        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 011219306-1306-01; I.D. 110501A]
        RIN 0648 AM44
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Proposed Rule to Amend Regulations for Observer Coverage Requirements for Vessels and Shoreside Processors in the North Pacific Groundfish Fisheries

          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 amend regulations governing the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (Observer Program).  This action is necessary to refine observer coverage requirements and improve support for observers.  The proposed rule is intended to ensure continued collection of high quality observer data to support the management objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMPs).  It is intended to promote the goals and objectives contained in those FMPs.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule must be received by May 1, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments should be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK  99802, Attn:  Lori Gravel, or delivered to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK.  Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for this proposed regulatory action and the Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the 1997 Extension of the Interim North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program may also be obtained from the same address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Bridget Mansfield, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background -
        NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) management areas in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) under the FMPs for those areas.  The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  General regulations that also pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.  Regulations implementing the interim Groundfish Observer Program were published November 1, 1996 (61 FR 56425), amended December 30, 1997 (62 FR 67755), and December 15, 1998 (63 FR 69024), and extended through 2002 under a final rule published December 21, 2000 (65 FR 80381).  NMFS’ Observer Program provides for the collection of observer data necessary to manage Alaska groundfish fisheries.  Observers provide information on total catch estimation, discard, prohibited species bycatch, and biological samples that are used for stock assessment purposes.  -
        At its June 1998 meeting, the Council requested that NMFS analyze alternatives to respond to several areas of concern that the Council believes detract from the overall achievement of the goals of the Observer Program.  At its June 2000 meeting, the Council adopted remedial actions to address these concerns.  The actions in this proposed rule are intended to address concerns about (1) shoreside processor observer coverage; (2) shoreside processor observer logistics; and (3) observer coverage requirements for vessels fishing with groundfish pot gear.  These issues are separate such that agency approval or disapproval of one proposed action would not affect the others.   -

        The need, justification, and economic impacts for each of the actions in this proposed rule, as well as impacts of the alternatives considered, were analyzed in the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).  A description for each proposed measure follows:  -
        Shoreside Processor Observer Coverage
        Current regulations at § 679.50(d) require each shoreside processor to project for each calendar month the amount, in metric tons (mt), of groundfish that is expected to be received or processed at that facility.  Observer coverage requirements for each month are based on those projections.  A shoreside processor that processes 1,000 mt or more in round weight equivalent of groundfish during a calendar month is required to have an observer present at the facility each day it receives or processes groundfish during that month.  These processors are considered to have 100-percent coverage.  A shoreside processor that processes 500 to 1,000 mt in round weight equivalent of groundfish during a calendar month is required to have an observer present at the facility at least 30 percent of the days it receives or processes groundfish during that month.  These shoreside processors are considered to have 30-percent coverage.  Some shoreside processors may alternate between 30-percent and 100-percent coverage from month to month. -
        The current monthly observer coverage regime can result in coverage in some shoreside processors during periods of a month when relatively small amounts of groundfish are received.  This is experienced primarily by the shoreside processors with 100- percent coverage.  For instance, if 1,000 mt of groundfish are received or processed by the end of the first or second week in a month, but the shoreside processor receives or processes very small amounts of groundfish for the remainder of the month, it would still be required to maintain 100-percent observer coverage for all delivery or processing days. -

        The proposed action would maintain the current monthly observer coverage periods at shoreside processors based on monthly landings projections.  However, during a month when a directed fishery for pollock or Pacific cod closes, a shoreside processor with 100-percent coverage requirements that received pollock or Pacific cod from the fishery that closed in that given month would have the option to reduce observer coverage to 30- percent coverage requirements for the remainder of that month under certain conditions.  These conditions are:  (1) The shoreside processor must maintain observer coverage for 30 percent of all days that groundfish are received or processed for the remainder of that month; and (2) groundfish landings received by the shoreside processor may not exceed 250 mt/calendar week for the remainder of that month.  If a shoreside processor is expected to receive greater than 250 mt/wk during any calendar week of that month, the shoreside processor would be required to return to 100-percent observer coverage for the days fish are received or processed during that week and until processing of all groundfish received during that week is completed.   -
        The reduced observer coverage period for a given shoreside processor would be authorized beginning on the fourth calendar day following the day that a pollock or cod fishery closes, allowing for observation of the delivery and processing of fish received prior to the closure, and would end on the last day of that month.  Observer coverage for the month following would be based on monthly landings projections and thresholds as specified under current regulations at § 679.50, but also may be reduced for that month under the conditions of this proposed action.  The RIR/IRFA prepared for this action indicates that some observer costs borne by the shoreside processors would be relieved without significantly impacting the quality or quantity of data collected by observers necessary for scientific or management purposes.  -
        The Community Development Quota (CDQ) and American Fisheries Act (AFA) programs’ observer coverage requirements found at § 679.50(d)(4) and (5), respectively, currently supersede general observer coverage requirements for shoreside processors, and will continue to take precedence over this proposed action.
        Shoreside Processor Observer Logistics
        Regulations at §  679.50(i)(2)(v) require observer contractors to provide all logistics to place and maintain observers at the site of a processing facility.  This responsibility includes all travel arrangements, lodging, per diem, and any other services required to place observers at the processing facility. -
        Observers have experienced logistical difficulties impeding their ability to be present at a shoreside processor to observe groundfish deliveries.  These difficulties primarily have been due either to unreliable means of communication resulting in lack of notification by the shoreside processor or to unreliable transportation to the shoreside processor after being notified of an expected delivery.  Observers have reported missing part of or entire deliveries when expected motorized transportation is delayed or does not arrive, and have had to walk or ride a bicycle between 1 mile and 5 miles in rain, snow, or sub-freezing temperatures when no alternative transportation is available.   -
        Shoreside processor observers must be present at deliveries to perform prescribed duties.  These include advising vessel observers of processing protocol at the shoreside processor, providing relief to vessel observers, verifying deliveries are weighed and accurately recorded, and obtaining biological samples from each delivery.  When the shoreside processor observer is not present during a delivery, vessel observer sampling errors and loss of prohibited species data for that delivery may occur.  Further, the shoreside processor observer cannot fulfill all prescribed duties, which could lead to loss of catch data and biological samples. -
        Observers have also reported being housed in substandard lodging while deployed at shoreside processors.  Rooms with leaky ceilings or walls have been reported, as well as rooms located in shoreside processors next to loud machinery that operates 24 hours a day, preventing observers from sleeping.  Observers generally spend from a week up to 3 months at a particular shoreside plant. -
        The Observer Program has determined that the difficulties described have generally been corrected by observer contractors, although these problems could resume at any time.  Therefore, the intention of the proposed action is to ensure that such problems as described here do not recur in the future. -
        This proposed rule would amend the observer regulations to require the observer contractor to provide the following logistical support to observers deployed at shoreside processors: adequate housing meeting certain standards; reliable communication equipment such as an individually assigned phone or pager for notification of upcoming deliveries or other necessary communication; and, if the observer’s accommodations are greater than 1 mile away from the processing facility, reliable motorized transportation to the shoreside processor that ensures timely arrival to allow the observer to complete assigned duties. -
        Groundfish Pot Fishery Observer Coverage Requirements.
        Under current regulations at § 679.50(c)(1), all catcher/processors or catcher vessels 60 ft (18.3m) LOA and greater, but less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA that fish for groundfish in the BSAI or the GOA are required to have an observer aboard for at least 30 percent of all fishing days in a calendar quarter and for at least one complete fishing trip for each groundfish category it fishes in that same quarter.  Catcher/processors or catcher vessels 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA and greater are required to have an observer aboard for 100 percent of all fishing days in a calendar quarter.  Vessels 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA and greater using pot gear are only required to maintain observer coverage for 30 percent of their fishing days.  There are no observer coverage requirements for catcher vessels delivering unsorted catch to motherships. -
        A fishing day is defined as “a 24 hour period from 0001 hours Alaska local time (A.l.t.) through 2400 hours A.l.t., in which fishing gear is retrieved and groundfish are retained.”  For purposes of observer coverage, a fishing trip for catcher vessels not delivering to a mothership is defined in the following way:  “the time period during which one or more fishing days occur, that starts on the day when fishing gear is first deployed and ends on the day the vessel offloads groundfish, returns to an Alaskan port or leaves the EEZ off Alaska and adjacent waters of the State of Alaska.”  A fishing trip for a catcher/processor or catcher vessel delivering to a mothership is defined, with respect to observer coverage requirements, in the following way: “a weekly reporting period during which one or more fishing days occur.” -
        With exceptions for CDQ and AFA fisheries, observer coverage levels have remained generally unchanged since they were implemented in 1989 under FMP Amendments 18/13, which established the domestic Observer Program in the North Pacific.  Coverage levels were initially established based on an analysis of precision in observer catch estimates and program costs.  A comprehensive review of coverage needs by fishery would take into account all scientific, management, and compliance needs.  The issue of observer coverage requirements is beyond the scope of this analysis. -

