill requirements for commercial software or related services, such as software maintenance, in accordance with the SmartBUY program (see FAR Subpart 8.9).
        3.  Amend section 7.105 by adding paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B)(3) to read as follows:

          7.105
           Contents of written acquisition plans.

        (b)  *  *  *
        (4)  *  *  *
        (ii)  *  *  *
        (B)  *  *  *
        (3)  Ordering through a SmartBUY agreement leverages Government user volume and achieves a substantial price discount.

          PART 8—REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

        4.  Add subpart 8.9 to read as follows:

          Subpart 8.9—Acquisition of Commercial Software

            Sec.

          8.900
           Scope of subpart.
          8.901
           Definitions.
          8.902
           General.
          8.903
           Policy.
          8.904
           Acquisition procedures.
          8.905
           Approval and Notification.

          8.900
           Scope of subpart.

        This subpart prescribes the policies and procedures for acquisition of commercial software or related services, such as software maintenance, through the Governmentwide Enterprise Software Program, also known as SmartBUY.

          8.901
           Definitions.

        As used in this subpart—

          Enterprise software agreement (ESA) means an agreement established for agencies to use to acquire designated commercial software or related services, such as software maintenance.

          Software maintenance means activities performed and/or services provided by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) as standard services to keep software functioning to the commercial specification, at established catalog or market prices, e.g., the right to receive and use upgraded versions of software, updates, and revisions.

          Software product manager means the Government official who manages an enterprise software agreement.

          8.902
           General.

        SmartBUY is a consolidated purchasing program for the acquisition of commercial software or related services, such as software maintenance.  SmartBUY is designed to provide all agencies, regardless of their size, the greatest price discounts available to the Federal Government.  The SmartBUY Software Program (see website at http://www.gsa.gov/smartbuy) promotes the use of Enterprise Software Agreements (ESAs) with contractors, called SmartBUY agreements, that allow the Government to obtain favorable terms and pricing for commercial software or related services, such as software maintenance.

          8.903
           Policy.

        Prior to issuing contracts for commercial software or related services, such as software maintenance, agencies shall review the SmartBUY agreements at http://www.gsa.gov/smartbuy or http://www.esi.mil.  Federal agencies shall place an order to fulfill requirements for commercial software or related services, such as software maintenance, when a SmartBUY agreement is available and is applicable to the agency's requirement and volume.

          8.904
           Acquisition procedures.

        (a)  The contracting officer or other ordering official must review the terms, conditions, and prices using market research or other procurement practices to determine if commercial software or related services, such as software maintenance, is available through a SmartBUY agreement.
        (b)  When the terms, conditions, and prices represent a best value to the Government, the contracting officer or other ordering official shall place an order to fulfill the requirement for commercial software or related services, such as software maintenance, through a SmartBUY agreement.
        (c)  When an existing SmartBUY agreement does not represent the best value to the Government, the contracting officer or other ordering official should allow the contractor an opportunity to provide the same or a better value under the SmartBUY agreement before using alternate procurement methods.  In such cases, the contracting officer or other ordering official should notify the SmartBUY program office Software Product Manager of specific concerns, so that the SPM can take action to potentially improve an existing SmartBUY agreement's terms, conditions or prices through the SmartBUY website.
        (d)  When an available SmartBUY agreement will not be used, the contracting officer or other ordering official must comply with the approval and notification procedures in 8.905.
        (e)  When the required commercial software or related services, such as software maintenance, is no[0]t covered by a SmartBUY agreement, the contracting officer may fulfill a requirement using other procurement methods.

          8.905
           Approval and Notification.

        (a)  The contracting officer or ordering official must get approval from the agency Senior Procurement Executive and the agency Chief Information Officer, or as provided by agency procedures, when not using an available SmartBUY agreement.  The approval shall—
        (1)  Describe the agency's requirement;
        (2)  Explain the reason for not using an existing SmartBUY agreement; and
        (3)  Describe how the agency will satisfy its needs for commercial software and negotiate a fair and reasonable price.

        (b)  The contracting officer or ordering official must notify GSA when an available SmartBUY agreement is not used to acquire commercial software or related services, such as software maintenance, by sending a copy of the approval to GSA at— General Services Administration, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Technology Strategy (ME), 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC  20406; or send via e-mail to SmartBUYwaiver@gsa.gov.

          PART 12—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

        5.  Amend section 12.212 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

          12.212
           Computer software.

        (c)  Acquisition officials shall consider using SmartBUY Enterprise Software Agreements when acquiring commercial software or related services, such as software maintenance (see FAR Subpart 8.9).

