        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
        [I.D. 052104F]
        Endangered and Threatened Species:   Extension of Public Comment Period and Notice of Public Hearings on Proposed Listing Determinations for West Coast Salmonids

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

          ACTION:
          Extension of public comment period; notice of public hearings.

          SUMMARY:

          In June 2004, NMFS proposed to list 27 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of salmon and O. mykiss as threatened and endangered under the ESA.  As part of this proposal, NMFS announced a public comment period.  In this notice, NMFS is extending the public comment period for this proposal to October 20, 2004.  Additionally, NMFS is announcing that hearings will be held at eight locations in the Pacific Northwest from mid-September to mid-October to provide additional opportunities and formats to receive public input.  Dates and locations of public hearings to be held in California will be announced in a subsequent Federal Register notice.

          DATES:

          Written comments must be received by October 20, 2004.  See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the specific public meeting dates.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed listing determinations for 27 ESUs of West Coast Salmon and O. mykiss (69 FR 33101; June 14, 2004)  by any of the following methods:

          E-mail:   The mailbox address for submitting e-mail comments on the proposed listing determinations for 27 West Coast ESUs of salmon and O. mykiss is salmon.nwr@noaa.gov.  Please include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the document identifier “Proposed Listing Determinations.”
          Mail:  Submit written comments and information to Chief, NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, Oregon, 97232-2737.  Please identify the comment as regarding the “Proposed Listing Determinations.”  You may hand-deliver written comments to our office at the street address given above, suite 210.  Business hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays (i.e., September 6, 2004, and October 11, 2004, during the extended comment period).
          Hand Delivery/Courier:  NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 210, Portland, Oregon, 97232-2737.  Business hours are noted above.
          Fax:   503-230-5435.  Please identify the fax comment as regarding the “Proposed Listing Determinations.”
          Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.  Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for hearing locations.  You may obtain information updates on the public hearings on the Internet at the following web address: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/AlseaResponse/meetings.html/.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest Region, (503) 231-2005.  Copies of the Federal Register notices cited herein and additional salmon-related materials are available on the Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On June 14, 2004, NMFS published proposed ESA listing determinations for 27 salmon and O. mykiss ESUs, including 18 ESUs that occur in Oregon, Washington and Idaho (69 FR 33101).  The 27 proposed listing determinations include 162 total hatchery programs as part of 4 ESUs being proposed for endangered status and 23 ESUs being proposed for threatened status.  In addition, NMFS proposed amendments to the existing ESA 4(d) protective regulations for the proposed threatened ESUs.
        Extension of Public Comment Period

        Several requests have been received to extend the comment periods for the proposed listing determinations for 27 ESUs.  The comment period for the proposed listings was to end on September 13, 2004.  NMFS is extending the comment period until October 20, 2004, to allow for adequate opportunity for public comment (see DATES and ADDRESSES).
        Public Hearings
        Joint Commerce-Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the Secretary shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any person requests one within 45 days of publication of a proposed regulation to list a species or to designate critical habitat (see 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)).  In past ESA rule-making NMFS has conducted traditional public hearings, consisting of recorded oral testimony from interested individuals.  This format, although providing an alternative means of public input, is time consuming for the attendees and does not provide opportunities for dialogue and information exchange.  NMFS believes that the traditional public hearing format can be improved upon by also including opportunities for individuals to discuss specific elements of the proposals with agency staff in small groups.  The “open-house” format of the public meetings, described below, will enhance the ability of the public to engage effectively in the rulemaking process, while respecting their valuable time and resources.
        Meeting Format
        NMFS believes that the proposed listing determinations and a proposed hatchery listing policy (see 69 FR 31354; June 3, 2004) are important to salmon recovery.  Public engagement on these intimately related proposals will be combined into the same public meetings to make efficient use of the agency's and the public's time and resources.

          Afternoon Practitioners' Sessions - Afternoon sessions (1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.) will be provided for local practitioners and stakeholders involved with managing the ESA on a regular basis, including:   tribal governments; forestry and agricultural interests; home builders and developers; the sport and commercial fishing community; the environmental community; the business community; utility and special districts; local government elected officials and their staff; other locally-based Federal and state agencies; and public interest groups.  The structure of these afternoon meetings will be tailored to allow practitioners and NMFS staff to discuss the specific issues that are of local concern.  Attendance at the afternoon sessions will be on a pre-registration basis.  Information on attending the practitioners' afternoon sessions is available from NMFS upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above) as well as on the Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/AlseaResponse/meetings.html/.

          Evening Open House and Public Testimony - Evening “open house” sessions designed for broader public participation will be conducted on the same day as the afternoon practitioners' sessions.  The “open house” format will provide the general public with an opportunity to meet with NMFS staff in small groups on specific topics in order to learn more about the proposals and their possible impacts on their communities.  These evening meetings will also provide opportunities for the public to make formal recorded comments on the proposals.  The preferred means of providing public comment for the official record is via written testimony prepared in advance of the meeting.  In addition, blank “comment sheets” will be provided at the evening meetings for those without prepared written comments, and facilities will also be provided for recording oral testimony.  The evening sessions will be open from 6:30 p.m to 9:30 p.m.  Because these sessions will be designed as open houses where the public can move from “station” to “station” and discuss their particular interests with NMFS staff, members of the local community can come and go from the meeting as they please. For those who are interested, there will also be a short presentation on the proposed listing determinations and the proposed hatchery listing policy from NMFS beginning at 6:30 p.m. NMFS hopes that this format will allow busy community members to participate without necessarily attending the entire evening.  Members of the public wishing to attend the evening open house meetings will receive the notification through advertising, NMFS Northwest Region's web page (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/AlseaResponse/meetings.html/), and public notices published in their community.  There is no need to register; just drop in anytime during the course of the evening event.
        Meeting Dates & Locations
        Public meetings, including both afternoon practitioners' (1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.) and evening open house sessions (6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.), will be held at eight locations in the Pacific Northwest from mid-September to mid-October.  The specific dates and locations of these meetings are listed below:
        (1) September 14, 2004, at the Chelan County Public Utility District (PUD) Auditorium, 327 N. Wenatchee Ave., Wenatchee, WA 98801.
        (2) September 16, 2004, at the Red Lion Hotel Columbia Center, N. 1101 Columbia Center Blvd, Kennewick, WA 99336.
        (3) September 22, 2004, at the Shilo Inn Hotel,536 SW Elizabeth, Newport, OR 97635.
        (4) September 28, 2004, at the Stagecoach Inn, 201 Highway 93 North, Salmon, ID 83467.
        (5) September 30, 2004, at the Red Lion Hotel, 621 21st St., Lewiston, ID 83501.
        (6) October 5, 2004, at the Radisson Hotel (SeaTac Airport), 17001 Pacific Highway South, Seattle WA 98118.
        (7) October 7, 2004, at Umpqua Community College, 1140 College Rd., Roseburg, OR 97470.
        (8) October 13, 2004, at the Portland Building, 1120 SW 5th Ave, Portland, OR 97204.

        Directions to the meeting locations can be obtained on the Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/AlseaResponse/meetings.html/.  Dates and locations of public hearings to be held in California will be announced in a subsequent Federal Register notice.
        In scheduling these public meetings, NMFS has anticipated that many affected stakeholders and members of the public may prefer to discuss the proposed listing determinations directly with staff during the public comment period.  These public meetings are not the only opportunity for the public to provide input on this proposal.  The public and stakeholders are encouraged to continue to comment and provide input to NMFS on the proposals (via correspondence, e-mail, and the Internet; see ADDRESSES, above) up until the scheduled close of the comment period on October 20, 2004.
        References
        Copies of the Federal Register notices and related materials cited in this document are available on the Internet at http://nwr.noaa.gov, or upon request (see ADDRESSES section above).