        Reports have been filed since 1996 by observers documenting circumstances where vessel operators indicated that they were retrieving only one pot while the observer was aboard to meet the minimum coverage requirement.  In 1998 alone, over 160 retrievals of one pot per day or trip were made.  These pots have often been set within a 30-minute steam from the dock.  This practice is not prohibited under the current regulations and technically satisfies the coverage requirements.  However, it is not considered within the range of normal fishing activity.  Overall, observer data for the groundfish pot fishery from 1998-1999 indicate that an average of 123 pots were retrieved per day when an observer was aboard.   -
        NMFS understands that occasions may arise when a trip must be shortened or the number of pots retrieved in a day may be fewer than average, but deliberate effort reduction when an observer is aboard results in biased data that are not  representative of fishing effort, as intended.  Observer coverage requirements are intended to capture unbiased data for a given fishery under normal fishing conditions.  Observer coverage of days with intentionally reduced gear retrieval, compared to normal fishing activity, results in far less observer data collected relative to actual overall fishing effort.  This inhibits the opportunity to accurately monitor fishing practices, catch rates and discards for in-season management, and reduces opportunity for collection of biological data used in stock assessments.  When extrapolated to the level of the pot fleet, observer data from deliberate low effort days become more significant and artificially bias effort downward.  Observer data show that the majority of pot retrievals per vessel per day is approximately between 95 and 200, with an average of 123, although daily retrieval rates range up to 500 or more per day.   -
        The proposed action is intended to improve observer coverage requirements by ensuring that observer coverage levels more accurately reflect normal fishing effort across the groundfish pot fleet.  NMFS considers the number of pot retrievals to be a better measure of actual fishing effort in the groundfish pot fishery than the number of fishing days.  Ensuring that a certain percentage of pot retrievals will be observed, while not changing the basic coverage level, gives fisheries managers greater confidence that observer data extrapolated across the pot gear fleet to unobserved vessels would better reflect fleet-wide prohibited species catch, target catch, and bycatch and discard rates, because actual fishing effort may vary considerably between days when gear is retrieved.  Biological data collected for stock assessments would likewise benefit in the same way.   -
        The proposed action would amend coverage requirements for the groundfish pot gear fishery such that a vessel equal to or longer than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA fishing with pot gear that participates more than 3 days in a directed fishery for groundfish in a calendar quarter would need to carry an observer during at least 30 percent of the total number of pot retrievals for that calendar quarter.  Such vessels also would need to continue to carry an observer for at least one entire fishing trip using pot gear in a calendar quarter, for each of the groundfish fishery categories in which the vessel participates during that calendar quarter.  Groundfish will still be required to be retained each day the observer is on board and gear is retrieved, in order for the gear retrieved on that day to count toward observer coverage requirements.
        Confidentiality of Observer Personal Information
        Since 1991, observers have reported that resumes containing employment histories, home addresses and phone numbers, as well as past observer deployment evaluations, have been forwarded to fishing companies by the observer contractors without the observer’s permission.  This personal information was often forwarded on to individual vessels aboard which the observer was deployed.   -
        The potential exists for misuse and abuse of this personal information, with overt intimidation of observers being the primary concern.  Observers have reported that such personal information has been referred to by vessel personnel during discussions of potential violations raised by the observer.  The manner in which such information was referred to has been interpreted by some observers as an implication of potential  forthcoming repercussions or the questioning of an observer’s qualifications.  This type of direct or implied intimidation can result in observers, particularly those less experienced, declining to report potential violations witnessed during a deployment, thus undermining their effectiveness in monitoring fisheries activities and practices.  -
        In 1996, a group of observers asked both NMFS and the Association of Professional Observers (APO) to request that observer providers cease the practice of distributing observer’s personal information.  Upon such a request by NMFS and the APO, observer providers verbally agreed to stop forwarding personal information about observers to industry.  However, concerns remain that this practice could resume in the future in the absence of regulations prohibiting it.--- -
        At the Council’s request, alternatives for resolution of this issue were presented at the April 2000 Council meeting and final action was taken by the Council in June 2000.  The Council voted to add an additional alternative to the analysis which would prohibit the release of personal information such as might be found on an observer’s resume, including social security number, home address and phone number, and employment history, but would exclude observers’ deployment scores and evaluations from the prohibition on distribution.  Subject to exceptions, however, the Privacy Act generally prohibits the release of records on individuals held by the Federal government without prior written consent by that individual.  As such, there are restrictions on the release of, among other information, an observer’s deployment scores or evaluations, except under certain circumstances as explained below.   -
        Under the current observer service delivery model, in which observers are not Federal employees and no contract exists between the government and observer providers (providers), NMFS’ control over deployment of observers is limited.  Providers have responsibility for providing qualified observers and monitoring their performance to ensure satisfactory execution of their duties (see § 679.50(i)(2)(i) and (xiii)).  The providers’ chief means of monitoring observer performance, and thus of deciding whether to continue to hire an individual, is through observer deployment evaluations and scores that are issued by NMFS and forwarded to the contractor upon the completion of each deployment.  -
        Observer provider companies’ monitoring of observer performance is considered by NMFS to be beneficial toward achieving an Observer Program goal of maintaining high quality data.  NMFS is in the process of establishing a Privacy Act “system of records” for individual observer information.  One routine use that will be established will be to provide observer deployment scores and evaluations to observer providers.  -