          PART 39—ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

        6.  Amend section 39.101 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

          39.101
           Policy.

        (b)(1)  In acquiring information technology, agencies shall identify their requirements pursuant to—
        (i)  OMB Circular A-130, including consideration of security of resources, protection of privacy, national security and emergency preparedness, accommodations for individual with disabilities, and energy efficiency; and
        (ii)  FAR 8.903 and the availability of a SmartBUY Agreement.
        (2)  When developing an acquisition strategy, contracting officers should consider the rapidly changing nature of information technology through market research (see Part 10) and the application of technology refreshment techniques.

      [FR Doc. 07-5405 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 101206604-1620-01]
        RIN 0648-BA55
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Amendment 16 to the Salmon Fishery Management Plan

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments; notice of availability of a draft environmental assessment.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 16 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (Salmon FMP). Amendment 16, which was transmitted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) on September 12, 2011, to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for review and approval, brings the Salmon FMP into compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) as reauthorized in 2006, and the corresponding revised National Standard 1 Guidelines (NS1Gs) to end and prevent overfishing. This document also announces the availability for public review and comment of a draft environmental assessment (EA) analyzing the environmental impacts of implementing Amendment 16.

          DATES:
          Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before November 18, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2011-0227, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2011-0227 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line.
          • Mail: William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070 or to Rod McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.
          • Fax: 206-526-6736 Attn: Peggy Mundy, or 562-980-4047 Attn: Jennifer Isé.

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

          Information relevant to this proposed rule, which includes a draft environmental assessment (Draft EA), a regulatory impact review (RIR), and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) are available for public review during business hours at the office of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), at 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Portland, OR 97220, phone: 503-820-2280, and are posted on its Web site (http://www.pcouncil.org). These documents are also linked on the NMFS Northwest Region Web site (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov). Copies of additional reports referred to in this document may also be obtained from the Council.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Peggy Mundy at 206-526-4323, or Jennifer Isé at 562-980-4046.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA) amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) to include new requirements for annual catch limits (ACLs), accountability measures (AMs), and other provisions regarding preventing and ending overfishing and rebuilding fisheries. On January 16, 2009, NMFS published a final rule (74 FR 3178) amending the National Standard 1 Guidelines (NS1Gs) to implement these new requirements. In response, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) convened an ad hoc Salmon Amendment Committee to develop alternatives for Amendment 16 to the FMP to address these new requirements. In June 2011, the Council adopted Amendment 16. The Council transmitted the amendment to NMFS on September 12, 2011. NMFS published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register (76 FR 57945, September 19, 2011) to notify the public of the availability of the amendment and invite comments. Concurrently with developing Amendment 16, alternatives were analyzed in a Draft EA.
        This proposed rule identifies changes to the regulations under 50 CFR 660 subpart H to implement Amendment 16. The Council has deemed the proposed regulations to be necessary and appropriate as required by section 303(c) of the MSA. This document also announces the availability of the Draft EA for public review and comment. Key Components of Amendment 16.
        Stock Classification
        Stocks “in the fishery.” Stocks in need of conservation and management measures in Council-area fisheries would be classified as “in the fishery” under Amendment 16. Target stocks in Council-area fisheries are hatchery stocks and productive natural stocks with ocean distributions primarily within the Council area. Non-target salmon stocks include stocks listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or depressed natural stocks. Under Amendment 16, all salmon stocks currently included in the FMP would be considered to be in the fishery except for Canadian Chinook, coho and pink stocks, and mid-Columbia River spring Chinook salmon. The Canadian stocks would be removed because they are managed under the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and their status is assessed by the Canadian government. The mid-Columbia River spring Chinook salmon would be removed because Council area fisheries have negligible impacts on the stock, and therefore they are not in need of conservation and management measures in fisheries under Council authority. Two stocks would be added to the FMP: Oregon coastal hatchery coho and Willapa Bay natural coho. Smith River Chinook salmon would also be identified as a separate stock from other ESA listed California Coastal Chinook stocks.
        Stock Complexes. Stock complexes are groups of stocks that are sufficiently similar in geographic distribution, life history, and vulnerabilities to the fishery such that the impacts of management actions on the stocks are similar. Stock complexes may be formed to facilitate management requirements such as setting ACLs, or determining stock status. Three Chinook stock complexes would be specified in Amendment 16 for the purposes of specifying ACLs and AMs: Central Valley Fall (CVF), Southern Oregon Northern California (SONC), and far-north migrating coastal (FNMC). The status of stocks in these complexes would be assessed individually.
        Internationally managed stocks. Amendment 16 identifies the FNMC Chinook complex; Washington coastal and Puget Sound coho; and Puget Sound pink salmon as exempt from the ACL and AM requirements in the MSA because these stocks are subject to management under an international agreement (Pub. L. 109-479, sec. 104(b), MSA § 303 note). These stocks are managed in accordance with terms of the Pacific Salmon Treaty between the U.S. and Canada. While stocks managed under an international agreement can be exempted from the specification of ACLs, all other MSA 303(a) requirements apply, such as specification of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and status determination criteria (SDC).
        Status Determination Criteria
        Under Amendment 16, SDC would be determined for natural stocks 1

