        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Parts 1 and 63
        [IB Docket No. 04-47, FCC 04-40]
        Amendment of the Commission's Rules

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document proposes to amend several of the Commission's rules regarding the provision of international telecommunications service. This document also proposes to clarify the intent of certain rules. The proposed rule changes will remove unnecessary burdens on the public and the agency.

          DATES:
          Comments are due to be filed by May 6, 2004, and reply comments are due to be filed by June 7, 2004. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the information collection requirements on or before May 21, 2004. Written comments on the proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, OMB, and other interested parties on or before May 21, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:

          Federal Communications Commission, Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-B204F, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments on the information collection contained herein should be submitted to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to JudithB.Herman@fcc.gov and Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 via the Internet to Kristy_L._LaLonde@omb.eop.gov or via fax at 202-395-5167.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Peggy Reitzel, Policy Division, International Bureau, (202) 418-1499. For additional information concerning the information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act contained in this Order contact Judith B. Herman at (202) 418-0214, or via the Internet at Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
        This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 04-47, FCC 04-40, adopted on February 25, 2004, and released on March 4, 2004. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257) of the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The document is also available for download over the Internet at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-40A1.pdf. The complete text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone: 202-863-2893, fax: 202-863-2898, e-mail qualexint@aol.com. This Order contains proposed information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the proposed information collections contained in this proceeding.
        Summary of Report and Order
        1. As part of the 2002 biennial regulatory review proceeding, the Commission received comments on proposed changes to the rules contained in 47 CFR part 63. Based on its review of the rules and various comments, the International Bureau recommended that the Commission undertake a proceeding to review several rules in part 63 for reasons other than developments in the level of competition. The International Bureau recommended that the Commission institute a proceeding to explore whether there are less burdensome means of applying the public interest goals of part 63 to carriers. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeks comment on those recommendations made by the International Bureau. In addition, the NPRM also seeks comment on whether to amend § 1.767 of the Commission's rules regarding procedures for Commission consideration of applications for cable landing licenses. The proposed rule changes would remove unnecessary burdens from both the public and the Commission.
        2. The NPRM seeks comment on whether to modify the international discontinuance procedures so that they are more consistent with the procedures for domestic services. At present there are several differences between the discontinuance procedures for international and domestic services, including the length of notice required. The procedures for discontinuing an international service are contained in 47 CFR 63.19. The item seeks comment on the appropriate notice period so customers will have sufficient time to secure an alternative provider for their U.S.-international services before their existing service is discontinued. The NPRM also seeks comment on which, if any, of the procedures for discontinuance of a domestic service should also be used for the discontinuance of an international service by a U.S.-carrier and which procedures should be different.

        3. The NPRM requests comment on whether the Commission should exempt certain commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) carriers from the requirement to file an application for international section 214 authority prior to providing international service on a purely switched resale basis. The exemption would apply to CMRS carriers that are either (1) unaffiliated with any foreign carrier with market power at the foreign end of the route, or (2) where the CMRS provider has an affiliation with such a foreign carrier and seeks to provide international service by reselling directly or indirectly the international switched services of U.S. carriers with which it is not affiliated. Currently, CMRS carriers only provide international service on a resale basis. The NPRM seeks comment on whether national security, law enforcement, foreign policy or trade issues are present where a CMRS carrier unaffiliated with a dominant foreign carrier merely resells international switched services of unaffiliated U.S. carriers. Further, the NPRM asks whether a 30-day notification requirement would be sufficient to address any such Executive Branch concerns. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether CMRS carriers can be distinguished from other pure resellers (those who would remain subject to prior Commission approval of international section 214 authority) because of (1) the de minimis nature of CMRS resale of switched voice services and (2) the fact that CMRS carriers also hold Title III licenses from the Commission.
        4. The NPRM proposes to amend § 63.18(e)(2) to allow carriers with global resale authority to resell the U.S.-inbound international services of both U.S. based and foreign common carriers. The NPRM also proposes to amend § 63.23 to allow carriers to resell services between the United States and all international points. The NPRM seeks comment on these proposed changes to the rules. Under the current rules it is not clear whether a U.S.-CMRS carrier can provide international roaming—which allows the CMRS customer traveling in a foreign country to call back to the United States—by reselling the services of foreign carriers under its global resale authority. There is a great need for clarity with regard to this issue because CMRS carriers currently provide increasingly more international roaming service.