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

          Dated:  August 25, 2004.
          Donna Wieting,
          Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 04-19867 Filed 8-30-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 02-255, MM Docket No. 02-20, RM-10368]
        Digital Television Broadcast Service; Traverse City, MI

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Central Michigan University proposing the allotment of DTV channel 23, reserved for noncommercial use, to Traverse City, Michigan. DTV Channel *23 can be allotted to Traverse City, Michigan, in compliance with the geographic spacing criteria of section 73.623(d) and the principle community coverage requirements of section 73.625(a) at reference coordinates (45-10-40 N. and 85-05-57 W.). Since the community of Traverse City is located within 400 kilometers of the U.S.-Canadian border, concurrence from the Canadian government must be obtained for this allotment.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before April 1, 2002, and reply comments on or before April 16, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Todd D. Gray, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC, 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC (Counsel for Central Michigan University).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 02-20, adopted February 1, 2002, and released February 7, 2001. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via-e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

        Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
        Television, Digital television broadcasting.

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

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

              Authority:

            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and 336.

            § 73.622
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments under Michigan is amended by adding, DTV Channel *23 Traverse City.

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

      [FR Doc. 02-3574 Filed 2-13-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Chapter I
        [Docket No. FWS-HQ-LE-2018-0078; FF09L00200-FX-LE18110900000]
        Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act; Religious Use of Feathers

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Petition for rulemaking; request for public comment.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received a petition for rulemaking, which asks the Service to revise the existing rules pertaining to the religious use of federally protected bird feathers. The petition is being published pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement entered into in 2016 by the United States with McAllen Grace Brethren Church and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Any changes to existing rules will be subject to a public comment period, and tribal consultation consistent with Executive Order 13175 and the Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes. The Service seeks comments on the petition.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted on or before July 1, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:

            Document availability: The petition and other materials mentioned in this document are available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-HQ-LE-2018-0078. To review these materials in person, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

            Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-HQ-LE-2018-0078.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-LE-2018-0078; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
          See Public Comments below for additional information.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Edward Grace, Assistant Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement, edward_grace@fws.gov, (703) 358-1949.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        On July 26, 2018, the Service received a petition for rulemaking from Pastor Robert Soto, the lead plaintiff in McAllen Grace Brethren Church v. Jewell, No. 7:07-cv-060 (S.D. Tex. June 3, 2016) (hereinafter “McAllen”), and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking the Service to revise its existing rules pertaining to the religious use of federally protected bird feathers and parts for Native Americans. The petitioners submitted the petition pursuant to paragraph 7 of the June 10, 2016, settlement agreement between the McAllen Plaintiffs and the United States, which states:

          [The Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (“Secretary”)] agrees to consider a petition under 43 CFR 14.2 from Plaintiffs to modify existing regulations or issue new regulations concerning the possession of eagle feathers by persons who are not members of federally recognized tribes. In considering the Petition, [the Secretary] agrees to issue a notice in the Federal Register requesting public comment on the petition. [The Secretary] agrees to make a decision on the petition within two years from the date it is received.

        Petitioned Actions
        The petition provides proposed regulatory text, which more broadly asks the Service to do four things:
        (1) “Criminal possession ban: Petitioners propose that the Department [of the Interior] promulgate the Morton Policy as a regulation, with one modification: that the policy apply to all sincere religious believers who use federally protected feathers in their religious exercise.” The “Morton Policy” is a Department of Justice enforcement policy that generally advises against prosecuting members of Federally Recognized Tribes who possess, travel with, or acquire or transfer without compensation eagle feathers. A Department of Justice memorandum concerning its application of the Morton Policy to Federally Recognized Tribes and a related 1975 press release by Secretary of the Interior Rogers C.B. Morton are available as indicated above in ADDRESSES.
        (2) “Protect Sincere Religious Believers: Members of a state or federally recognized Indian tribe, a Native American church, or other Native American religious organization should enjoy a presumption of sincerity; others should have the opportunity to demonstrate their sincerity in other ways.”
        (3) “National Eagle Repository: The Department should reform the Repository by increasing its funding and staffing, working more closely with tribes and other stakeholders to improve efficiency, and adopting policies that will expand the overall supply of feathers. This will enable the Repository to better serve all sincere religious believers who use eagle feathers in their religious exercise.” Note that the draft regulatory language suggested by the petitioners specifically requests access to the Repository for all sincere religious believers. (See paragraph d. of the petitioned regulatory text, pp. 44-45 of the petition).
        (4) “Combat commercialization and increase enforcement: Petitioners propose that the Department [of the Interior] engage in government-to-government consultations with federally recognized tribes on specific measures to help Native Americans detect and report suspected illegal commercial activities involving protected feathers.” (See pp. 3-4 of the petition).

        Note that some of these requests are for administrative action and are not directly addressed in the regulatory language the petitioners propose. The petitioners' proposed regulatory text can be found on pp. 44-45 of the petition, available at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-HQ-LE-2018-0078.
        Public Comments

        You may obtain the petition for rulemaking, and you must submit your comments and materials concerning this petition, by one of the methods described in ADDRESSES. The Service will not consider the petition's merits until after the comment period ends on the date set forth in DATES. If the Service decides that the petition has merit, we may begin a rulemaking proceeding. The Service will announce any action that we decide to take in the Federal Register.

        We will not accept comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information, such as your address, telephone number, or email address—will be posted on the website. When you submit a comment, the system receives it immediately. However, the comment will not be publicly viewable until we post it, which might not occur until several days after submission. If you mail or hand-carry a hardcopy comment directly to us that includes personal information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that all comments that we receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.

        Administrative Procedure Act

        Under the Administrative Procedure Act, any person may petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule (5 U.S.C. 553(e)). The petition will be given prompt consideration, and the petitioner will be notified promptly of action taken. A petition for rulemaking may be published in the Federal Register if the official responsible for acting on the petition determines that public comment may aid in consideration of the petition.

          Dated: March 25, 2019.
          Andrea Travnicek,
          Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Exercising the Authority of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2019-08280 Filed 4-29-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        RIN 0648-BD35
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Amendment 106

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

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

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 106 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for review. Amendment 106 to the FMP would allow the owner of an AFA vessel to rebuild or replace that vessel and would allow the owners of AFA catcher vessels that are inactive or obsolete to remove those vessels from the AFA fishery. This action is necessary to bring the FMP into conformity with the AFA as amended by the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Coast Guard Act), and to improve vessel safety and operational efficiency in the AFA fleet. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the AFA, the FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before August 4, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2013-0097, by any one 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-2013-0097, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.

          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. 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 (for example, name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter 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.

          Copies of Amendment 106, the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared for this action, and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for this action may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the Alaska Region Web site at http://www.alaskafisheries/noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mary Alice McKeen, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act in section 304(a) requires that each regional fishery management council submit an amendment to a fishery management plan for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary. The Magnuson-Stevens Act in section 304(a) also requires that the Secretary, upon receiving an amendment to a fishery management plan, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. The Council has submitted Amendment 106 to the FMP to the Secretary for review. This notice announces that proposed Amendment 106 to the FMP is available for public review and comment.

        The FMP contains a number of provisions related to requirements of the AFA. Congress adopted the AFA in 1998 as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill FY 99 (Pub. L. 105-277). The AFA as originally adopted allowed the owners of AFA vessels to replace AFA vessels under certain limited circumstances. The President signed the AFA into law on October 21, 1998. In 2010, Congress amended the AFA in section 602 of the Coast Guard Act to significantly expand the ability of AFA vessel owners to rebuild or replace AFA vessels. The President signed the Coast Guard Act into law on October 15, 2010. The original AFA and the AFA amendments in the Coast Guard Act are available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/afa/afa1998.pdf; https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/afa/afa_amendments2010.pdf, respectively.

        Amendment 106 to the FMP would bring the FMP into conformity with the AFA as amended by the Coast Guard Act. Under the amended AFA and proposed Amendment 106, the owner of an AFA vessel may rebuild or replace that vessel with a vessel documented with a fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12113 in order to improve vessel safety or improve operational efficiency, including fuel efficiency, with no limitation on the length, weight, or horsepower of the AFA rebuilt or AFA replacement vessel. An AFA rebuilt or AFA replacement vessel would be eligible to operate in the fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska in the same manner as the vessel before rebuilding or before replacement. For example, if an AFA vessel before rebuilding or replacement was exempt from certain harvest limitations that apply to AFA vessels, commonly referred to as sideboards, the AFA rebuilt or replacement vessel would have the same sideboard exemption or exemptions.
        Under current provisions of the FMP, all AFA vessels must have a License Limitation Program (LLP) groundfish license with a Bering Sea endorsement to conduct directed fishing for pollock in the Bering Sea. Amendment 106 would not change that requirement. All AFA vessels would still be required to have an LLP groundfish license with a Bering Sea endorsement to conduct directed fishing for pollock in the Bering Sea. However, Amendment 106 would change the FMP to allow an AFA rebuilt vessel and an AFA replacement vessel to exceed without limitation the maximum length overall (MLOA) specified on the vessel's LLP groundfish license when the vessel is fishing for groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) pursuant to that LLP license.