           for which specification of these reference points is appropriate and possible, based on the best available science. SDC would be specified only for individual stocks, including indicator stocks within stock complexes, not for stock complexes as a whole. The proposed SDC incorporate the reference points identified in the MSA and NS1Gs; however, the proposed definitions of some of these reference points differ slightly from those in the NS1Gs to accommodate the life history of Pacific salmon, whose reproduction is semelparous 2
           and for which a stock's full reproductive potential can be spread out over a multi-year period. These modified approaches are proposed in accordance with the provision allowing for flexibility in the application of NS1Gs (50 CFR 600.310(h)(3)).

            1 “Natural stocks” have at least some component of the stock that relies on natural production, although hatchery production and naturally spawning hatchery fish may contribute to abundance and spawning escapement estimates.

            2 Semelparous: reproducing once. All Pacific salmon species managed under the Salmon FMP are semelparous, spawning once before dying, as compared to iteroparous species, such as steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), which can, potentially, spawn multiple times.

        Under Amendment 16, a stock would be considered subject to overfishing when the postseason estimate of the fishing mortality rate (F) exceeds the maximum fishery mortality threshold (MFMT), where the MFMT is generally defined as FMSY. The definitions of overfished, approaching overfished, and rebuilt rely on multi-year postseason estimates of spawning escapement 3

           to be assessed using a 3-year geometric mean to determine status. Minimum stock size threshold (MSST) would be variable among stocks, with MSST defined for most stocks as 0.5*SMSY, but MSST for Sacramento River fall Chinook (SRFC), Klamath River fall Chinook (KRFC), Grays Harbor, Queets, Hoh, and Quillayute coho defined as 0.75*SMSY, and MSST for Puget Sound coho defined as the stock specific low/critical abundance breakpoint multiplied by one minus the low exploitation rate limit. The Puget Sound coho provisions are designed to be consistent with the conservation and management provisions developed through the Pacific Salmon Treaty. An approaching overfished determination would be made if the geometric mean of the two most recent postseason estimates of spawning escapement and the current preseason forecast of spawning escapement are below the MSST.

            3 Escapement, or spawning escapement, refers to anadromous fish that survive the ocean and return to fresh water where they are available for in-river fisheries or spawning.

        Annual Catch Limits and Acceptable Biological Catch
        Under Amendment 16, specification of overfishing limit (OFL), ABC, and ACL reference points would be made on an individual stock basis as required based on the best available science. These reference points would not be specified for internationally managed stocks identified in the FMP (Pub. L. 109-479, sec. 104(b), MSA section 303 note). Hatchery stocks and ESA-listed stocks identified in the FMP would be managed to meet hatchery goals and ESA consultation standards, consistent with the NS1Gs, which provide the flexibility to consider alternative approaches for specifying ACLs and AMs for these types of stocks. Under Amendment 16, the relevant stocks for specifying OFL/ABC/ACL reference points would be Sacramento River fall Chinook (SRFC) and Klamath River fall Chinook (KRFC) as indicator stocks for the CVF and SONC Chinook complexes respectively.

        Under Amendment 16, OFL, ABC and ACL would be specified as escapement levels for each stock. These OFL, ABC, and ACL escapement levels would be determined annually using exploitation rates (i.e., FMSY, FABC, and FACL) and abundance estimates for each stock. FABC incorporates a reduction from FMSY to account for scientific uncertainty in FMSY. FMSY and FABC are defined in terms of the total exploitation rate across all salmon fisheries (Federal and nonfederal jurisdiction). Impacts in non-salmon fisheries are included in the natural mortality assumptions used to estimate population parameters for salmon stocks; therefore, all fishing mortality sources are accounted for when reference points are specified. Amendment 16 would generally leave in place existing conservation objectives for stocks in the FMP; the notable exception would be Klamath River fall Chinook salmon, for which the spawning escapement component of the conservation objective would change from 35,000 to 40,700 naturally spawning adults. Under the amendment, the fishery would be managed to meet the greater of either the ACL or the conservation objective in a given year.
        De minimis Fishing Provisions
        The de minimis fishing provisions that exist in the current FMP would be revised by Amendment 16 to allow for more flexibility in setting annual regulations when the conservation objectives for limiting stocks are projected not to be met, and provide opportunity to access more abundant salmon stocks that are typically available in the Council management area when the status of one stock may otherwise preclude all ocean salmon fishing in a large region, as is the case under the conservation alert in the current FMP. De minimis fishing provisions vary by stock and depend on the form and structure of the conservation objective. Amendment 16 describes de minimis fishing provisions that would be applied to SRFC and KRFC specifically. Under Amendment 16, de minimis fishing provisions would use a multi-step F-based control rule that would allow some harvest at all abundance levels. As stock size declines, the allowable exploitation rate declines from FABC in order to achieve SMSY until F = 0.25. A constant maximum exploitation rate of 0.25 would be allowed until the potential spawner abundance reaches the midpoint between SMSY and MSST where F would be reduced in proportion to abundance to no more than 10 percent at MSST. At potential spawner abundance levels less than or equal to half of MSST the allowable exploitation rate would be further reduced to levels approaching zero as abundance approaches zero.
        Changes to Regulations