        The Council stated that its concern in voting to allow interested industry participants access to observer evaluations and deployment scores is based on instances related by vessel or plant owner/operators that their complaints against observers were not adequately addressed by NMFS.  The Council stated that it felt that if an observer with a poor deployment record continued to be deployed, industry participants should have access to this information.  However, NMFS has long-standing policies for handling observers with poor deployment scores or evaluations and for addressing complaints about observers by vessel or plant owner/operators.  The agency believes these policies are more effective in resolving potential problems than having contractors provide industry access to personal information about an observer.   -
        For each completed deployment, the observer is thoroughly debriefed by Observer Program staff who are all prior observers and are professionally trained to conduct debriefings.  The debriefer reviews all data, observer logbooks, and other assigned tasks related to this deployment for accuracy and completion of duties for all the vessels or plants covered by the observer during that deployment.  A review of the observer’s sampling techniques and handling of other procedural issues is conducted and any needed improvements are discussed.  All necessary data corrections are made by the observer during the debriefing.  Any necessary affidavits are also prepared by the observer at this time.  Upon completion of the debriefing, the debriefer prepares a written final evaluation of the observer’s performance for that deployment.  It includes descriptions of the challenges faced by the observer and whether the observer handled each issue successfully or unsuccessfully.  The evaluation also includes a recommendation on rehiring the observer, and any conditions required to be met by the observer upon rehire, such as specific training or briefing requirements.   -
        Currently, observers are also given an overall score of 0 or 1 for each deployment.  A score of 1 indicates that the observer has met Observer Program expectations, and a score of 0 indicates that the observer has not met Observer Program expectations for that deployment.  The severity of circumstances and reasons may vary for NMFS issuing a deployment score of 0.  When such circumstances are considered quite serious, an investigation may be initiated.  An observer in such cases may be suspended, and in the most serious cases, decertified.  However, each case is considered individually with due diligence by Observer Program staff. -
        Complaints from vessel owner/operators or plant managers regarding specific observers are considered individually by the Observer Program.  If a chronic, valid problem is found with an individual observer, a recommendation for not rehiring that observer may be issued.  In the most extreme cases, an observer could be suspended or decertified.  While some complaints about observers may be valid and are dealt with according to program policy, vessel or plant owner/operators sometimes may be concerned by activities of an observer who is appropriately following NMFS protocol.  In these cases, NMFS will work with vessel or plant personnel to facilitate a better understanding of  the observer’s duties. -
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. -
        This proposed rule would extend without change existing collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).  The collection of this information has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0648-0318. -
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. -

        NMFS determined that this proposed rule warrants a Categorical Exclusion from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for an EA.  The changes proposed in this action are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Interim Observer Program, and the proposed actions fall within the scope of the EA, the RIR and the Final Regulatory Flexibility Act (FRFA) analyses prepared for the 1997 Interim Groundfish Observer Program (August 27, 1996).  The proposed actions will not result in a significant change from those assessed in that EA/RIR/FRFA, because it would implement only minor administrative and technical changes to an existing regulation.  The changes will provide improved benefits to those listed in the August 27, 1996, EA/RIR/FRFA for the Interim Observer Program, the RIR/FRFA for the extension of the Interim Observer Program through 1998 dated October 28, 1997, and the RIR/FRFA for the extension of the Interim Observer Program through 2000, dated June 4, 1998.  Copies of these analyses are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).  -

        NMFS prepared an IRFA, which describes the impact this proposed rule would have on small entities, if adopted.  The RFA requires that the IRFA describe significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statutes and minimize any impact on small entities.  The IRFA must discuss significant alternatives to the proposed rule such as (1) establishing different reporting requirements for small entities that take into account the resources available to small entities, (2) consolidating or simplifying of reporting requirements, (3) using performance rather than design standards, and (4) allowing exemptions from coverage for small entities.  A copy of this analysis is also available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). -
        Observer costs borne by vessels and processors are based on whether an observer is deployed aboard a vessel or at a shoreside processor, and on overall coverage needs.  Higher costs are borne by those vessels and shoreside processors that require higher levels of coverage.  Most of the catcher vessels participating in the groundfish fisheries off Alaska that are required to carry an observer (i.e., vessels 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA and longer) meet the definition of a small entity under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).  Since 1995, about 270 catcher vessels annually carry observers.  The FRFAs prepared for the 1998 and 2000 Interim Observer Program describe the degree to which these vessels may be economically impacted by observer coverage levels or other regulatory provisions of the Observer Program.   -