        5. The NPRM seeks comment on whether to amend § 63.21(h) to allow commonly-controlled subsidiaries to provide international service pursuant to their parent's international section 214 authorization. Currently only a wholly-owned subsidiary may provide international service pursuant to its parent's authorization. A commonly-controlled subsidiary must obtain its own international section 214 authorization. The NPRM seeks comment on whether there is a maximum percent of differing ownership that should be allowed (e.g., 10 percent, 20 percent) before a subsidiary would be required to obtain its own authorization. The NPRM also seeks comment on the potential national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade issues that may be raised because of the differing ownership of the commonly-controlled subsidiary.
        6. The NPRM seeks comment on whether the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) applies to cable landing license applications, and, if so, whether the Commission should modify § 1.767 to ensure compliance with the CZMA. Currently, the Commission does not require applicants to comply with the CZMA. The CZMA authorizes coastal states to develop coastal management plans, subject to Federal approval through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Under the CZMA, States with federally-approved programs are entitled to review for consistency with those programs any “required federal license or permit to conduct an activity, in or outside of the coastal zone, “affecting any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone of that state.” The NPRM also seeks comment on alternative options to implement compliance with the CZMA if it is determined that such compliance is required.
        7. The NPRM proposes to amend § 63.24 to clarify that an international section 214 authorization holder must notify the Commission of a change from more than 50 percent ownership to 50 percent or less but still controlling ownership interest. Currently, the rule states that only a change from less than 50 percent ownership to 50 percent or more ownership shall always be considered a transfer of control. The NPRM also proposes to amend § 63.24 in order to make it clear that an asset acquisition that will not result in a loss of service for customers should be treated as an assignment of assets rather than a discontinuance of service. The NPRM seeks comment on these proposed changes.
        Procedural Matters
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
        8. This NPRM contained proposed new information collection(s). The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection(s) contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due May 21, 2004. PRA comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

          OMB Control Number: 3060-0686.

          Title: Streamlining the International Section 214 authorization Process and Tariff Requirements.

          Form No.: Not applicable.

          Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

          Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities.

          Number of Respondents: 410.

          Estimated Time Per Response: 4 hours.

          Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

          Total Annual Burden: 20 hours.

          Total Annual Costs: $3,000.

          Needs and Uses: The information will be used by the Commission staff in carrying out its duties under the Communications Act. The information collections are necessary to notify customers of discontinuance in service. The information will be used to ensure compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1971. Also, the information will be used by the Commission to determine the qualifications of applicants to provide common carrier international telecommunications service, including applicants that are affiliated with foreign carriers, and to determine whether and under what conditions the authorizations are in the public interest, convenience, and necessity. The information collections are necessary to maintain effective oversight of U.S. international carriers generally. The notification requirements will ensure that the Commission's records accurately reflect the identity of every authorized carrier as well as other needed information.
        9. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
        10. In this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on possible changes to its international section 214 authorization process, cable landing license process, and the rules relating to the provision of U.S.-international telecommunications services. As discussed above, the Commission has continually reviewed its rules regarding the authorization of international services under section 214 of the Act. Through this review, we have sought to: Facilitate the introduction of new services; provide customers with more choices, innovative services, and competitive prices; improve our processing of authorization applications and regulation of international services; and lessen regulatory burdens placed on carriers. As part of our 2002 biennial regulatory review proceeding, the Commission received comments on proposed changes to the rules contained in part 63. This proceeding reviews several rules in part 63.
        11. The rule changes discussed in the NPRM, if adopted, would make the international discontinuance rules more consistent with domestic service rules. In addition, we seek comment on whether to eliminate the requirement for CMRS carriers to apply for section 214 authority to provide international service to their customers through the pure resale of the switched services of other U.S. carriers. The proposal in the NPRM would remove confusion as to whether a CMRS carrier requires authority to resell U.S. inbound service of a foreign carrier for the U.S.-CMRS carrier's customers that are roaming in a foreign country. We also seek comment on whether to amend § 1.767 of its rules to assure compliance with the CZMA. Finally, the NPRM seeks comment on whether to expand the authority of a carrier's international section 214 authority to commonly-controlled subsidiaries.