        This proposed rule includes changes to the existing regulations at 50 CFR 660.401 et seq. to implement Amendment 16 and additional updates. These are described below.
        • § 660.402—Definitions
        The definition of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan is updated to address recent amendments.
        • § 660.403—Relation to Other Laws
        References to the regulations governing the Pacific groundfish fishery are updated consistent with recent changes to 50 CFR part 660 (75 FR 60868, October 1, 2010).
        • § 660.405—Prohibitions
        Language is added to allow flexibility in implementing fishery closures by inseason action to meet fishery management objectives. Specifically, under the proposed language fishery closures could be implemented at times other than at 2400 hours (midnight) in order to allow for more precise management of the fishery.
        Information on the Salmon Troll Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation area is updated consistent with recent changes to 50 CFR part 660 (75 FR 60868, October 1, 2010).
        • § 660.408—Annual Actions

        Language regarding annual specifications is modified to include ACLs and to state that they and other specifications and management measures are determined consistent with the FMP. The definition of “allowable ocean harvest levels” is revised to specify that such levels must ensure that ACLs and conservation objectives are not exceeded. This section is also modified to allow for mark-selective fisheries and to define the term “mark-selective.”

        • § 660.410—Conservation Objectives and ACLs
        Language relative to conservation objectives is updated, including treatment of ESA-listed stocks within annual specifications and management measures. Language is added stating that annual management measures will be designed to ensure that escapement levels reach or exceed ACLs.
        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 Amendment 16, other provisions of the Magnuson- Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        A Draft EA has been prepared for Amendment 16; a copy of the Draft EA is available online at http://www.pcouncil.org/. The Draft EA includes a regulatory impact review (RIR) and preliminary regulatory flexibility analysis, NMFS has revised the RIR and drafted an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and is making available its revised RIR and IRFA for public review and comment.

        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble, and are not repeated here. The RIR and IRFA are available for public review and comment (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the analysis follows: The Salmon FMP (PFMC 2007) establishes conservation and allocation guidelines for annual management of salmon off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. This framework allows the Council to develop measures responsive to stock status in a given year. Section 3 of the current Salmon FMP describes the conservation objectives for Salmon FMP stocks necessary to meet the dual MSA objectives of obtaining optimum yield (OY) from a fishery while preventing overfishing. Each stock has a specific objective, generally designed to achieve MSY, maximum sustained production (MSP), or in some cases, an exploitation rate to serve as an MSY proxy.