        Amendment 106 would only amend the BSAI groundfish FMP. Amendment 106 would not change the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). Under that fishery management plan and regulations implementing it, if the owner of an AFA vessel wishes to fish for LLP groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska, the AFA vessel must be named on an LLP groundfish license with the appropriate area endorsement for the Gulf of Alaska and must not exceed the MLOA specified on that LLP license when fishing for LLP groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska pursuant to that LLP license. Amendment 106 does not remove AFA rebuilt or AFA replacement vessels from the MLOA requirement when those vessels operate in the GOA.
        Amendment 106 also would allow an owner of an AFA catcher vessels that is a member of an inshore cooperative to remove the vessel from the cooperative and direct NMFS to assign the pollock catch history of the removed vessel to any other vessel or vessels in the same AFA cooperative. The vessel or vessels that would be assigned the catch history would be required to remain in the cooperative for at least one year after NMFS assigned the catch history to them. Except for the assignment of the pollock catch history, NMFS would permanently extinguish all claims, including those related to catch history, associated with the removed vessel that could have qualified the owner of the removed vessel for any permit to participate in any fishery within the EEZ off Alaska. If the removed vessel was exempt from a sideboard harvest limitation, NMFS would permanently extinguish that exemption.
        Under Amendment 106, a vessel that is replaced or removed would be permanently ineligible for any permits to participate in any fishery in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska, unless the replaced or removed vessel reenters the directed pollock fishery as an AFA replacement vessel.
        NMFS notes that the AFA as amended by the Coast Guard Act has provisions on the issuance of Federal fishery endorsements. The United States Coast Guard, in conjunction with the Maritime Administration, will implement those provisions.

        NMFS is soliciting public comments on proposed Amendment 106 through the end of the comment period (see the DATES section above). NMFS intends to publish in the Federal Register and seek public comment on a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 106, following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 106, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 106. Comments received after that date may not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 106. 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 29, 2014.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2014-12829 Filed 6-2-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Surface Transportation Board
        49 CFR Part 1152
        [Docket No. EP 702]
        National Trails System Act and Railroad Rights-of-Way

          AGENCY:
          Surface Transportation Board, DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) has instituted a proceeding to clarify, update, and seek public comments on proposed changes to its existing regulations and procedures regarding the use of railroad rights-of-way for railbanking and interim trail use under the National Trails System Act (Trails Act).

          DATES:
          Comments are due by April 12, 2011; replies are due by May 12, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments on this proposal may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at the E-FILING link on the Board's Web site, at http://www.stb.dot.gov. Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should send an original and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: Docket No. EP 702, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.

          Copies of written comments will be available for viewing and self-copying at the Board's Public Docket Room, Room 131, and will be posted to the Board's Web site.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Valerie Quinn, (202) 245-0382. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Board is instituting a proceeding to clarify, update, and seek public comments on proposed changes to its existing regulations and procedures regarding the use of railroad rights-of-way for railbanking and interim trail use under Section 8(d) of the National Trails System Act (Trails Act), 16 U.S.C. 1247(d).
        Specifically, the Board proposes to add a new rule to 49 CFR 1152.29, the Board's regulations regarding the Trails Act, that would require the railroad and the trail sponsor jointly to notify the Board when a trail use agreement has been reached, and to notify the Board of the exact location of the right-of-way subject to the interim trail use agreement, by including a map and milepost marker information. The Board's current rules provide no formal means of determining whether an actual interim trail use agreement is reached after the Board issues a Certificate of Interim Trail Use (CITU) or Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU), and, if so, whether the agreement applies to the entire right-of-way at issue. Therefore, it would be useful to the Board and to the public to require parties to notify the Board when an interim trail use agreement has been reached.
        The proposed rules would also require parties to ask the Board to vacate the CITU/NITU when an interim trail use agreement covers only a portion of the right-of-way and request a replacement CITU/NITU to cover the portion of the right-of-way subject to the trail use agreement. Currently, the Board's regulations make CITU/NITUs self-executing, and the rules contemplate that petitions to vacate or modify the CITU/NITU will be filed if rail service is to be reactivated, interim trail use ceases in whole or in part, or there is a change in trail sponsors. When an interim trail use agreement covers only a portion of the right-of-way that was proposed to be abandoned, the Board's regulations are unclear whether the CITU/NITU that was issued for the right-of-way could nonetheless continue in effect indefinitely, precluding the abandonment of the remainder of the right-of-way for which the CITU/NITU was issued. Thus, this proposed rule would clarify that if an interim trail use agreement applies to less of the right-of-way than is covered by the CITU/NITU, the parties must petition the Board to modify or vacate the CITU/NITU.
        The proposed rules would clarify that a substitute trail sponsor must acknowledge that interim trail use is subject to restoration and reactivation at any time. The Board's rules at 49 CFR 1152.29(f)(1) currently require that, when a trail sponsor intends to terminate trail use and another person intends to become the trail sponsor, the substitute trail sponsor must acknowledge its willingness to assume financial responsibility for the right-of-way; but the rules are silent with regard to any acknowledgment that continued interim trail use remains subject to possible rail service restoration. Accordingly, the Board clarifies that the substitute trail sponsor (like § 1152.29(a)(3) requires of the original trail sponsor) must affirmatively acknowledge that the continued interim trail use is subject to possible future restoration of the right-of-way and reactivation of rail service.
        The Board is also proposing minor modifications to its regulations under 49 CFR 1152.29. This includes the following: clarification that, under § 1152.29(e), parties do not need to file a request to extend the time for filing a notice of abandonment consummation when legal or regulatory conditions (including a CITU/NITU) remain in effect that bar consummation of abandonment until these conditions have been removed; modification of the language in §§ 1152.29(a)(2), (a)(3), (c)(2), and (d)(2), to more closely resemble the language of the Trails Act; modifications of the language of the Statement of Willingness to Assume Financial Responsibility in § 1152.29(a)(3) to more accurately describe the responsibilities of an interim trail sponsor; removal of the reference to “NERSA abandonment proceedings” in 49 CFR 1152.29(c), because NERSA is no longer in effect; modification of the language in 49 CFR 1152.29(c)(1) and (d)(1), to clarify that the Board will issue a CITU/NITU for the portion of the right-of-way on which both parties are willing to negotiate interim trail use, rather than the portion “to be covered by the agreement,” as the portion that the agreement may ultimately cover is unknown at that time; and modification of the language in 49 CFR 1152.29(c)(2) to clarify that a trail sponsor may choose to terminate interim trail use over a portion of the right-of-way covered by the trail use agreement, while continuing interim trail use over the remaining portion of the right-of-way covered by the trail use agreement.
        In addition, in light of concerns regarding the ability of some states to assume liability and legal and financial responsibility for a right-of-way during the interim trail use period, the Board seeks comments on how to resolve state sovereign immunity issues. Also, the Board seeks comments on whether there are additional means of indirect notification of CITU/NITUs to reversionary landowners that can be used to augment the existing newspaper publication method.

        Additional information is contained in the Board's decision served on February 16, 2011. To obtain a copy of this decision, visit the Board's Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov. Copies of the decision may also be purchased by contacting the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245-0236.
        The Board certifies under 49 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The proposed notice requirement would require trail sponsors and railroads to file a notice with the Board when they have reached an interim trail use agreement. Some trail sponsors may qualify as a small entity, in that they may be a “small organization” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 601(4) or a “small governmental jurisdiction” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 601(5). Some railroads may qualify as a “small business” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 601(3). However, the proposed notice that would be required here should involve little time and expense to draft and file, and thus should have little economic impact on a small-entity filer. The requirement is limited to only those small entities or small businesses who might be parties to interim trail use agreements. It therefore will not impact a substantial number of small entities.

        Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3519, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(3), the Board also seeks comments regarding: (1) Whether the particular collection of information described below is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, when appropriate. Information pertinent to these issues is included in the Appendix. These proposed rules are being submitted to OMB for review as required under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11. Comments on the four questions prescribed above should be submitted to the Board, in accordance with the comment period described below.
        This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1152
          Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uniform System of Accounts.

          Decided: February 10, 2011.

          By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Nottingham, and Commissioner Mulvey.

          Jeffrey Herzig,
          Clearance Clerk.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board proposes to amend part 1152 of title 49, chapter X, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

          PART 1152—ABANDONMENT AND DISCONTINUANCE OF RAIL LINES AND RAIL TRANSPORTATION UNDER 49 U.S.C. 10903
          1. The authority citation for part 1152 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:

            11 U.S.C. 1170; 16 U.S.C 1247(d) and 1248; 45 U.S.C. 744; and 49 U.S.C. 701 note (1995) (section 204 of the ICC Termination Act of 1995), 721(a), 10502, 10903-10905, and 11161.

          2. Amend § 1152.29 by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (c) heading, (c)(1), (c)(2) introductory text, (c)(2)(iii), (d)(1), (d)(2) introductory text, and (d)(2)(iii) and by adding paragraphs (f)(1)(iii) and (h) to read as follows:

            § 1152.29
            Prospective use of rights-of-way for interim trail use and rail banking.
            (a) * * *
            (2) A statement indicating the trail sponsor's willingness to assume full responsibility for:
            (i) Managing the right-of-way;
            (ii) Any legal liability arising out of the transfer or use of the right-of-way (unless the user is immune from liability, in which case it need only indemnify the railroad against any potential liability); and
            (iii) The payment of any and all taxes that may be levied or assessed against the right-of-way; and
            (3) An acknowledgment that interim trail use is subject to the sponsor's continuing to meet its responsibilities described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and subject to possible future reconstruction and reactivation of the right-of-way for rail service. The statement must be in the following form:
            Statement of Willingness To Assume Financial Responsibility
            In order to establish interim trail use and rail banking under 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) and 49 CFR 1152.29 with respect to the right-of-way owned by ______ (Railroad) and operated by ______ (Railroad), ______ (Interim Trail Sponsor) is willing to assume full responsibility for: (1) Managing the right-of-way, (2) any legal liability arising out of the transfer or use of the right-of-way (unless the sponsor is immune from liability, in which case it need only indemnify the railroad against any potential liability), and (3) the payment of any and all taxes that may be levied or assessed against the right of way. The property, known as ______ (Name of Branch Line), extends from railroad milepost ____ near ______ (Station Name), to railroad milepost ____, near ______ (Station name), a distance of ____ miles in [County(ies), (State(s)]. The right-of-way is part of a line of railroad proposed for abandonment in Docket No. STB AB ____ (Sub-No. ____).
            A map of the property depicting the right-of-way is attached.
            ______ (Interim Trail Sponsor) acknowledges that use of the right-of-way is subject to the user's continuing to meet its responsibilities described above and subject to possible future reconstruction and reactivation of the right-of-way for rail service. A copy of this statement is being served on the railroad(s) on the same date it is being served on the Board.

            (c) Regular abandonment proceedings. (1) If continued rail service does not occur pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10904 and Sec. 1152.27, and a railroad agrees to negotiate an interim trail use/rail banking agreement, then the Board will issue a CITU to the railroad and to the interim trail sponsor for that portion of the right-of-way as to which both parties are willing to negotiate. The CITU will: Permit the railroad to discontinue service, cancel any applicable tariffs, and salvage track and material consistent with interim trail use and rail banking, as long as it is consistent with any other Board order, 30 days after the date it is issued; and permit the railroad to fully abandon the line if no trail use agreement is reached 180 days after it is issued, subject to appropriate conditions, including labor protection and environmental matters.
            (2) The CITU will indicate that any interim trail use is subject to future restoration of rail service and to the sponsor's continuing to meet its responsibilities described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The CITU will also provide that, if an interim trail use agreement is reached (and thus interim trail use established), the parties shall file the notice described in paragraph (h) of this section. Additionally, the CITU will provide that if the sponsor intends to terminate interim trail use on all or any portion of the right-of-way covered by the interim trail use agreement, it must send the Board a copy of the CITU and request that it be vacated on a specified date. If a party requests that the CITU be vacated for only a portion of the right-of-way, the Board will issue an appropriate replacement CITU covering the remaining portion of the right-of-way subject to the interim trail use agreement. The Board will reopen the abandonment proceeding, vacate the CITU, and issue a decision permitting immediate abandonment for the involved portion of the right-of-way. Copies of the decision will be sent to:

            (iii) The current trail sponsor.

            (d) * * *
            (1) If continued rail service does not occur under 49 U.S.C. 10904 and Sec. 1152.27 and a railroad agrees to negotiate an interim trail use/rail banking agreement, then the Board will issue a Notice of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment (NITU) to the railroad and to the interim trail sponsor for the portion of the right-of-way as to which both parties are willing to negotiate. The NITU will: permit the railroad to discontinue service, cancel any applicable tariffs, and salvage track and materials, consistent with interim trail use and rail banking, as long as it is consistent with any other Board order, 30 days after the date it is issued; and permit the railroad to fully abandon the line if no agreement is reached 180 days after it is issued, subject to appropriate conditions, including labor protection and environmental matters.

            (2) The NITU will indicate that interim trail use is subject to future restoration of rail service and to the sponsor's continuing to meet its responsibilities described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The NITU will also provide that, if an interim trail use agreement is reached (and thus interim trail use established), the parties shall file the notice described in paragraph (h) of this section. Additionally, the NITU will provide that if the sponsor intends to terminate interim trail use on all or any portion of the right-of-way covered by the interim trail use agreement, it must send the Board a copy of the NITU and request that it be vacated on a specific date. If a party requests that the NITU be vacated for only a portion of the right-of-way, the Board will issue an appropriate replacement NITU covering the remaining portion of the right-of-way subject to the interim trail use agreement. The Board will reopen the exemption proceeding, vacate the NITU, and issue a decision reinstating the exemption for that portion of the right-of-way. Copies of the decision will be sent to:

            (iii) The current trail sponsor.

            (f)(1) * * *
            (iii) An acknowledgement that interim trail use is subject to possible future reconstruction and reactivation of the right-of-way for rail service.

            (h) When the parties negotiating for railbanking/interim trail use reach an agreement, the trail sponsor and railroad shall jointly notify the Board within 10 days that the agreement has been reached. The notice shall include a map depicting, and an accurate description of, the involved right-of-way or portion thereof (including mileposts) that is subject to the parties' interim trail use agreement and a certification that the interim trail use agreement includes provisions requiring the sponsor to fulfill the responsibilities described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. Additionally, if the interim trail use agreement establishes interim trail use over less of the right-of-way than is covered by the CITU or NITU, the notice shall also include a request that the Board vacate the CITU or NITU and issue a replacement CITU/NITU for only the portion of the right-of-way covered by the interim trail use agreement. The Board will reopen the abandonment proceeding, vacate the CITU or NITU, issue an appropriate replacement CITU or NITU for only the portion of the right-of-way covered by the interim trail use agreement, and issue a decision permitting immediate abandonment of the portion of the right-of-way not subject to the interim trail use agreement. Copies of the decision will be sent to:
            (1) The rail carrier that sought abandonment authorization;
            (2) The owner of the right-of-way; and
            (3) The current trail sponsor.

              Note:
               The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

            Appendix

              Notifications of Trail Use Agreement and Sponsor Substitution
              The additional information below is included to assist those who may wish to submit comments pertinent to review under the Paperwork Reduction Act:
              Description of Collection

                Title: New submissions under the Board's Trails Act regulations.

                OMB Control Number: 2140-XXXX.

                STB Form Number: None.

                Type of Review: New collection.

                Respondents: Parties to an interim trail use agreement; substitute trail sponsors.