        This proposed action is expected to result in economic impacts benefitting shoreside processors that are able to reduce observer coverage levels during a month in which the closure of a pollock or cod fishery occurs.  Exact quantification of the overall effects on observer coverage at shoreside plants in the BSAI and GOA is not possible due to the number of unpredictable variables involved, particularly fishery closure dates.  However, the approximate timing of pollock and cod fishery closures could result in some reduced observer coverage five months per year under this proposed change.  The CDQ and AFA observer requirements, which would take precedence over general coverage requirements under this alternative, are not factored into the IRFA analysis, except to note that plants receiving fish caught under those programs would benefit less in terms of cost savings from coverage reduction.  Reduction in observer coverage under the conditions of this proposed action are most likely to result in savings between $270-$1,620 per month per plant, based on per-day observer costs to industry, excluding additional costs such as the observer’s airfare.  This action does provide the opportunity for a plant that has decided to reduce observer coverage in a month to return to 100-percent observer coverage for the remainder of the month and lift the 250-mt/week cap on landings received if a fishery is reopened.   -
        Requiring both adequate observer housing and reliable motorized transportation when observers stay a mile or more from their duty stations is unlikely to cause significant economic effects.  Furthermore, there are no alternatives that would meet statutory objectives yet impose fewer economic impacts.     -
        Economic impacts from the requirement that shoreside observers be assigned cell phones or pagers to ensure notification of upcoming deliveries is estimated for cell phones to be approximately $5,250 for the first year and $4,243 for each subsequent year per contractor, and pager costs per contractor would be $1,820 for the first year and $1,288 for each subsequent year.  -
        Distributed equally between the five active contractors, costs per contractor for cell phones would be $5,250 for the first year and $4,243 for each subsequent year.  Pager costs would be $1,820 for the first year and $1,288 in subsequent years.  These estimations will vary as the number of shoreside processors needing observer coverage varies and as the number of contractors that provide observers to the shoreside processor varies. -
        Based on NMFS’ understanding of current financial arrangements between observer contractors and industry clients, it is assumed that any costs associated with provision of individually assigned cell phones or pagers to observers will be passed by the contractors on to their industry clients, and will not ultimately impact the contractors.  Of the approximately 27 shoreside processors that would absorb these costs, approximately 5 might be considered small entities.  These industry clients are regulated entities such that they are required to have observer coverage, but would not be directly required to supply the cell phones or pagers.  Total annual costs that would be passed onto each of these small entities are estimated to be $750 per cell phone for the first year of this service, with subsequent years at $600 per year.  Total annual costs that would be passed onto each of these small entities for the first year of pager service, including purchase and activation fee, are estimated to be $260, while subsequent years are estimated at $180 per pager. -
        Two options are proposed for communications devices, cell phones and pagers, with pagers offered as a much less expensive option, minimizing significant economic impact on affected small entities.  Additional alternatives for direct communication devices for observer communication with shoreside processors are not available, since observers are highly mobile.  VHF radios were not considered since they would not be restricted to use with vessels at sea. -
        Alternatives were also considered to better achieve observer coverage reflecting actual fishing effort within the groundfish pot fishery, so that observer data received by in-season managers accurately reflect catch and effort levels.  The status quo alternative, while posing no additional burden to small entities, would fail to achieve these important management and monitoring objectives.  The preferred alternative would require that pot vessels carry observers for 30 percent of the pots retrieved instead of for 30 percent of the fishing days in a calendar quarter.  This does not change overall coverage requirements and presents minimal impact on small entities, with a possible exception of a small number of vessels who legally, but intentionally, minimize their observer coverage relative to their actual fishing effort, contrary to the intent of coverage requirements.  While this alternative may result in an increase in costs for this small group of vessels as a result of more observer days to meet coverage requirements, this theoretically should not be necessary.  This alternative actually offers to all vessels the possibility of saving some observer costs by introducing an incentive to retrieve more gear while an observer is aboard, thereby reducing observer days.   -
        Four other alternatives and/or options considered, while achieving the management goals of collection of observer data representative of catch and effort levels, would each impose greater costs on small entities than either the status quo or preferred alternatives.  These alternatives/options include: (1) requiring a groundfish pot vessel to have an observer aboard during at least 30 percent of the total pot retrievals by that vessel in that calendar quarter and for at least 30 percent of its fishing days in that calendar quarter; (2) requiring a groundfish pot vessel have an observer aboard during at least 30 percent of the total pot retrievals by that vessel in that calendar quarter, and for at least 30 percent of its fishing days in that calendar quarter, and for the retrieval and delivery of at least 30 percent of the landed catch by that vessel for that calendar quarter; (3) amending the definition of a fishing day for pot vessels, for purposes of observer coverage, as a 24-hour period from 0001 hrs A.l.t. - 2400 hrs A.l.t. during which at least 12 sets are retrieved and groundfish are retained; and (4) requiring all groundfish pot vessels equal to or greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA to carry an observer each day it fishes with pot gear during a calendar quarter. -
        The overall implementation of the Interim Observer Program includes measures that minimize the significant economic impacts of observer coverage requirements on at least some small entities.  Vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA are not required to carry an observer while fishing for groundfish.  Similarly, vessels 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA and longer, but less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA, have lower levels of observer coverage than those 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA and longer.  These requirements, which have been incorporated into the requirements of the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program since its inception in 1989, effectively mitigate the economic impacts on some small entities without significantly adversely affecting the implementation of the conservation and management responsibilities imposed by the FMPs and the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated:  March 27, 2002.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator, for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:

            PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

          1.  The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.

          2.  In § 679.50, paragraphs (d)(3) through (6) are redesignated as (d)(4) through (7); paragraph (c)(1)(vii), newly redesignated paragraph (d)(4) and paragraphs (i)(2)(v) and (i)(2)(xiii) are revised; and new paragraph (d)(3) is added to read as follows:

            § 679.50
            Groundfish Observer Program applicable through December 31, 2002.

            (c) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (vii) Vessels using pot gear.  (A) A catcher/processor or catcher vessel equal to or greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA fishing with pot gear that participates for more than 3 fishing days in a directed fishery for groundfish in a calendar quarter must carry an observer:

            (1) For at least 30 percent of the total number of pot retrievals for that calendar quarter, and
            (2) For at least one entire fishing trip using pot gear in a calendar quarter, for each of the groundfish fishery categories defined under paragraph (c)(2) of this section in which the vessel participates.
            (B) Groundfish are required to be retained each day that pot gear is retrieved in order for that gear to count toward observer coverage requirements for all catcher vessels and catcher/processors using pot gear and required to carry observers.

            (d) * * *
            (3) Is subject to observer requirements specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section that receives pollock or Pacific cod, may reduce observer coverage in the event that a directed fishery for such species closes, subject to the following conditions:
            (i) The shoreside processor must maintain observer coverage for 30 percent of all days that groundfish are received or processed, beginning on the fourth calendar day following the day that the directed fishery for pollock or Pacific cod was closed and ending on the last day of the month, except as allowed in  paragraph (d)(3)(iv) of this section.
            (ii) Observer coverage for the month following the month with reduced observer coverage will be based on monthly landings projections and thresholds as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, but may also be reduced for that subsequent month as specified in this paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
            (iii) Total groundfish landings received by a shoreside processor under reduced observer coverage as authorized under this paragraph (d)(3) may not exceed 250 mt per calendar week.
            (iv) If greater than 250 mt in round weight equivalent of groundfish are projected to be received in a given calender week by a shoreside processor during a month with reduced observer coverage, as authorized under this paragraph (d)(3), the shoreside processor must return to observer coverage requirements as specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section until processing of all fish received during that week is completed.  The shoreside processor may then return to reduced observer coverage as authorized under this paragraph (d)(3) for the remainder of the calendar month.
            (4) Offloads pollock at more than one location on the same dock and has distinct and separate equipment at each location to process those pollock and that receives pollock harvested by catcher vessels in the catcher vessel operational area.