        The Salmon FMP also specifies criteria to determine when overfishing may be occurring and when a stock may have become overfished. These conditions are referred to as a Conservation Alert and an Overfishing Concern, respectively. In addition, the Salmon FMP also specifies required actions when these conditions are triggered. The alternatives described in Section 2 are structured around the actions required when a Conservation Alert is triggered. This proposed action will bring the Salmon FMP into compliance with the MSA, as amended in 2007, and the revised NS1Gs, by developing and implementing ACLs and AMs to prevent overfishing on stocks in the fishery to which MSA section 303(a)(15) applies, ensure “measurable and objective” SDC for stocks in the fishery, and define the control rules under which de minimis fishing opportunity would take place consistent with NS1.
        The Pacific Fishery Management Council's “Review 2010 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” provides the following economic snapshot of the 2010 fishery. Total 2010 ex-vessel value of the Council-managed non-Indian commercial salmon fishery was $7.15 million, which is the fifth lowest on record, but more than four times above its 2009 level of $1.5 million. California had its first commercial salmon fishery since 2007. The 2010 ex-vessel value of the commercial fishery was 28 percent below the 2005-2009 inflation-adjusted average of $10 million and 88 percent below the 1979 through 1990 inflation-adjusted average of $59.3 million. Based on Pacific Coast Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN) data, a total of 641 vessels participated in the non-tribal West Coast commercial salmon fishery in 2010. This is more than double the number that participated in 2009 (313), and nearly triple the number in 2008. However the 2010 total was down 36 percent from 2007's total of 1,007 vessels.
        The preliminary number of vessel-based ocean salmon recreational angler trips taken on the West Coast in 2010 was 182,900, a decrease of three percent from 2009, and 70 percent below the 1979 through 1990 average. Compared with 2009, preliminary estimates of the number of trips taken in 2010 decreased by 37 percent in Oregon and 18 percent in Washington. California effort was up substantially since the sport fishery was not restricted to a 10-day fishery in the Klamath Management Zone as it was in 2009; however it was still severely depressed compared to historic levels. Recreational salmon fishing takes place primarily in two modes, (1) Anglers fishing from privately owned pleasure crafts, and (2) anglers employing the services of the charter boat fleet. In general, success rates on charter vessels tend to be higher than success rates on private vessels. Small amounts of shore-based effort directed toward ocean area salmon occur, primarily from jetties and piers. Coastwide, the proportion of angler trips taken on charter vessels in 2010 was relatively stable at 24 percent compared with 23 percent in 2009; however, underlying this trend was a decline in the proportion of charter trips in Oregon and increases in California and Washington. During 2010, the Review indicates that there were 465 charterboats that participated in the 2010 fishery.
        While some of the treaty Indian harvest was for ceremonial and subsistence purposes, the vast majority of the catch was commercial harvest. For all of 2010 the preliminary ex-vessel value of Chinook and coho landed in the treaty Indian ocean troll fishery was $1.8 million, compared with the ex-vessel value in 2009 of $1.0 million. According to a Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission representative, the tribal fleet consists of 40 to 50 trollers. The commercial entities directly regulated by the Pacific Council's Fishery Management Plan are non-tribal commercial trollers, tribal commercial trollers, and charterboats. During 2010, these fleets consisted of 641 non-tribal trollers, 40 to 50 tribal trollers, and 465 charterboats.
        Total West Coast income impact associated with recreational and commercial ocean salmon fisheries for all three states combined was estimated at $25.5 million in 2010. This was 46 percent above the estimated 2009 level of $17.4 million. 2010 had the third lowest income impacts on record, with 2008 having the lowest on record at $7.5 million and 2009 the second lowest (adjusted for inflation).

        The key components of Amendment 16 are administrative, as they are revisions to the key components of the process by which the Council and NMFS make decisions on how best to manage various stocks in the fishery. These key components include defining what stocks are in the fishery; how these stocks may be organized into stock complexes, the treatment of international stocks, revising the stock status determination criteria including definitions of overfishing, ABC, and ACL reference points; and revising de minimis fishing provisions to allow for more flexibility in setting annual regulations when the conservation objectives for limiting stocks are projected not to be met, and provide opportunity to access more abundant salmon stocks that are typically available in the Council management area when the status of one stock may otherwise preclude all ocean salmon fishing in a large region. This action revises the process of how conservation and management decisions will be made; it contains no actual application of the methods to set ABC, ACL, or OFL or the management measures (e.g. closed seasons, area closures, bag limits, etc.) to keep the fishery within the ACL and other conservation objectives to assure that overfishing does not occur. As a result there are no immediate economic impacts to evaluate. These will occur when the new process is actually applied in future actions and the economic impacts will be evaluated then.

        However, the EA did undertake an economic analysis of the expected effects of the preferred action and options relative to “No Action” alternative and presented the following conclusions. The proposed alternatives for classifying the stocks in the FMP will have no economic impacts, as there are no biological implications to designating stocks “in the fishery” and “ecosystem components,” as compared with the no action Alternative. Proposed alternatives for SDC have no significant biological or economic impacts. The stocks have had low frequency of experiencing overfishing in the past and many of the current control rules clearly prevent fishing at or above FMSY. It has been rare that stock abundance or other constraints on the fishery have created opportunity for fishing above FMSY in other cases. Identifying clearer criteria with which to determine stock status will more clearly align with the MSA and NS1Gs, and can help managers implement timelier management responses and contribute to ensuring sustainable salmon stock levels to support the fishery, resulting in positive economic effects. The proposed alternatives for implementing ACLs, ABCs, and associated reference points (i.e., the ACL framework) are similar in nature to the effects of the proposed SDC, thus, have no significant biological or economic impacts. In the short term, fisheries may be constrained in a given year to prevent overfishing, but such actions will provide long-term benefits from more sustainable salmon populations to support harvest and recreational opportunities.