                Number of Respondents: 40 (potentially).

                Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour or less.

                Frequency: On occasion.

                Total Burden Hours (annually including all potential respondents): 40 hours.

                Total “Non-hour Burden” Cost: None identified.

                Needs and Uses: The new rule proposes to require parties to notify the Board when a trail use agreement has been reached, and to notify the Board of the exact location of the right-of-way subject to the agreement, including a map and milepost marker information. This submission will ensure that the agency and the public have accurate information on the status of property after interim trail use conditions have been issued. As is already required for an original trail sponsor, the proposed rule would also clarify that a substitute trail sponsor must acknowledge that interim trail use is subject to restoration and reactivation at any time.

                Retention Period: These records are retained indefinitely.

      [FR Doc. 2011-3397 Filed 2-15-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4915-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 680
        [Docket No. 160617541-6541-01]
        RIN 0648-BG15
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and 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 to implement Amendment 47 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP) and to make minor clarifications to regulations implementing the Crab FMP. This proposed rule addresses how individual processing quota (IPQ) use caps apply to the Bering Sea Chionoecetes bairdi Tanner crab fisheries: The eastern C. bairdi Tanner (EBT) and the western C. bairdi Tanner (WBT). This proposed rule would exempt EBT and WBT IPQ crab that is custom processed at a facility through contractual arrangements with the processing facility owners from being applied against the IPQ use cap of the processing facility owners, thereby allowing a facility to process more crab without triggering the IPQ use cap. This proposed exemption is necessary to allow all of the EBT and WBT Class A individual fishing quota crab to be processed at the facilities currently processing EBT and WBT crab, and would have significant positive economic effects on the fishermen, processors, and communities that participate in the EBT and WBT fisheries. This proposed rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Crab FMP, and other applicable law.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before October 24, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0081, 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-2016-0081 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: Ellen Sebastian. 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 Amendment 47 to the Crab FMP, the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) (collectively referred to as the “Analysis”), and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for this proposed action are available from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          The Environmental Impact Statement (Program EIS), RIR (Program RIR), Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Program FRFA), and Social Impact Assessment prepared for the Crab Rationalization Program are available from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Keeley Kent, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        NMFS manages the king and Tanner crab fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) under the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared, and NMFS approved, the Crab FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the Crab FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 680.

        A notice of availability for Amendment 47 was published in the Federal Register on September 13, 2016; 81 FR 62850. Comment on Amendment 47 is invited through November 14, 2016. All relevant written comments received by the end of the comment period, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment, this proposed rule, or both, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision for Amendment 47 and addressed in the response to comments in the final rule.
        This proposed rule would modify regulations that specify how IPQ use caps apply to IPQ issued for EBT and WBT crab fisheries. The following sections describe (1) the BSAI crab fisheries under the Crab Rationalization Program (Program), (2) IPQ use caps and custom processing arrangements, (3) IPQ use caps applicable to the EBT and WBT crab fisheries, and (4) this proposed rule and the anticipated effects of the action.
        The BSAI Crab Fisheries Under the Program
        The Program was implemented on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174). The Program established a limited access privilege program for nine crab fisheries in the BSAI, including the EBT and WBT crab fisheries, and assigned quota share (QS) to persons based on their historic participation in one or more of those nine BSAI crab fisheries during a specific period. Under the Program, NMFS issued four types of QS: Catcher vessel owner (CVO) QS was assigned to holders of License Limitation Program (LLP) licenses who delivered their catch to shoreside crab processors or to stationary floating crab processors; catcher/processor vessel owner QS was assigned to LLP license holders who harvested and processed their catch at sea; catcher/processor crew QS was issued to captains and crew on board catcher/processor vessels; and catcher vessel crew QS was issued to captains and crew on board catcher vessels. Each year, a person who holds QS may receive an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of the annual total allowable catch, called individual fishing quota (IFQ).

        NMFS also issued processor quota share (PQS) under the Program. Each year, PQS yields an exclusive privilege to process a portion of the IFQ in each of the nine BSAI 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. QS derived from deliveries made by catcher vessel owners (i.e., CVO QS) is subject to designation as either Class A IFQ or Class B IFQ. Ninety percent of the IFQ derived from CVO QS is designated as Class A IFQ, and the remaining 10 percent is designated as Class B IFQ. Class A IFQ must be matched and delivered to a processor with IPQ. Class B IFQ is not required to be delivered to a processor holding IPQ for that fishery. Each year there is a one-to-one match of the total pounds of Class A IFQ with the total pounds of IPQ issued in each crab fishery.
        NMFS issued QS and PQS for the EBT and WBT crab fisheries. Unlike the QS and PQS issued for most other Program fisheries, the QS and PQS issued for the EBT and WBT crab fisheries are not subject to regional delivery and processing requirements, commonly known as regionalization. Therefore, the Class A IFQ that results from EBT and WBT QS, and the IPQ that results from EBT and WBT PQS, can be delivered to, and processed at, any otherwise eligible processing facility.
        In addition, the PQS and resulting IPQ issued for the EBT and WBT crab fisheries are not subject to right-of-first-refusal (ROFR) provisions included in the Program. The ROFR provisions provide certain communities with an option to purchase PQS or IPQ that would otherwise be used outside of the community holding the ROFR.

        Because the EBT and WBT crab fisheries are not subject to regionalization or ROFR provisions, crab harvested under a Class A IFQ permit in these fisheries can be delivered to processors in a broad geographic area more easily than crab harvested under Class A IFQ permits in Program fisheries subject to regionalization and ROFR provisions. The rationale for exempting the EBT and WBT crab fisheries from regionalization and ROFR provisions is described in the Program EIS (see ADDRESSES), and in the final rule implementing the Program (70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005).
        IPQ Use Caps and Custom Processing Arrangements

        When the Council recommended the Program, it expressed concern about the potential for excessive consolidation of QS and PQS, in which too few persons control all of the QS or PQS and the resulting annual IFQ and IPQ. The Council determined that excessive consolidation could have adverse effects on crab markets, price setting negotiations between harvesters and processors, employment opportunities for harvesting and processing crew, tax revenue to communities in which crab are landed, and other factors considered and described in the Program EIS. To address these concerns, the Program limits the amount of QS that a person can hold (i.e., own), the amount of IFQ that a person can use, and the amount of IFQ that can be used on board a vessel. Similarly, the Program limits the amount of PQS that a person can hold, the amount of IPQ that a person can use, and the amount of IPQ that can be processed at a given facility. These limits are commonly referred to as use caps.
        In most of the nine BSAI crab fisheries under the Program, including the Tanner crab fisheries, a person is limited to holding no more than 30 percent of the PQS initially issued in the fishery, and to using no more than the amount of IPQ resulting from 30 percent of the initially issued PQS in a given fishery, with a limited exemption for persons receiving more than 30 percent of the initially issued PQS. No person in the EBT or WBT crab fisheries received in excess of 30 percent of the initially issued PQS (see Section 2.5.2 of the Analysis). Therefore, no person may use an amount of EBT or WBT IPQ greater than an amount resulting from 30 percent of the initially issued EBT or WBT PQS. The rationale for the IPQ use caps is described in the Program EIS and the final rule implementing the Program (70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005).
        The Program is designed to minimize the potential for a person to evade the PQS ownership and IPQ use caps through corporate affiliations or other legal relationships. To accomplish this, § 680.7(a)(7) prohibits an IPQ holder from using more IPQ than the maximum amount of IPQ that may be held by that person. Section 680.7(a)(7) also provides that IPQ use by a person is calculated by summing the total amount of IPQ that is held by that person and IPQ held by other persons who are affiliated with that person. The term “affiliation” is defined in § 680.2 as a relationship between two or more entities where one entity directly or indirectly owns or controls 10 percent or more of the other entity. Additional terms used in the definition of “affiliation” are described in § 680.2.