            (i) * * *
            (2) * * *
            (v) Providing all necessary transportation, including arrangements and logistics, of observers to the initial location of deployment, to all subsequent vessel and shoreside processor assignments during that deployment, and to the debriefing location when a deployment ends for any reason.  It is the responsibility of the observer provider company to ensure the maintenance of the observers aboard the fishing vessels, including lodging, per diem, and any other necessary services.  It is the responsibility of the observer provider company to maintain observers at the site of a shoreside processing facility by providing lodging and per diem and any other necessary services.  Each observer deployed to a shoreside processing facility, and each observer between vessel or shoreside assignments while still under contract with a certified observer provider company, shall be provided with accommodations at a licensed hotel, motel, bed and breakfast, or with private land-based accommodations for the duration of each shoreside assignment or period between vessel or shoreside assignments.  Such accommodations must include an individually assigned bed for each observer for the duration of that observer’s shoreside assignment or period between vessel or shoreside assignments, such that no other person is assigned to that bed during the same period of the observer’s shoreside assignment or period between vessel or shoreside assignments.  Additionally, no more than four beds may be in any individual room housing observers at accommodations meeting the requirements of this section.  Each observer deployed to shoreside processing facilities shall be provided with individually assigned communication equipment in working order, such as a cell phone or pager for notification of upcoming deliveries or other necessary communication.  Each observer assigned to a shoreside processing facility located more than 1 mile from the observer’s local accommodations shall be provided with motorized transportation that will ensure the observer’s arrival at the processing facility in a timely manner such that the observer can complete his or her assigned duties.  Unless alternative arrangements are approved by the Observer Program Office.

            (xiii) Monitoring observers’ performance to ensure satisfactory execution of duties by observers and observer conformance with NMFS’ standards of conduct under paragraph (h)(2) of this section and ensuring that all records on individual observer performance received from NMFS under the routine use provision of the Privacy Act remain confidential and are not further released to anyone outside the employ of the observer provider company to whom the observer was contracted except with written permission of the observer.

      [FR Doc. 02-7930 Filed 4-1-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 79
        [CG Docket No. 05-231; FCC 08-255]
        Closed Captioning of Video Programming

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Commission seeks comment on the application of the closed captioning rules to digital broadcasting, specifically to broadcasters that choose to use their digital allotment to multicast several streams of programming. The Commission's rules exempt video programming channels that produced annual gross revenues of less than $3 million during the previous calendar year from the Commission's closed captioning obligations. The Commission did not determine what constitutes a “channel” for purposes of satisfying this self-implementing exemption. The Commission therefore seeks comment on issues related to, for purposes of this exemption, whether each programming stream on a multicast signal constitutes a separate channel, or whether the broadcaster's entire operations attributable to its digital allotment should be considered one channel.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before February 12, 2009. Reply comments are due on or before February 27, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          Interested parties may submit comments identified by CG Docket No. 05-231, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/, or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and CG Docket No. 05-231. Parties also may submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form <your e-mail address>.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.
          • Paper filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
          • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
          • Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
          • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
          • People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

          For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Amelia Brown, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office at (202) 418-2799 or e-mail at Amelia.Brown@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's Closed Captioning of Video Programming; Closed Captioning Requirements for Digital Television Receivers, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2008 Digital Closed Captioning NPRM), document FCC 08-255, adopted November 3, 2008, and released November 7, 2008, in CG Docket No. 05-231, seeking comment on matters concerning § 79.1(d)(12) of the Commission's rules and digital multicast channels. The full text of FCC 08-255 and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. FCC 08-255 and copies of subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the Commission's duplicating contractor at its Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com, or by calling 1-800-378-3160. FCC 08-255 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/caption.html. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their comments on compact disc. The compact disc should be submitted, along with three paper copies, to: Traci Randolph, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 3-C425, Washington, DC 20554. Such submission should be on a compact disc formatted in an IBM compatible format using Word 2003 or a compatible software. The compact disc should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in “read only” mode. The compact disc should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding (CG Docket No. 05-231), type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on the compact disc. The label also should include the following phrase: “CD-Rom Copy—Not an Original.” Each compact disc should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file. In addition, commenters filing by paper must send a compact disc copy to the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554.
        Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

        This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
        Synopsis
        1. As the nation transitions from analog to digital broadcasting, the video programming and broadcasting landscape will change substantially. With analog broadcasting, broadcasters use their spectrum allocation to provide programming on a single channel. With digital broadcasting, broadcasters may use their digital allotment to multicast several streams of programming, known as “multicasting.” Section 79.1(d)(12) of the Commission's rules exempts video programming channels that produced annual gross revenues of less than $3 million during the previous calendar year from the Commission's closed captioning obligations. The Commission seeks comment on the application of § 79.1(d)(12) of the Commission's rules to digital broadcasting.
        2. In 1997, when the Commission adopted the exemption for channels producing less than $3 million in revenues, it specified that “[a]nnual gross revenues shall be calculated for each channel individually based on revenues received in the preceding calendar year from all sources related to the programming on that channel.” The Commission did not determine, however, what constitutes a “channel” for purposes of satisfying this self-implementing exemption. The Commission seeks comment on whether, for purposes of § 79.1(d)(12) of the Commission's rules, each programming stream on a multicast signal constitutes a separate channel, or whether the broadcaster's entire operations attributable to its digital allotment should be considered one channel.
        3. Under the Commission's rules, programming that is already captioned and delivered to a broadcaster for airing must be aired with the captions intact, regardless of the multicast stream on which the programming airs, pursuant to the pass through rule. Given the pass through rule, it is likely that much of the programming delivered to broadcasters for airing on multicast streams will already be captioned, especially if it is programming provided by a network programmer, even if § 79.1(d)(12) of the Commission's rules applies to each multicast channel. The Commission seeks comment on what percentage of programming that airs on multicast streams, other than the main stream, is network programming, and how much of that programming is already captioned.
        4. The Commission seeks comment on whether individual programming streams should not be considered separate channels for purposes of calculating revenues for purposes of § 79.1(d)(12) of the Commission's rules. In such circumstances, digital broadcasters would be exempt from the Commission's requirements under § 79.1(d)(12) of the Commission's rules only if their overall operations, taking into account all activities on all “streams,” received less than $3 million in revenues. The Commission seeks comment on the relative merits of this approach and its practical effects, including how this determination might affect program diversity, the airing of locally-originated programming, or the airing of other kinds of programming that may afford little or no economic return. The Commission also seeks comment on whether this approach may result in an increase in the number of petitions for exemption from the closed captioning requirements under the “undue burden” standard set forth in § 79.1(f) of the Commission's rules.
        5. The Commission seeks comment on whether the $3 million revenue amount is a reasonable threshold for determining if secondary multicast streams should be exempt from the closed captioning requirements, or whether a smaller figure is appropriate and, if so, what that amount should be.