        12. We believe that the proposals are in the public interest and will lessen the burdens on all carriers providing international common carrier service pursuant to section 214 of the Act, including those carriers that are small entities. Therefore, we certify that the proposals in this NPRM, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of entities. If commenters believe that the proposals discussed in the NPRM require additional RFA analysis, they should include a discussion of the issues in their comment and label them as RFA comments. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this initial certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, summaries of the NPRM and initial certification will be published in the Federal Register.
        13. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including a copy of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the NPRM and this Certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and will be published in the Federal Register, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
        Ordering Clauses.

        14. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4, 10, 11, 201-205 214, 218, 403, and 651 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 155, 161, 201-205, 214, 218, 219, 220, 225, 303(r), 309, 325, 403, and 571 this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.

        15. The Commission's Consumer Information and Government Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 04-6317 Filed 3-19-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        RIN 0648-BA62
        Amendments to the Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, Queen Conch and Coral and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management Plans of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted a 2011 Annual Catch Limits/Accountability Measures Amendment (2011 Caribbean ACL Amendment) to the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) for Reef Fish Resources, Spiny Lobster, Queen Conch, and Coral and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates for the U.S. Caribbean for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. This amendment proposes actions to establish annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) if ACLs should be exceeded for selected reef fish, spiny lobster, and aquarium trade species identified by the Secretary as not undergoing overfishing; allocate ACLs for island management areas and for the commercial and recreational sectors; revise the species within the conch FMU; establish bag limits for selected reef fish species and spiny lobster; and establish framework procedures for spiny lobster and coral and reef associated plants and invertebrates species. The 2011 Caribbean ACL Amendment would also revise management reference points and status determination criteria for angelfish, boxfish, goatfish, grunts, hogfish, jacks, scups and porgies, spiny lobster, squirrelfish, surgeonfish, triggerfish and tilefish, and aquarium trade species. The intended effect of the 2011 Caribbean ACL Amendment is prevent overfishing of reef fish, spiny lobster and aquarium trade species while maintaining catch levels consistent with achieving optimum yield (OY).

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before November 25, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on these Amendments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2011-0017, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Miguel Lugo and Maria Lopez, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

          To submit comments through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, click on “submit a comment,” then enter “NOAA-NMFS-2011-0017” in the keyword search and click on “search.” To view posted comments during the comment period, enter “NOAA-NMFS-2011-0017” in the keyword search and click on “search”. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Comments received through means not specified in this notice will not be considered.

          Electronic copies of the amendment may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Miguel Lugo or Maria Lopez, telephone: 727-824-5305, or e-mail: Miguel.Lugo@noaa.gov or Maria.Lopez@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any fishery management plan or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the plan or amendment is available for review and comment.
        The four FMPs being revised by the 2011 Caribbean ACL Amendment were prepared by the Council and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR parts 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Background
        The 2006 revisions to the Magnuson-Stevens Act require that, in 2011, for fish stocks determined by the Secretary to not be subject to overfishing, ACLs must be established at a level that prevents overfishing and helps to achieve OY within a fishery. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the OY from federally managed stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems.
        Actions Contained in the Amendment