        Under § 680.7(a)(7), any IPQ crab that is “custom processed” at a facility an IPQ holder owns will be applied against the IPQ use cap of the facility owner, unless specifically exempted by § 680.42(b)(7). A custom processing arrangement exists when an IPQ holder has a contract with the owners of a processing facility to have his or her crab processed at that facility, and the IPQ holder does not have an ownership interest in that processing facility or is otherwise affiliated with the owners of that processing facility. In custom processing arrangements, the IPQ holder contracts with a facility operator to have the IPQ crab processed according to that IPQ holder's specifications. Custom processing arrangements typically occur when an IPQ holder does not own a shoreside processing facility or cannot economically operate a stationary floating crab processor.
        Shortly after implementation of the Program, the Council submitted and NMFS approved Amendment 27 to the Crab FMP (74 FR 25449, May 28, 2009). Amendment 27 was designed to improve operational efficiencies in crab fisheries with historically low total allowable catches or that occur in more remote regions by exempting certain IPQ crab processed under a custom processing arrangement from applying against the IPQ use cap of the owner of the facility at which IPQ crab are custom processed. For ease of reference, this preamble refers to this exemption as a “custom processing arrangement exemption.” NMFS refers the reader to the preamble to the final rule implementing Amendment 27 to the Crab FMP for additional information regarding the rationale for custom processing arrangement exemptions in specific BSAI crab fisheries. Section 680.42(b)(7) describes the three requirements that must be met for the custom processing arrangement exemption to apply.

        First, the custom processing arrangement exemption applies to IPQ issued in six BSAI crab fisheries. Section 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(A) lists the six BSAI crab fisheries for which the custom processing arrangement exemption applies—Bering Sea C. opilio with a North Region designation, Eastern Aleutian Islands golden king crab, Pribilof Islands blue and red king crab, Saint Matthew blue king crab, Western Aleutian Islands golden king crab processed west of 174° W. long., and Western Aleutian Islands red king crab. As described later in this preamble, the custom processing arrangement exemption implemented under Amendment 27 does not apply to custom processing arrangements in the EBT and WBT crab fisheries.

        Second, the custom processing arrangement exemption applies provided there is no affiliation between the person whose IPQ crab is processed at that facility and the IPQ holders who own that facility. As noted earlier, “affiliation” is defined under § 680.2 as a relationship between two or more entities where one directly or indirectly owns or controls 10 percent or more of the other entity. Under § 680.42(b)(7)(i), NMFS does not count IPQ crab that are custom processed at a facility owned by an IPQ holder against the IPQ use cap of the owner of the processing facility as long as the person whose IPQ crab is custom processed at that facility does not directly or indirectly own or control 10 percent or more of the entity that owns the processing facility. In such a case, NMFS credits a person who holds IPQ and who owns a processing facility only with the amount of IPQ crab used by that person, or any affiliates of that person, when calculating IPQ use caps. In sum, these regulations allow processing facility owners who also hold IPQ to use their facility, or facilities, to establish custom processing arrangements with other IPQ holders to process more crab without exceeding IPQ use caps, thereby increasing the amount of crab available for processing at the facility (i.e., throughput) and providing a more economically viable processing operation. These regulations effectively allow more than 30 percent of the IPQ for the six BSAI crab fisheries to be processed at a facility if there is no affiliation between the person whose IPQ crab is processed at that facility and the IPQ holders who own that facility.
        Third, a custom processing arrangement exemption applies provided the facility at which the IPQ crab are custom processed meets specific location requirements. Under § 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(B), IPQ crab that are custom processed do not count against the IPQ use cap of persons owning the facility if the facility is located within the boundaries of a home rule, first class, or second class city in the State of Alaska in existence on the effective date of regulations implementing Amendment 27 (June 29, 2009) and is either 1) a shoreside crab processor or 2) a stationary floating crab processor that is located within a harbor and moored at a dock, docking facility, or other permanent mooring buoy, with specific provisions applicable to the City of Atka. The specific provisions applicable to facilities operating within the City of Atka are not directly relevant to the EBT and WBT crab fisheries and this proposed rule, and are not addressed further. Additional information on the location requirements for facilities is found in the preamble to the final rule implementing Amendment 27 (74 FR 25449, May 28, 2009).
        Finally, § 680.7(a)(8) prohibits a shoreside crab processor or a stationary floating crab processor in which no IPQ holder has a 10 percent or greater ownership interest in the processing facility from receiving more than 30 percent of the IPQ issued for a particular crab fishery. However, as with facilities that have an IPQ holder with a 10 percent or greater ownership interest, IPQ crab processed at these facilities under a custom processing arrangement does not apply against the limit on the maximum amount of IPQ crab that can be processed at such a facility.
        Regulations implementing Amendment 27 also created a custom processing exemption for IPQ crab subject to ROFR provisions (see § 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(C) and Section 2.5.2.1 of the Analysis). However, as noted earlier in this preamble, ROFR requirements do not apply to EBT and WBT crab and modifications to IPQ use cap calculations for IPQ crab subject to ROFR provisions that were made by Amendment 27 are not described further in this proposed rule. As a result of Amendment 27, EBT and WBT crab are the only Program fisheries in which all IPQ crab apply to the IPQ use caps of the facility owners, even though the processing of EBT and WBT is done by the same companies and facilities that process all other Program crab fisheries, which have custom processing arrangement exemptions and certain exemptions for IPQ crab subject to ROFR.
        IPQ Use Caps Applicable to the EBT and WBT Crab Fisheries

        As noted earlier, the EBT and WBT crab fisheries are not crab fisheries to which the custom processing arrangement exemption applies, and EBT and WBT IPQ crab that are processed under a custom processing arrangement apply against a person's IPQ use cap if that person owns the facility (i.e., has a 10 percent or greater direct or indirect ownership interest) at which those IPQ crab are custom processed. Given that the EBT and WBT IPQ use caps are set at 30 percent, a minimum of four persons who are not affiliated with each other (i.e., a 10 percent or greater direct or indirect ownership interest) must receive and process EBT or WBT IPQ crab to ensure that all Class A IFQ can be delivered and processed with no person exceeding the IPQ use caps.