        6. The Commission seeks comment on whether it is appropriate to adopt something other than a fixed revenue threshold for determining whether secondary multicast streams must be captioned. For example, comment is sought on whether the captioning requirements should be tied to a formula that considers the number of programming streams being offered (or some other variable), such as that used for determining a multicasting broadcaster's children's television programming requirements. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on similar alternatives for applying captioning requirements to multicast program streams.
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification

        7. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this 2008 Digital Closed Captioning NPRM. See 5 U.S.C. 603. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the 2008 Digital Closed Captioning NPRM provided in paragraph 43 of the Item. The Commission will send a copy of the 2008 Digital Closed Captioning NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
        Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

        8. The Commission initiates this review relating to closed captioning in anticipation of the transition to digital television (DTV) by full power broadcasters, which will occur on February 18, 2009. This rulemaking proceeding proposes several options for the appropriate treatment of digital broadcasters that choose to use their digital allotment to multicast several streams of programming (known as “multicasting”). In light of this new broadcasting environment, the 2008 Digital Closed Captioning NPRM proposes several options for determining the closed captioning obligations for multicasting broadcasters. The 2008 Digital Closed Captioning NPRM seeks comment on § 79.1(d)(12) of the Commission's rules, which exempts from the closed captioning obligations video programming channels that produced annual gross revenues of less than $3 million during the previous calendar year. 47 CFR 79.1(d)(12). In order to determine whether each stream of a digital broadcaster's multicast operation must be captioned, the Commission proposes several possible alternatives and the possible outcomes to each alternative.
        9. The proposals set forth in the 2008 Digital Closed Captioning NPRM, for which comment is sought, contemplate as possible outcomes the following: Treat each multicast stream as a separate channel and calculate their revenues separately; treat each multicast stream as a separate channel and calculate their revenues separately, but decrease the revenue threshold for determining whether the non-main programming streams must close caption; treat individual programming streams as one channel, in which case the revenues would be aggregated for purposes of determining if the exemption in § 79.1(d)(12) of the Commission's rules applies; or, impose a new non-revenue approach for deciding how much programming must be captioned on multicast streams.
        Legal Basis
        10. The authority for this proposed rulemaking is contained in sections 4(i), 303(r) and 713 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r) and 613.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Impacted
        11. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the rules. 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3). The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 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 SBA. 5 U.S.C. 632.

        12. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data. See SBA, Programs and Services, SBA Pamphlet No. CO-0028, at page 40 (July 2002). A “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” 5 U.S.C. 601(4). Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. “Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference” (2002). The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” 5 U.S.C. 601(5). Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. U.S. Census Bureau, “Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006,” section 8, page 272, Table 415. The Commission estimates that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.” The Commission assumes that the villages, school districts, and special districts are small, and total 48,558. For 2002, Census Bureau data indicate that the total number of county, municipal, and township governments nationwide was 38,967, of which 35,819 were small. See U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, section 8, page 273, Table 417. Thus, the Commission estimates that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
        13. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged as third-party distribution systems for broadcast programming. The establishments of this industry deliver visual, aural, or textual programming received from cable networks, local television stations, or radio networks to consumers via cable or direct-to-home satellite systems on a subscription or fee basis. These establishments do not generally originate programming material.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireline firms within the broad economic census category, “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.” 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 2,432 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size: 2002 (Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 5, NAICS code 517110 (issued Nov. 2005). Of this total, 2,395 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 37 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size: 2002 (Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 5, NAICS code 517110 (issued Nov. 2005). Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
        14. Cable Television Distribution Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers” (partial definition. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. The NAICS Code associated with this size standard is 517110. To gauge small business prevalence for these cable services we must, however, use current census data that are based on the previous category of Cable and Other Program Distribution and its associated size standard; that size standard was: all such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this previous category that operated for the entire year. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005). Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered small.
        15. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide. 47 CFR 76.901(e) of the Commission's rules. The Commission determined that this size standard equates approximately to a size standard of $100 million or less in annual revenues. Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995), published at 60 FR 35854, July 12, 1995. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are small under this size standard. These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2006, “Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators,” pages A-8 & C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News, Television & Cable Factbook 2006, “Ownership of Cable Systems in the United States,” pages D-1805 to D-1857. In addition, under the Commission's rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. 47 CFR 76.901(c) of the Commission's rules. Industry data indicate that, of 7,208 systems nationwide, 6,139 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an additional 379 systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers. Warren Communications News, Television & Cable Factbook 2006, “U.S. Cable Systems by Subscriber Size,” page F-2 (data current as of Oct. 2005). The data do not include 718 systems for which classifying data were not available. Thus, under this second size standard, most cable systems are small. Wired Telecommunications Carriers with fewer than 1,500 employees are considered to be small. See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
        16. Cable System Operators. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); see 47 CFR 6.901(f) of the Commission's rules and notes 1-3. The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. 47 CFR 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules; see Public Notice, FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator, DA 01-158 (Cable Services Bureau, January 24, 2001). Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard. These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2006, “Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators,” pages A-8 & C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News, Television & Cable Factbook 2006, “Ownership of Cable Systems in the United States,” pages D-1805 to D-1857. The Commission notes that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore the Commission is unable to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this size standard. The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to section 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 76.909(b) of the Commission's rules.
        17. Cable Television Relay Service. This service includes transmitters generally used to relay cable programming within cable television system distribution systems. As noted, Wired Telecommunications Carriers with fewer than 1,500 employees are considered to be small, under the currently applicable SBA classification. NAICS Code 517110. The data presented were acquired when the applicable SBA small business size standard was called Cable and Other Program Distribution, and which referred to all such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005). Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005). Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
        18. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” antenna at the subscriber's location. DBS falls under the SBA definition of “Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite)”, which establishes as a small DBS company any DBS company which has less than 1,500 employees. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517210. The data presented were acquired when the applicable SBA small business size standard was called Cable and Other Program Distribution, and which referred to all such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005). Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. Currently, only four operators hold licenses to provide DBS service, which requires a great investment of capital for operation. All four currently offer subscription services. Two of these four DBS operators, DirecTV and EchoStar Communications Corporation (EchoStar), report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small business. DirecTV is the largest DBS operator and the second largest MVPD, serving an estimated 13.04 million subscribers nationwide. See Annual Assessment of Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, Eleventh Annual Report, FCC 05-13, paragraph 55 (released February 4, 2005) (2005 Cable Competition Report). EchoStar, which provides service under the brand name Dish Network, is the second largest DBS operator and the fourth largest MVPD, serving an estimated 10.12 million subscribers nationwide. See 2005 Cable Competition Report, paragraph 55. A third operator, Rainbow DBS, is a subsidiary of Cablevision's Rainbow Network, which also reports annual revenues in excess of $13.5 million, and thus does not qualify as a small business. Rainbow DBS, which provides service under the brand name VOOM, reported an estimated 25,000 subscribers. See 2005 Cable Competition Report, paragraph 55. The fourth DBS operator, Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. (Dominion), offers religious (Christian) programming and does not report its annual receipts. Dominion, which provides service under the brand name Sky Angel, does not publicly disclose its subscribership numbers on an annualized basis. See 2005 Cable Competition Report, paragraph 55. The Commission does not know of any source which provides this information and, thus, the Commission has no way of confirming whether Dominion qualifies as a small business. Because DBS service requires significant capital, the Commission believes it is unlikely that a small entity as defined by the SBA would have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS licensee. Nevertheless, given the absence of specific data on this point, the Commission acknowledges the possibility that there are entrants in this field that may not yet have generated $13.5 million in annual receipts, and therefore may be categorized as a small business, if independently owned and operated.
        19. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “515120 Television Broadcasting” (partial definition). The SBA has created the following small business size standard for Television Broadcasting firms: those having $14 million or less in annual receipts. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 515120 (updated for inflation in 2008). The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,379. See FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2007,” dated March 18, 2008. In addition, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Publications, Inc., Master Access Television Analyzer Database (BIA) on March 30, 2007, about 986 of an estimated 1,374 commercial television stations (or approximately 72 percent) had revenues of $13 million or less. The Commission recognizes that BIA's estimate differs slightly from the FCC total. The Commission therefore estimates that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities.
        20. The Commission notes, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. 13 CFR 21.103(a)(1). The Commission's estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.