        The 2011 Caribbean ACL Amendment considers alternatives to revise management reference points, and implement ACLs for those species not subject to overfishing. In addition, the 2011 Caribbean ACL Amendment would redefine the aquarium trade species FMUs within the Reef Fish FMP and the Coral and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates FMP, revise the species composition of the FMU within the Queen Conch Resources FMP, manage selected Federal fisheries through defined island management areas in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Additionally, the 2011 Caribbean ACL Amendment would establish recreational bag limits for reef fish and spiny lobster species, establish AMs if ACLs are exceeded, and establish framework procedures for implementing management changes in a timelier manner for both the spiny lobster and coral and reef associated plants and invertebrates FMPs.
        Management Reference Points for the Reef Fish and Spiny Lobster FMPs
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that FMPs specify a number of reference points for managed fish stocks, including maximum sustainable yield (MSY), OY, and stock status determination criteria (including overfished and overfishing thresholds). These reference points are determined for the entire U.S. Caribbean and are intended to provide the basis to measure the status and performance of fisheries relative to established goals. Available data in the U.S. Caribbean are not currently sufficient to support the direct estimation of these parameters. Thus, the amendment proposes to use average catch as a proxy for MSY. The overfishing limit (OFL) and allowable biological catch (ABC) would be set equal to the MSY proxy. OY would be set as the MSY proxy multiplied by a reduction factor to account for uncertainty in the scientific process, the proposed uncertainty reduction factor being 10 percent. For surgeonfish, angelfish and aquarium trade species specifically, the amendment proposes an uncertainty reduction factor of 25 percent.
        Management Reference Points and Fisheries Management Unit for the Aquarium Trade Species
        This action presents alternatives to redefine the management of aquarium trade species within the Reef Fish FMP and within the Coral and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates FMP (Coral FMP). Alternatives under this action could maintain the present arrangement of aquarium trade species; consolidate of all the federally managed aquarium trade species into a single FMP; remove all aquarium trade species from both the Coral and Reef Fish FMPs with the result that they will no longer be subject to Federal management; keep only those aquarium trade species for which landings data are available during the year sequences specified, and remove all remaining aquarium trade species from the FMPs; or delegate management authority of all aquarium trade species in the Reef Fish and the Coral FMPs to the jurisdiction of the appropriate commonwealth or territory.
        Removal of Species From the Queen Conch Resources FMP

        The 2011 Caribbean ACL Amendment would remove all conch species, except for the queen conch (Strombus gigas), from the conch FMU.
        Geographic Allocation/Management
        Except for tilefishes and aquarium trade species, the 2011 Caribbean ACL Amendment would establish island-specific management areas to manage ACLs and the application of AMs in response to harvesting activities on a more island specific level. The island management areas would be Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and the combined area of St. Thomas and St. John. The geographic boundaries between islands and island groups would be based upon an equidistant approach that uses a mid-point to divide the EEZ among islands. Landings data from Puerto Rico will be used to establish the Caribbean-wide ACLs for tilefishes and aquarium trade species.
        Establish Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures
        The 2011 Caribbean ACL Amendment would establish ACLs and AMs for Caribbean reef fish, spiny lobster, and aquarium trade species that are not undergoing overfishing. Separate commercial and recreational ACLs would be established for the Puerto Rico island management area based on the availability of landings data for the commercial and recreational sectors. For the other island management areas, only commercial data are available, therefore, ACLs would be established for the St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John island management areas based on commercial landings data only.
        Post-season AMs are proposed that would ensure the ACL is not exceeded in the year following a reported ACL overage based on a moving-year evaluation of landings and a subsequent reduction in the length of the following fishing year to ensure the ACL is not exceeded in that following year.
        Establishment of Recreational Bag and Possession Limits
        The 2011 Caribbean ACL Amendment would establish recreational bag limits for selected reef fish species and spiny lobster. The amendment would also set an overall vessel possession limit for the recreational sector for selected reef fish species and spiny lobster.
        Framework Procedures
        To facilitate timely adjustments to harvest parameters and other management measures, the Council has proposed framework procedures for both the spiny lobster and coral and reef and associated plants and invertebrates FMPs. Framework procedures allow the Council and NMFS to have the flexibility to more promptly alter management options to respond to changing fishery conditions and new scientific information.
        Consideration of Public Comments

        A proposed rule that would implement measures outlined in the 2011 Caribbean ACL Amendment has been received from the Council. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMPs, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        Comments received by November 25, 2011, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the amendment. Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

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

          Dated: September 21, 2011.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-24700 Filed 9-23-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 300 and 679
        RIN 0648-BB94
        Amendment 94 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska

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

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

          SUMMARY:
          The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 94 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP) for review by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). Amendment 94 would revise the sablefish individual fishing quota program (IFQ Program) to align the annual harvest, or use caps that apply to vessels fishing IFQ leased from a community quota entity (CQE) with vessel use caps applicable to non-CQE participants in the IFQ Program. The proposed amendment would not change the sablefish vessel use cap applicable to the overall IFQ Program. Amendment 94 is necessary to increase the flexibility of the CQE and CQE community residents to participate in the IFQ Program. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the GOA FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Written comments on Amendment 94 must be received no later than 5:00 p.m., Alaska local time (A.l.t.), on April 23, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2012-0040, 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-2012-0040, 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 99802-1668.
          • Fax: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Fax comments to (907) 586-7557.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Deliver comments to 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.

          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, etc.), confidential business information or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for Amendment 94 and the RIRs for the regulatory amendments are available from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address or by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-7285.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Peggy Murphy, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any FMP or FMP amendment it prepares to the Secretary for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires the Secretary, upon receiving an FMP, to immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register that the FMP or amendment is available for public review and comment.
        Amendment 94 to the GOA FMP would revise the individual fishing quota program (IFQ Program) for sablefish fisheries. The IFQ program for the fixed-gear commercial fisheries for halibut and sablefish in waters in and off Alaska is a limited access privilege program implemented in 1995 (58 FR 59375, November 9, 1993). The IFQ Program limits access to the GOA halibut and sablefish fisheries to those persons holding quota share (QS) in specific management areas. The amount of halibut and sablefish that each QS holder may harvest is calculated annually and issued as IFQ in pounds.
        In 2002, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) recommended revisions to IFQ Program regulations and policy to explicitly allow a non-profit entity to hold QS on behalf of residents of specific rural communities located adjacent to the coast of the GOA. NMFS implemented the Council's recommendations as Amendment 66 to the GOA FMP in 2004 (69 FR 23681, April 30, 2004). Amendment 66 implemented the community quota entity program (CQE Program) to allow these specific communities to form non-profit corporations called CQEs to purchase catcher vessel QS under the IFQ Program. CQEs that purchase QS on behalf of an eligible community may lease the resulting annual IFQ to fishermen who are residents of the community. The CQE Program was developed to allow a distinct set of small, remote coastal communities to benefit from CQE purchase of QS through sustained community participation in the IFQ fisheries.