        Proposed alternatives to identify AMs have no significant biological or economic impacts, compared to the no action alternative. Many of the proposed AMs identified are actions that exist in the FMP currently and are administrative in nature (e.g., notification). Proposed alternatives for de minimis fishing are not expected to result in significant biological or economic effects. However, providing for de minimis fishing will afford more opportunities for harvest, consistent with National Standard 8, and achieve optimum yield for the fishery consistent with NS1. Therefore, there are projected positive economic benefits of the proposed action by allowing some minimal harvest of weaker stocks in an effort to harvest healthier, abundant stocks in the mixed stock fishery.
        The commercial entities directly regulated by the Pacific Council's Fishery Salmon Management Plan are non-tribal commercial trollers, tribal commercial trollers, and charterboats. During 2010, these fleets consisted of 641 non-tribal trollers, 40 to 50 tribal trollers, and 465 charterboats. A fish-harvesting business is considered a “small” business by the Small Business Administration (SBA) if it has annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 million. For marinas and charter/party boats, a small business is one with annual receipts not in excess of $6.5 million. All of the businesses that would be affected by this action are considered small businesses under SBA guidance. Tribal and non-tribal commercial salmon vessel revenues averaged approximately $13,000 in 2010 (Review of 2010 Ocean Salmon Fisheries). Charterboats participating in the recreational salmon fishery in 2000 had average revenues ranging from $7,000 to $131,000, depending on vessel size class (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission study). These figures remain low, and NMFS has no information suggesting that these vessels have received annual revenues since 2000 such that they should be considered “large” entities under the RFA. As these average revenues are far below SBA's thresholds for small entities, NMFS has determined that all of these entities are small entities under SBA's definitions.
        The economic analysis does not highlight any significant impact upon small businesses. The key components of Amendment 16 are administrative, as they are revisions to the key components of the process by which the Council and NMFS make decisions on how best to manage various stocks in the fishery. As a result there are no immediate economic impacts to evaluate. These will occur when the new process is actually applied in future actions and the economic impacts will be evaluated then. Consequently, the regulations being proposed are not expected to meet any of the tests of having a “significant” economic impact on a “substantial number” of small entities. Nonetheless, NMFS has prepared an IRFA. Through the rulemaking process associated with this action, we are requesting comments on this conclusion.
        This proposed rule would not establish any new reporting, record-keeping, requirements.
        No Federal rules have been identified that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
        NMFS has issued ESA biological opinions that address the impacts of the Council managed salmon fisheries on listed salmonids as follows: March 8, 1996 (Snake River spring/summer and fall Chinook and sockeye), April 28, 1999 (Oregon Coast natural coho, Southern Oregon/Northern California coastal coho, Central California coastal coho), April 28, 2000 (Central Valley spring Chinook), April 27, 2001 (Hood Canal summer chum 4(d) limit), April 30, 2004 (Puget Sound Chinook), June 13, 2005 (California coastal Chinook), April 28, 2008 (Lower Columbia River natural coho), and April 30, 2010 (Sacramento River winter Chinook, Lower Columbia River Chinook; and listed Puget Sound yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, and bocaccio). NMFS reiterates its consultation standards for all ESA listed salmon and steelhead species in their annual Guidance letter to the Council. In 2009, NMFS consulted on the effects of fishing under the Salmon FMP on the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whale Distinct Population Segment (SRKW) and concluded the salmon fisheries were not likely to jeopardize SRKW (biological opinion dated May 5, 2009).
        Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule was developed after meaningful consultation and collaboration with Tribal officials from the area covered by the FMP. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council must be a representative of an Indian Tribe with Federally recognized fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. In addition, a Tribal representative served on the committee appointed by the Pacific Council to develop Amendment 16.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: October 18, 2011.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES
          1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

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

          2. In § 660.402, revise the definition for “Pacific Coast Salmon Plan” to read as follows:

            § 660.402
            Definitions.

              Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (PCSP or Salmon FMP) means the Fishery Management Plan, as amended, for commercial and recreational ocean salmon fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (3 to 200 nautical miles offshore) off Washington, Oregon, and California. The Salmon FMP was first developed by the Council and approved by the Secretary in 1978. The Salmon FMP was amended on October 31, 1984, to establish a framework process to develop and implement fishery management actions; the Salmon FMP has been subsequently amended at irregular intervals. Other names commonly used include: Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan, West Coast Salmon Plan, West Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan.

            3. In § 660.403, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

            § 660.403
            Relation to other laws.

            (b) Any person fishing subject to this subpart who also engages in fishing for groundfish should consult Federal regulations in subpart C through G for applicable requirements of that subpart, including the requirement that vessels engaged in commercial fishing for groundfish (except commercial passenger vessels) have vessel identification in accordance with § 660.20.

            4. In § 660.405, revise paragraph (b) and the introductory text of paragraph (c) to read as follows:

            § 660.405
            Prohibitions.