        21. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 380. See FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2007,” dated March 18, 2008. These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities. See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6). In addition, there are also 2,295 low power television stations (LPTV). See FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2007,” dated March 18, 2008. Given the nature of this service, we will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
        22. Local Multipoint Distribution Service. Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) is a fixed broadband point-to-multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way video telecommunications. See Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, 25, of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band, Reallocate the 29.5-30.5 Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services, Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 12 FCC Rcd 12545, 12689-90, paragraph 348 (1997), published at 62 FR 16514, April 7, 1997. The auction of the 986 Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) licenses began on February 18, 1998 and closed on March 25, 1998. The Commission established a small business size standard for LMDS licenses as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. See Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, 25, of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band, Reallocate the 29.5-30.5 Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services, 12 FCC Rcd 12545, 12689-90, paragraph 348. An additional small business size standard for “very small business” was added as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. See Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, 25, of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band, Reallocate the 29.5-30.5 Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services, 12 FCC Rcd 12545, 12689-90, paragraph 348. The SBA has approved these small business size standards in the context of LMDS auctions. See Letter to Dan Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (January 6, 1998). There were 93 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the LMDS auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 277 A Block licenses and 387 B Block licenses. On March 27, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 161 licenses; there were 32 small and very small businesses winning that won 119 licenses. Because some LMDS services may not have been auctioned, the SBA standard which applies to such services is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite), pursuant to which a service is small if it has fewer than 1500 employees. The NAICS Code for this SBA classification is 51711.
        23. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). NAICS code 517210. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers, except satellite, is a NAICS standard which has a size standard of fewer than 1500 employees. NAICS Code 517210. Wireless cable systems use 2 GHz band frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service (BRS), formerly Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS), and the Educational Broadband Service (EBS), formerly Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS), to transmit video programming and provide broadband services to residential subscribers. These services were originally designed for the delivery of multichannel video programming, similar to that of traditional cable systems, but over the past several years licensees have focused their operations instead on providing two-way high-speed Internet access services. The Commission estimates that the number of wireless cable subscribers is approximately 100,000, as of March 2005. As noted, within the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers, except satellite, such firms with fewer than 1500 employees are considered to be small. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517210. The data presented were acquired when the applicable SBA small business size standard was called Cable and Other Program Distribution, and which referred to all such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517110. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005). Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005). The SBA small business size standard for the broad census category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of such entities with fewer than 1,500 employees, appears applicable to MDS and ITFS. Other standards also apply, as described.
        24. The Commission has defined small MDS (now BRS) entities in the context of Commission license auctions. In the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission defined a small business as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. This definition of a small entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the SBA. In the MDS auction, 67 bidders won 493 licenses. Of the 67 auction winners, 61 claimed status as a small business. At this time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business MDS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent MDS licensees that have gross revenues that are not more than $40 million and are thus considered small entities. MDS licensees and wireless cable operators that did not receive their licenses as a result of the MDS auction fall under the SBA small business size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517210. As noted, within the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers, such firms with fewer than 1500 employees are considered to be small. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517210. The data presented were acquired when the applicable SBA small business size standard was called Cable and Other Program Distribution, and which referred to all such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517110. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005). Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005). Information available to the Commission indicates that there are approximately 850 of these licensees and operators that do not generate revenue in excess of $13.5 million annually. Therefore, the Commission estimates that there are approximately 850 small entity MDS (or BRS) providers, as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.
        25. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities; however, the Commission has not created a specific small business size standard for ITFS (now EBS). The Commission estimates that there are currently 2,032 ITFS (or EBS) licensees, and all but 100 of the licenses are held by educational institutions. Thus, the Commission estimates that at least 1,932 ITFS licensees are small entities.
        26. Open Video Services. Open Video Service (OVS) systems provide subscription services. See 47 U.S.C. 573. The data presented were acquired when the applicable SBA small business size standard was called Cable and Other Program Distribution, and which referred to all such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517110. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005). Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005). This standard has been replaced by the Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite) standard, which considers firms with fewer than 1,500 employees to be small. NAICS Code 517210. The Commission has certified approximately 100 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and some of these are currently providing service. See http://www.fcc.gov/csb/ovs/csovscer.html (current as of June 2004). These data were collected when “Cable and Other Program Distribution” was the operative distribution technology. Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, DC, and other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity. Little financial information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission concludes that those OVS operators remaining might qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
        27. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent. Also as noted, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and our estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
        28. Telephone Companies. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, “Trends in Telephone Service” at Table 5.3, Page 5-5 (February 2007). This source uses data that are current as of October 20, 2005. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,019 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 288 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our action. The Commission estimates that ten LECs currently provide video programming, and several smaller telephone companies provide the service.
        29. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under NCAIS rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, “Trends in Telephone Service” at Table 5.3, Page 5-5 (February 2007). This source uses data that are current as of October 20, 2005. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,019 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 288 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our action. The Commission estimates that ten LECs currently provide video programming, and several smaller telephone companies provide the service.
        30. Closed Captioning Services. These entities are indirectly affected by the Commission's action. The SBA has developed two small business size standards that may be used for closed captioning services. The two size standards track the economic census categories, “Teleproduction and Other Postproduction Services” and “Court Reporting and Stenotype Services.”
        31. The first category of Teleproduction and Other Postproduction Services “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized motion picture or video postproduction services, such as editing, film/tape transfers, subtitling, credits, closed captioning, and animation and special effects.” The relevant size standard for small businesses in these services is an annual revenue of less than $29.5 million. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “512191 Teleproduction and Other Postproduction Services.” The size standard is $29.5 million. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,316 firms that operated for the entire year. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 4, NAICS code 512191 (issued November 2005). Of this total, 1,301 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million, and 10 firms had receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 4, NAICS code 512191 (issued Nov. 2005). An additional 5 firms had annual receipts of $50 million or more. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Teleproduction and Other Postproduction Services firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.
        32. The second category of Court Reporting and Stenotype Services “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing verbatim reporting and stenotype recording of live legal proceedings and transcribing subsequent recorded materials.” The size standard for small businesses in these services is an annual revenue of less than $7 million. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “561492 Court Reporting and Stenotype Services.” The size standard is $7 million. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 2,487 firms that operated for the entire year. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 4, NAICS code 561492 (issued Nov. 2005). Of this total, 2,461 firms had annual receipts of under $5 million, and 16 firms had receipts of $5 million to $9,999,999. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 4, NAICS code 561492 (issued Nov. 2005). An additional 10 firms had annual receipts of $10 million or more. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Court Reporting and Stenotype Services firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