        The Council reviewed the IFQ Program and the CQE Program beginning in February 2010 and considered proposed changes to both programs. The Council adopted Amendment 94 on October 2, 2011. Amendment 94 would amend the GOA FMP to make the vessel use caps applicable to vessels fishing sablefish IFQ derived from CQE-held sablefish QS similar to the use caps that apply to vessels fishing sablefish IFQ derived from individually-held QS. The current vessel use cap that applies to vessels fishing sablefish IFQ derived from CQE-held sablefish QS can be more restrictive than the vessel use caps that apply to vessels harvesting individually-held IFQ. Amendment 94 would provide community residents additional access to vessels to fish sablefish IFQ leased from CQEs and may promote more CQE participation in the IFQ Program.
        The existing FMP and IFQ CQE regulations provide that a vessel may not be used to harvest more than 50,000 pounds (22.7 mt) of sablefish IFQ from any sablefish QS source if the vessel is used to harvest IFQ derived from sablefish QS held by a CQE. As a result, community residents leasing sablefish IFQ from a CQE may use the IFQ only on vessels that harvest annually no more than 50,000 pounds of IFQ in total; sablefish IFQ derived from CQE-held QS plus sablefish IFQ derived from individually-held QS count towards the cap. The Council established these limitations in the original CQE Program to prevent consolidation of IFQ harvest on a small number of vessels and to broadly distribute the benefits from fishing activities among CQE community residents.
        Amendment 94 would revise the FMP to exclude sablefish IFQ derived from individually-held QS from the 50,000-pound vessel use cap. Only sablefish IFQ derived from CQE-held sablefish QS would be included in the vessel use cap. The effect of Amendment 94 would be that the following annual vessel use caps would apply to all vessels harvesting sablefish IFQ: no vessel could be used to harvest (1) more than 50,000 pounds (22.7 mt) of sablefish IFQ leased from a CQE, and (2) more sablefish IFQ than the IFQ Program's overall sablefish IFQ vessel use caps. Under Amendment 94, the existing IFQ Program vessel use caps would remain the same at 1 percent of the Southeast sablefish IFQ total allowable catch (TAC) and 1 percent of the combined sablefish TAC in all sablefish regulatory areas off Alaska (GOA and BSAI).
        Under proposed Amendment 94, if, during any fishing year, a vessel harvested sablefish IFQ derived from CQE-held QS and individually-held QS, the harvests of IFQ derived from the individually-held sablefish QS would not accrue against the 50,000-pound vessel use cap for sablefish IFQ leased from a CQE. Instead, it would accrue against the overall vessel use caps that currently apply to all vessels harvesting sablefish IFQ. In effect, a vessel could not use more than 50,000 pounds of sablefish IFQ derived from sablefish QS held by a CQE during the fishing year. However, it could use additional sablefish IFQ from individually-held QS up to the overall vessel use caps applicable in the IFQ Program, if the overall vessel use caps were greater than 50,000 pounds. If any of the vessel use caps in the IFQ Program were lower than 50,000 pounds in a given year, then the lowest vessel use cap would apply.
        CQE representatives testified to the Council that the existing 50,000-pound (22.7 mt) sablefish IFQ vessel use cap is restrictive because there is less flexibility and opportunity for community residents to use IFQ leased from CQEs on larger vessels. The use of CQE-leased sablefish IFQ on larger vessels could increase the employment of community members as crew and increase safety at sea during inclement weather. As discussed in the Purpose and Need section of the analysis prepared for Amendment 94, representatives of CQEs also testified to the Council that the ability to use CQE-leased sablefish IFQ on vessels owned by non-CQE community residents is important to the success of the CQE Program because many of the eligible CQE community residents may be entry-level fishermen or fishermen with no vessels or very small vessels. Changing the vessel use cap would provide CQEs the flexibility to lease IFQ to community residents who do not own vessels and allow them to find employment as crew members and fish the sablefish IFQ derived from the CQE-held QS on other vessels. The ability of community residents to lease IFQ from CQEs in the short-term could allow them to gain revenue from the sale of fish and could allow them to purchase QS from the CQEs over the longer term. Community residents then could work their way into the fishery. Enhancing individual resident holdings and CQE holdings is part of the purpose of the CQE Program.
        Additional opportunities for a CQE to lease sablefish IFQ to community residents would likely result under Amendment 94, as the pool of potential resident applicants for IFQ would increase if there were a larger pool of potential vessels upon which the community residents could use the leased IFQ. CQEs and residents leasing IFQ from CQEs may benefit from the availability of vessels that could not use additional CQE-leased IFQ onboard under the current use cap that includes individually-held IFQ. Anticipating these opportunities for potential CQE purchases of QS are important for communities to develop shorter and longer term plans to finance and develop community-based fisheries.

        An RIR was prepared for Amendment 94 that describes the CQE Program, the purpose and need for this action, the management alternatives evaluated to address this action, and the economic and socioeconomic effects of the alternatives (see ADDRESSES).
        Amendment 94 and its proposed implementing regulations are designed to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate that regional fishery management councils must take into account the importance of fishery resources to communities in order to provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities. The IFQ Program for Pacific halibut is implemented under the authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). The Council does not have a halibut fishery management plan. The Council and Secretary, however, consider the impacts of all the IFQ management measures on fishery-dependent communities. If Amendment 94 is approved, then sablefish and halibut components would be implemented in one rule. Amendment 94 is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the GOA FMP, and other applicable laws.

        Public comments are being solicited on Amendment 94 and associated documents through the end of the comment period stated in this notice of availability. A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 94 will be published in the Federal Register for public comment following NMFS evaluation under Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures. Public comments, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by 5 p.m. A.l.t. on the last day of the comment period (see DATES). Comments received by the end of the  comment period will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 94. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove Amendment 94.

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

          Dated: February 19, 2013.
          James P. Burgess,
          Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-04157 Filed 2-21-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P