            (b) The fishery management area is closed to salmon fishing except as opened by this subpart or superseding regulations or notices. All open fishing periods begin at 0001 hours and end at 2400 hours local time on the dates specified, except that a fishing period may be ended prior to 2400 hours local time through an inseason action taken under § 660.409 in order to meet fishery management objectives.
            (c) Under the Pacific Coast groundfish regulations at § 660.330, fishing with salmon troll gear is prohibited within the Salmon Troll Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA). It is unlawful for commercial salmon troll vessels to take and retain, possess, or land fish taken with salmon troll gear within the Salmon Troll YRCA. Vessels may transit through the Salmon Troll YRCA with or without fish on board. The Salmon Troll YRCA is an area off the northern Washington coast. The Salmon Troll YRCA is intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. The Salmon Troll YRCA is defined by straight lines connecting specific latitude and longitude coordinates under the Pacific Coast Groundfish regulations at § 660.70.

            5. In § 660.408,
            a. Revise paragraph (a);
            b. Redesignate paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), and (n) as paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), and (o), respectively;
            c. Add a new paragraph (b);
            d. Revise newly redesignated paragraphs (c), (d)(1)(ii), (d)(1)(v)(B), (d)(1)(vi), (d)(2)(iv), (e), (g), (i)(2), (k), (l)(2), (l)(4), and (o) to read as follows:

            § 660.408
            Annual actions.
            (a) General. NMFS will annually establish specifications and management measures or, as necessary, adjust specifications and management measures for the commercial, recreational, and treaty Indian fisheries by publishing the action in the Federal Register under § 660.411. Management of the Pacific Coast salmon fishery will be conducted consistent with the standards and procedures in the Salmon FMP. The Salmon FMP is available from the Regional Administrator or the Council. Specifications and management measures are described in paragraphs (b) through (o) of this section.
            (b) Annual catch limits. Annual Specifications will include annual catch limits (ACLs) determined consistent with the standards and procedures in the Salmon FMP.
            (c) Allowable ocean harvest levels. Allowable ocean harvest levels must ensure that conservation objectives and ACLs are not exceeded, as described in § 660.410. The allowable ocean harvest for commercial, recreational, and treaty Indian fishing may be expressed in terms of season regulations expected to achieve a certain optimum harvest level or in terms of a particular number of fish. Procedures for determining allowable ocean harvest vary by species and fishery complexity, and are documented in the fishery management plan and Council documents.

            (d) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (ii) Deviations from allocation schedule. The initial allocation may be modified annually in accordance with paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) through (viii) of this section. These deviations from the allocation schedule provide flexibility to account for the dynamic nature of the fisheries and better achieve the allocation objectives and fishery allocation priorities in paragraphs (d)(1)(ix) and (x) of this section. Total allowable ocean harvest will be maximized to the extent possible consistent with treaty obligations, state fishery needs, conservation objectives, and ACLs. Every effort will be made to establish seasons and gear requirements that provide troll and recreational fleets a reasonable opportunity to catch the available harvest. These may include single-species directed fisheries with landing restrictions for other species.

            (v) * * *
            (B) Chinook distribution. Subarea distributions of Chinook will be managed as guidelines based on calculations of the Salmon Technical Team with the primary objective of achieving all-species fisheries without imposing Chinook restrictions (i.e., area closures or bag limit reductions). Chinook in excess of all-species fisheries needs may be utilized by directed Chinook fisheries north of Cape Falcon or by negotiating a preseason species trade of Chinook and coho between commercial and recreational allocations in accordance with paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section.

            (vi) Inseason trades and transfers. Inseason transfers, including species trades of Chinook and coho, may be permitted in either direction between commercial and recreational fishery quotas to allow for uncatchable fish in one fishery to be reallocated to the other. Fish will be deemed uncatchable by a respective commercial or recreational fishery only after considering all possible annual management actions to allow for their harvest that are consistent with the harvest management objectives specific in the fishery management plan including consideration of single species fisheries. Implementation of inseason transfers will require consultation with the pertinent commercial and recreational Salmon Advisory Subpanel representatives from the area involved and the Salmon Technical Team, and a clear establishment of available fish and impacts from the transfer. Inseason trades or transfers may vary from the guideline ratio of four coho to one Chinook to meet the allocation objectives in paragraph (d)(1)(ix) of this section.

            (2) * * *
            (iv) Oregon coastal natural coho. The allocation provisions in paragraph (d)(2) of this section provide guidance only when coho abundance permits a directed coho harvest, not when the allowable harvest impacts are insufficient to allow coho retention south of Cape Falcon. At such low levels, allowable harvest impacts will be allocated during the Council's preseason process.