        When the Council recommended and NMFS implemented Amendment 27, the Council and NMFS did not create a custom processing arrangement for the EBT and WBT crab fisheries. The preamble to the proposed rule implementing Amendment 27 explains that the Council and NMFS did not recommend a custom processing arrangement exemption for EBT and WBT IPQ crab because EBT and WBT crab QS do not have regional landing requirements and therefore can be effectively delivered to any otherwise eligible processor with matching IPQ in any location (73 FR 54351, September 19, 2008). Table 2-5 in Section 2.6.1 of the Analysis shows that during the 2006/2007 crab fishing year, there were six processing facilities owned by five unaffiliated processors receiving EBT Class A IFQ crab, and there were five processing facilities owned by four unaffiliated processors receiving WBT Class A IFQ crab. Since then, there has been consolidation in the BSAI crab processing sector, thus reducing the number of processing facilities that are unaffiliated with one another. This consolidation has occurred through the merger of two companies and the recent exit of a company from the fishery. Additionally, PQS has been purchased by entities that do not own or operate processing facilities. As Section 2.6 of the Analysis describes (see ADDRESSES), for the first year since the start of the Program, there were only three unique unaffiliated persons (processors) who received EBT and WBT IPQ crab at their facilities during the 2015/2016 crab fishing year. These three processors are the Maruha-Nichiro Corporation, which includes Alyeska Seafoods, Peter Pan Seafoods, and Westward Seafoods; Trident Seafoods; and Unisea Seafoods. Information in section 2.6 of the Analysis explains that these three processors also own and operate all of the facilities that processed EBT and WBT IPQ crab during the 2015/2016 crab fishing year.
        Emergency Rule
        At its December 2015 meeting, the Council determined that the unforeseen and recent exit of one Tanner crab processor from processing caused the remaining processors currently operating in the Bering Sea region to be constrained by IPQ use caps in the Tanner crab fisheries. With the loss of this unique, unaffiliated processor, less than the required minimum of four unique and unaffiliated processors remain active in the EBT and WBT crab fisheries; therefore, only 90 percent of the Class A IFQ could have been delivered to, and only 90 percent of the IPQ could have been used at, facilities owned and operated by the remaining processors—Maruha-Nichiro Corporation, Trident Seafoods, and Unisea Seafoods—without exceeding the IPQ use caps. The remaining 10 percent of the EBT Class A IFQ/IPQ and WBT Class A IFQ/IPQ would have had to be delivered to processing facilities unaffiliated with these three processors, or left unharvested (see Section 2.6.1 of the Analysis for more detail). Based on these conditions and the low probability that a new, unaffiliated processor would enter the fishery at that time, the Council voted to request that NMFS promulgate an emergency rule to temporarily allow a custom processing exemption to the IPQ use caps for the 2015/2016 crab fishing year in the EBT and WBT crab fisheries. Without emergency action, 10 percent of the Tanner crab Class A IFQ likely would have been stranded (826,322 pounds of EBT and 615,489 pounds of WBT for the 2015/2016 crab fishing year).
        The Council and NMFS considered a range of factors before the Council recommended and NMFS implemented the emergency rule. First, the Council and NMFS considered whether developing or using an alternative shorebased processing facility in the Bering Sea that was not affiliated with the Maruha-Nichiro Corporation, Trident Seafoods, or Unisea Seafoods would be a feasible processing option for the remainder of the 2015/2016 crab fishing year. At the time, there was no unaffiliated company that expressed interest in entering the fishery. Additionally, the Council and NMFS determined that the regulatory closure date for the EBT and WBT crab fisheries provided very limited time for IPQ holders to find an alternative processing facility.
        Second, the Council and NMFS also considered whether alternative shoreside processing facilities not affiliated with the Maruha-Nichiro Corporation, Trident Seafoods, or Unisea Seafoods, such as facilities in Kodiak, AK, could be used. The Council and NMFS concluded that transporting EBT or WBT crab to those locations would result in longer trips with increased fuel and operating costs for harvesters, result in lost fishing days while the crab are being transported, and increase the potential for deadloss (death) of crab.
        Third, the Council and NMFS considered whether the use of a stationary floating crab processor would be a feasible processing option for the remainder of the 2015/2016 crab fishing year. At the time, there was no unaffiliated company that expressed interest in entering the fishery. The Council and NMFS concluded that establishing a contract with a stationary floating crab processor, outfitting the vessel, and establishing a market for delivered Class A IFQ EBT and WBT crab in the short amount of time available before the end of the fisheries during the 2015/2016 crab fishing year would present many of the same logistical challenges that are present for alternative shoreside processing facilities. These factors made it highly unlikely that a new, unaffiliated processor would enter the fishery using a floating processor.
        Finally, the Council and NMFS determined that any IPQ holder hoping to secure an alternative shoreside processing facility or a stationary floating crab processor during the 2015/2016 crab fishing year would have had very little negotiating leverage with any unaffiliated processing facility given the amount of time remaining for the EBT and WBT crab season. That lack of negotiating leverage in establishing delivery terms and conditions could impose additional costs on IPQ holders and harvesters that may make such deliveries uneconomic. The Council and NMFS concluded that there did not appear to be any viable delivery options available for 10 percent of the EBT and WBT Class A IFQ during the remainder of the 2015/2016 crab fishing year.
        On January 26, 2016 (81 FR 4206), NMFS published an emergency rule that temporarily exempted EBT and WBT IPQ crab that was custom processed at a facility through contractual arrangements with the facility owners from being applied against the IPQ use cap of the facility owners. The temporary rule expired on June 30, 2016. Additional detail on the factors considered by the Council and NMFS are described in the preamble to the emergency rule (January 26, 2016, 81 FR 4206).
        This Proposed Rule and Its Anticipated Effects

        At its June 2016 meeting, the Council voted to recommend Amendment 47, which would create a custom processing arrangement exemption for EBT and WBT crab. The Council determined that all of the factors that supported their recommendation for an emergency rule for the 2015/2016 crab fishing year continue to exist. The Council recognized that consolidation within the Tanner crab processing sector has constrained the ability of the processing sector to process all of the EBT and WBT Class A IFQ crab without exceeding the IPQ use caps. The Council determined that without additional unique and unaffiliated processing facilities entering the Tanner crab processing sector for the 2016/2017 crab fishing year or beyond, there is a significant risk that the portion of the Tanner crab allocation in excess of the caps would not be processed. Without the ability to have all EBT and WBT Class A IFQ processed, that portion of the Tanner crab allocation in excess of the caps would likely go unharvested because sufficient processing facilities do not exist in the Bering Sea region.
        The Council also acknowledged that while additional consolidation within the EBT and WBT processing sector could occur under Amendment 47, the Council does not expect additional consolidation to occur for reasons explained below. NMFS also did not intend for the IPQ use caps to strand a portion of the fishery, however, without the proposed exemption, harvesters, processors, and communities would lose the potential benefits from the stranded portion of crab. The management objective of this action is to provide a custom processing arrangement exemption for the EBT and WBT crab fisheries so that the full Tanner crab allocation can be harvested and processed.
        Proposed Regulations To Implement Amendment 47
        This proposed rule would modify § 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(A) by adding EBT and WBT IPQ crab to the list of BSAI crab fisheries already receiving a custom processing arrangement exemption. This would allow EBT and WBT IPQ crab received for custom processing by the three processors currently operating in these fisheries to qualify for a custom processing arrangement exemption and not apply against the IPQ use caps for these processors. With this proposed rule, all EBT and WBT IPQ crab received under custom processing arrangements at the facilities owned by the three existing EBT and WBT processors (Maruha-Nichiro Corporation, Trident Seafoods, or Unisea Seafoods) would not be counted against the IPQ use cap of the facility or the facility owners. The custom processing arrangement exemption would allow these processors to custom process crab for unaffiliated IPQ holders who have custom processing arrangements with the processors, thereby allowing harvesters to fully harvest and deliver their EBT and WBT Class A IFQ crab to IPQ holders with a custom processing arrangement at facilities operating in these fisheries.
        The anticipated effects of this proposed rule include allowing the full processing of all EBT and WBT Class A IFQ crab and the associated economic and social benefits of that processing activity for harvesters, the existing Tanner crab processors, and the communities where processing facilities are located. These communities include Akutan, Dutch Harbor/Unalaska, King Cove, and Saint Paul. The proposed rule would allow all of the Tanner crab Class A IFQ to be harvested and processed by existing processors and thus avoid the adverse economic and social impacts created by the lack of adequate processing capacity that would otherwise result if the EBT and WBT crab fisheries could not be fully processed. Ten percent of the EBT and WBT Class A IFQ crab represents approximately $3.4 million in ex-vessel value and $4.95 million in first wholesale value based on estimated ex-vessel and first wholesale values of EBT and WBT crab in the 2015/2016 crab fishing year (see Section 2.9 of the Analysis for additional detail).
        The Council and NMFS considered whether this proposed rule could result in further consolidation of Tanner crab processing to fewer facilities than currently operating. Under this proposed rule, there would be no regulatory barriers for processing companies to further consolidate processing facilities for Tanner crab. Since EBT and WBT crab are not subject to regionalization or ROFR, there would be no regulatory limitations preventing all of the EBT and WBT IPQ crab from being processed by one company at one facility.
        The Council and NMFS determined that operational factors make it unlikely that additional consolidation will occur. First, the extent to which the proposed exemption allows further consolidation depends on whether processors choose to enter custom processing arrangements with IPQ holders. The choice to enter those arrangements would depend largely on the benefit to the IPQ holder arising from using the IPQ at the holder's own facility or custom processing the IPQ at a plant unaffiliated with the IPQ holder. Collectively, the three companies and their facilities that process Tanner crab have substantial holdings of IPQ (see Table 2-3 of the Analysis). It is likely more economical for these companies to process the IPQ they hold at their facilities rather than negotiate a custom processing agreement with another processor, which would reduce the likelihood of further consolidation.