        33. The Commission does not anticipate that the proposals contained in the 2008 Digital Closed Captioning NPRM will impose additional reporting, recordkeeping or compliance requirements.
        Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

        34. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(b).

        35. How the Commission resolves the question of how to treat digital multicast streams for purposes of the closed captioning rules is important, for purposes of § 79.1(d)(12) of the Commission's rules, which exempts from the closed captioning obligations video programming channels that produced annual gross revenues of less than $3 million during the previous calendar year. By its very nature, current § 79.1(d)(12) of the Commission's rules decreases the closed captioning burden on entities whose annual gross revenues for the previous year were less than $3 million. With regard to the proposal to treat each of the multicast streams individually, the 2008 Digital Closed Captioning NPRM suggests that this likely will result in less captioned programming being available, and seeks comment on this assumption. Although this decision may decrease burdens on small businesses, it may mean that individuals who rely on closed captioning are burdened. At the same time, however, if the majority of programming aired on secondary multicast streams is already captioned, it is possible that the percentage of available captioning will not be greatly affected, given that programming that is already captioned and delivered to a broadcaster for airing must be aired with the captions intact, pursuant to the existing pass through rule, which is unaffected by the 2008 Digital Closed Captioning NPRM. The Commission notes that, under the Commission's rules, programming that is already captioned and delivered to a broadcaster for airing must be aired with the captions intact, regardless of the multicast stream on which the programming airs. See 47 CFR 79.1(c) of the Commission's rules. Another alternative being considered by the Commission would retain the concept that each stream of multicast programming is separate, but the revenue threshold for determining whether one of the non-main programming streams is exempt would be less than $3 million. Given the general nature of the programming on such channels, the Commission seeks comment on whether a smaller figure may be appropriate.

        36. In the alternative, if the Commission adopts the proposal to aggregate the revenues of all multicast streams, digital broadcasters would be exempt from the Commission's captioning requirements under § 79.1(d)(12) of the Commission's rules only if their overall operations, taking into account all activities on all “streams,” received less than $3 million in revenues. However, the 2008 Digital Closed Captioning NPRM notes that this conclusion might affect program diversity, the airing of locally-originated programming, or the airing of other kinds of programming that may afford little or no economic return. The Commission further seeks comment on whether it also may result in an increase in the number of petitions for exemption from the closed captioning requirements based on the undue burden standard in the Commission's current rules. See 47 CFR 79.1(f) of the Commission's rules.
        37. The last alternative the 2008 Digital Closed Captioning NPRM considers is the establishment of a captioning requirement that is not dependant on revenues but relies on some other criteria, such as a formula that considers the number of programming streams being offered (or some other variable) in order to determine captioning obligations.
        Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the Commission's Proposals
        38. None.
        Ordering Clauses

        Pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r) and 713 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r) and 613, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

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

          Federal Communications Commission.
          William F. Caton,
          Deputy Secretary.

      [FR Doc. E8-31446 Filed 1-12-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 121701D]
        Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area and the Gulf of Alaska

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of meeting to review proposed work plan for preparing a revised Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Draft Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and to discuss draft multi-objective policy alternatives.

          SUMMARY:

          On November 27, 2001, NMFS announced its intent to revise the Alaska Groundfish Fisheries draft Programmatic SEIS.  After reviewing more than 21,000 comment letters received on the draft Programmatic SEIS, NMFS determined that revisions to the draft Programmatic SEIS are appropriate and necessary.  NMFS also determined that these revisions will require the release of a revised draft Programmatic SEIS.  Based on these decisions, NMFS announced a new series of dates for preparing the revised draft, preparing the final programmatic SEIS, and issuing the Record of Decision.
          This document announces that NMFS will hold three public meetings in Seattle, WA, and in Anchorage and Bethel, AK in January 2002 for the purpose of presenting a work plan, answering questions concerning the new work plan, and schedule, and soliciting public input on new, multi-objective policy alternatives.

          DATES:
          See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION under the heading “Meeting Dates and Addresses” for the dates of the public meetings.

          ADDRESSES:
           See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION under the heading “Meeting Dates and Addresses” for meeting addresses.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Steven K. Davis, Programmatic SEIS Coordinator, Anchorage, AK, (907) 271-3523.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On November 27, 2001, NMFS issued a notice informing the public of its decision to prepare a revised draft Programmatic SEIS and release that draft for public comment prior to preparing a final Programmatic SEIS.  This decision was based on the agency’s review and preliminary analysis of the comments received on the draft Programmatic SEIS.
        NMFS has scheduled two public meetings and is planning a third meeting in January 2002.  The purpose of these meetings is to present a work plan for preparing the revised draft programmatic SEIS, answering questions concerning the work plan and schedule, and soliciting suggestions for draft multi-objective policy alternatives.  The development of these new alternatives will be based on comments received on the January 2001 draft Programmatic SEIS, input received from the public at these January meetings, and on recommendations from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council).  The final suite of multi-objective policy alternatives will serve as the focus of the revised draft Programmatic SEIS.

        Information on these meetings can also be found in the   Council’s December 2001 newsletter.  A meeting announcement will also be mailed to the Programmatic SEIS mailing list.  Additional information concerning the meeting agenda and draft multi-objective policy alternatives will be posted on the NMFS Alaska Region’s website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov and at the Council’s website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc prior to the meetings.
        Meeting Dates and Addresses
        1. January 22, 2002, 9 a.m. Pacific standard time - Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E.,  Building 9, Room A/B, Seattle, WA.
        2. January 24, 2002, 9 a.m. Alaska local time - Federal Courthouse, 222 West 9th Avenue, Room 154, Anchorage, AK.
        3. Bethel, AK.  The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. Alaska local time.  The location and date to be announced (see websites for information).
        Special Accommodations

        The meetings will be physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Steven K. Davis (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

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

          Dated: December 19, 2001.
          Jonathan M. Kurland,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-31659 Filed 12-21-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S