            (e) Management boundaries and zones. Management boundaries and zones will be established or adjusted to achieve a conservation purpose or management objective. A conservation purpose or management objective protects a fish stock, simplifies management of a fishery, or promotes wise use of fishery resources by, for example, separating fish stocks, facilitating enforcement, separating conflicting fishing activities, or facilitating harvest opportunities. Management boundaries and zones will be described by geographical references, coordinates (latitude and longitude), depth contours, distance from shore, or similar criteria.

            (g) Recreational daily bag limits. Recreational daily bag limits for each fishing area will specify number and species of salmon that may be retained. The recreational daily bag limits for each fishing area will be set to maximize the length of the fishing season consistent with the allowable level of harvest in the area.

            (i) * * *
            (2) Commercial seasons. Commercial seasons will be established or modified taking into account wastage of fish that cannot legally be retained, size and poundage of fish caught, effort shifts between fishing areas, and protection of depressed stocks present in the fishing areas. All-species seasons will be established to allow the maximum allowable harvest of pink salmon, when and where available, without exceeding allowable Chinook or coho harvest levels and within conservation and allocation constraints of the pink stocks.

            (k) Selective fisheries—(1) In general. In addition to the all-species seasons and the all-species-except-coho seasons established for the commercial and recreational fisheries, species selective fisheries and mark selective fisheries may be established.
            (2) Species selective fisheries. Selective coho-only, Chinook-only, pink-only, all salmon except Chinook, and all salmon except coho fisheries may be established if harvestable fish of the target species are available; harvest of incidental species will not exceed allowable levels; proven, documented selective gear exists; significant wastage of incidental species will not occur; and the selective fishery will occur in an acceptable time and area where wastage can be minimized and target stocks are primarily available.
            (3) Mark selective fisheries. Fisheries that select for salmon marked with a healed adipose fin clip may be established in the annual management measures as long as they are consistent with guidelines in section 6.5.3.1 of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan.

            (1) * * *
            (2) The combined treaty Indian fishing seasons will not be longer than necessary to harvest the allowable treaty Indian catch, which is the total treaty harvest that would occur if the tribes chose to take their total entitlement of the weakest stock in the fishery management area, assuming this level of harvest did not create conservation or allocation problems for other stocks.

            (4) If adjustable quotas are established for treaty Indian fishing, they may be subject to inseason adjustment because of unanticipated Chinook or coho hooking mortality occurring during the season, catches in treaty Indian fisheries inconsistent with those unanticipated under Federal regulations, or a need to redistribute quotas to ensure attainment of an overall quota.

            (o) Reporting requirements. Reporting requirements for commercial fishing may be imposed to ensure timely and accurate assessment of catches in regulatory areas subject to quota management. Such reports are subject to the limitations described herein. Persons engaged in commercial fishing in a regulatory area subject to quota management and landing their catch in another regulatory area open to fishing may be required to transmit a brief report prior to leaving the first regulatory area. The regulatory areas subject to these reporting requirements, the contents of the reports, and the entities receiving the reports will be specified annually.
            6. In § 660.409, revise paragraph (b)(2) introductory text to read as follows:

            § 660.409
            Inseason actions.

            (b) * * *
            (2) Fishery managers must determine that any inseason adjustment in management measures is consistent with fishery regimes established by the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Commission, conservation objectives and ACLs, conservation of the salmon resource, any adjudicated Indian fishing rights, and the ocean allocation scheme in the fishery management plan. All inseason adjustments will be based on consideration of the following factors:

            7. Revise § 660.410 to read as follows:

            § 660.410
            Conservation objectives and ACLs.
            (a) Conservation objectives. Annual management measures will be consistent with conservation objectives described in Table 3-1 of the Salmon FMP or as modified through the processes described below, except where the ACL escapement level for a stock is higher than the conservation objective, in which case annual management measures will be designed to ensure that the ACL for that stock is met.
            (1) Modification of conservation objectives. NMFS is authorized, through an action issued under § 660.411, to modify a conservation objective if—
            (i) A comprehensive technical review of the best scientific information available provides conclusive evidence that, in the view of the Council, the Scientific and Statistical Committee, and the Salmon Technical Team, justifies modification of a conservation objective or
            (ii) Action by a Federal court indicates that modification of a conservation objective is appropriate.
            (2) ESA listed species. The annual specifications and management measures will be consistent with NMFS consultation standards or NMFS recovery plans for species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Where these standards differ from those described in FMP Table 3-1, NMFS will describe the ESA-related standards for the upcoming annual specifications and management measures in a letter to the Council prior to the first Council meeting at which the development of those annual management measures occurs.
            (b) Annual catch limits. Annual management measures will be designed to ensure escapement levels at or higher than ACLs determined through the procedures set forth in the FMP.

      [FR Doc. 2011-27346 Filed 10-21-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P