        Second, the extent of further consolidation depends on the business decisions that participants make regarding their participation in other crab fisheries, such as Bristol Bay red king crab and Bering Sea opilio. None of the current Tanner crab processors only process Tanner crab; all companies and facilities that process Tanner crab also process Bristol Bay red king crab and Bering Sea opilio. Crab processing tends to be labor intensive, requiring relatively large crews. The cost of transporting, housing, and provisioning crews to run crab processing lines at a plant can be high. Processors that are active in other BSAI crab fisheries may be more likely to continue processing in the Tanner crab fisheries to help maintain a consistent amount of crab available for processing at the facility (see Section 2.9.2 of the Analysis for more information).
        Third, processors are likely to maintain processing facilities near the fishing grounds. Proximity to the fishing grounds may help prevent or reduce deadloss, dead crab landed at the dock, which is associated with increased transit time between the fishing grounds and offload. Additionally, proximity to the fishing grounds can help harvesters maximize their efficiency and prevent the need to spend significant time transiting to and from processing facilities for offload. Given these factors, the Council and NMFS concluded that additional consolidation of processing activity in the EBT and WBT fisheries is unlikely under current and projected operations.
        The proposed rule would provide a benefit to processors willing to custom process Class A IFQ for EBT and WBT crab, and those IPQ holders that do not own processing facilities and must have their crab custom processed. The proposed custom processing arrangement exemption for EBT and WBT IPQ crab would avoid the adverse economic impacts created by the 30 percent IPQ use cap for Tanner crab fisheries to IPQ holders that own and operate processing facilities. This proposed rule would also benefit those IPQ holders that do not have processing facilities since their IPQ could be custom processed by an existing facility and their custom processing arrangement would not count against the 30 percent IPQ use cap (see Section 2.9.2 of the Analysis for further information).
        This proposed rule is expected to benefit harvesters who hold Class A IFQ for EBT and WBT crab. Without this proposed rule, harvesters with EBT or WBT Class A IFQ likely would be unable to fully harvest allocations provided to them due to IPQ use cap limitations imposed on IPQ holders and the three existing processors that receive EBT and WBT crab. This proposed rule would allow Class A IFQ holders in the EBT and WBT crab fisheries to fully harvest their IFQ allocations, because those Class A IFQ holders who match with IPQ holders that do not own processing facilities would be able to deliver their IFQ to a processing facility that has a custom processing arrangement with that IPQ holder.

        The effects of this proposed rule on communities and community sustainability are expected to be beneficial. This proposed rule would continue the delivery of EBT and WBT Class A IFQ crab to processors at facilities owned by the Maruha-Nichiro Corporation, Trident Seafoods, or Unisea Seafoods in BSAI communities. This would increase economic activity, the amount of income generated, and the amount of tax revenues in communities where existing processing facilities are located relative to not creating an exemption. Therefore, the effects of the proposed rule would be beneficial overall to communities with processors with EBT and WBT IPQ as compared with no action. However, if further consolidation occurs under this proposed action, companies may suspend crab processing at facilities in particular communities, causing adverse economic impacts on communities that lose Tanner crab processing activity. As explained above, there are several factors that make further consolidation unlikely.
        Although this proposed rule would provide a benefit to the existing three processors with processing facilities, this rule would not preclude the ability for new, unaffiliated processing companies to enter the EBT and WBT fisheries, establish custom processing arrangements with IPQ holders, and process EBT and WBT crab. Section 2.9.2 of the Analysis provides more detail on the potential for new unaffiliated processing companies to enter the EBT and WBT crab fisheries.
        Proposed Regulation To Make a Minor Clarification
        This proposed rule would also modify § 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(B) to clarify the meaning of the phrase “on the effective date of this rule” that occurs in § 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(B). The phrase “on the effective date of this rule” in § 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(B) refers to the effective date of the regulations that implemented Amendment 27 to the Crab FMP and that added § 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(B) to the regulations (74 FR 25449, May 28, 2009). Regulations implementing Amendment 27 to the Crab FMP were published on May 28, 2009, and became effective on June 29, 2009. The phrase “on the effective date of this rule” was inadvertently left in the regulatory text and not replaced with the actual effective date of the rule. This proposed rule would revise the phrase “on the effective date of this rule” to read “on June 29, 2009” to reduce any confusion about the applicable date for the requirements in § 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(B). This minor correction does not substantively change the intent or effect of § 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(B).
        Classification
        Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 47, the Crab FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration of comments received during the public comment period.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. Copies of the IRFA are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        The IRFA describes this proposed rule, why this rule is being proposed, the objectives and legal basis for this proposed rule, the type and number of small entities to which this proposed rule would apply, and the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of this proposed rule. It also identifies any overlapping, duplicative, or conflicting Federal rules and describes any significant alternatives to this proposed rule that would accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable statutes and that would minimize any significant adverse economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The description of this proposed rule, its purpose, and its legal basis are described in the preamble and are not repeated here.
        Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by This Proposed Rule
        For Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
        The Small Business Act (SBA) has established size criteria for all other major industry sectors in the United States, including fish processing businesses. On January 26, 2016, the SBA issued a final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries, effective February 26, 2016 (81 FR 4469). The final rule modified the size standard for “seafood product preparation and packaging” (NAICS code 311710) that applies to seafood processors. The final rule also modified the definition of a small entity operating as a seafood processor to include all entities that are independently owned and operated, not dominant in their field of operation, and have a combined annual employment of fewer than 750 or fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all their affiliated operations worldwide.
        The entities directly regulated by this action are those entities that process EBT and WBT crab. It does not include entities that harvest Class A IFQ EBT and WBT crab. From 2012 through 2014, there were no processors considered small entities that would have been directly regulated by the proposed action.
        This action would also directly regulate registered crab receivers (RCRs) as all Program crab must be received by an RCR. Some RCRs are the same entities that process Tanner crab, and others are those that have their Tanner crab custom processed. In 2015/2016, there were 10 RCRs that received Tanner crab, seven of which are considered large entities due to their affiliations with large seafood processing companies. The remaining three are considered small entities because they are not-for-profit organizations.
        Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
        This proposed action would not require any new recordkeeping and reporting requirements, or any modification of existing requirements.
        Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This Proposed Rule
        No relevant Federal rules have been identified that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
        Description of Significant Alternatives to This Proposed Rule That Minimize Economic Impacts on Small Entities

        The action alternative would allow the full harvest and processing of the Tanner crab total allowable catch. This action is not expected to have negative economic impacts on the small entities directly impacted by this action. The Council also considered a limited duration option which would have created a temporary rule to provide a fix for the near term, but would require the Council to take further action if it intended to create a more long-term revision. The Council did not select this option as it already has the ability to examine processing activity in the Tanner crab fishery at any time and take future action on this subject. This option would not have had less economic impact on small entities as compared to the proposed rule as the proposed rule is not expected to have negative impacts.

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

          Dated: September 19, 2016.
          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 680 is proposed to be amended 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.

        2. In § 680.42, revise paragraphs (b)(7)(ii) introductory text, and (b)(7)(ii)(A) and (B) to read as follows:

          § 680.42
          Limitations on use of QS, PQS, IFQ, and IPQ.

          (b) * * *
          (7) * * *
          (ii) The IPQ crab meets the conditions in paragraphs (b)(7)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section or the IPQ crab meets the conditions in paragraph (b)(7)(ii)(C) of this section:
          (A) The IPQ crab is:
          (1) BSS IPQ crab with a North region designation;
          (2) EAG IPQ crab;
          (3) EBT IPQ crab;
          (4) PIK IPQ crab;
          (5) SMB IPQ crab;
          (6) WAG IPQ crab provided that IPQ crab is processed west of 174 degrees west longitude;
          (7) WAI IPQ crab; or
          (8) WBT IPQ crab.
          (B) That IPQ crab is processed at:
          (1) Any shoreside crab processor located within the boundaries of a home rule, first class, or second class city in the State of Alaska in existence on June 29, 2009; or
          (2) Any stationary floating crab processor that is:
          (i) Located within the boundaries of a home rule, first class, or second class city in the State of Alaska in existence on June 29, 2009;
          (ii) Moored at a dock, docking facility, or at a permanent mooring buoy, unless that stationary floating crab processor is located within the boundaries of the city of Atka in which case that stationary floating crab processor is not required to be moored at a dock, docking facility, or at a permanent mooring buoy; and
          (iii) Located within a harbor, unless that stationary floating crab processor is located within the boundaries of the city of Atka on June 29, 2009, in which case that stationary floating crab processor is not required to be located within a harbor.

      [FR Doc. 2016-22911 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P