        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 150708591-5591-01]
        RIN 0648-XE043
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Annual Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes to implement annual management measures and harvest specifications to establish the allowable catch levels (i.e. annual catch limit (ACL)/harvest guideline (HG)) for Pacific mackerel in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast for the fishing season of July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016. This rule is proposed pursuant to the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The proposed 2015-2016 HG for Pacific mackerel is 21,469 metric tons (mt). This is the total commercial fishing target level. This action also proposes an annual catch target (ACT), of 20,469 mt. If the fishery attains the ACT, the directed fishery will close, reserving the difference between the HG (21,469 mt) and ACT as a 1,000 mt set-aside for incidental landings in other CPS fisheries and other sources of mortality. This proposed rule is intended to conserve and manage the Pacific mackerel stock off the U.S. West Coast.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by October 13, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0096, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0096, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070; Attn: Joshua Lindsay.
          • Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Copies of the report “Pacific Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) Stock Assessment for USA Management in the 2015-16 and 2016-2017 Fishing Years” may be obtained from the West Coast Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joshua Lindsay, West Coast Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4034.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        During public meetings each year, the estimated biomass for Pacific mackerel is presented to the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) CPS Management Team (Team), the Council's CPS Advisory Subpanel (Subpanel) and the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and the biomass and the status of the fishery are reviewed and discussed. The biomass estimate is then presented to the Council along with the recommended overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) calculations from the SSC, along with the calculated ACL, HG and ACT recommendations, and comments from the Team and Subpanel. Following review by the Council and after reviewing public comment, the Council adopts a biomass estimate and makes its catch level recommendations to NMFS. NMFS manages the Pacific mackerel fishery in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast (California, Oregon, and Washington) in accordance with the FMP. Annual specifications published in the Federal Register establish the allowable harvest levels (i.e. OFL/ACL/HG) for each Pacific mackerel fishing year. The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement the 2015-2016 ACL, HG, ACT and other annual catch reference points, including OFL and an ABC that takes into consideration uncertainty surrounding the current estimate of biomass for Pacific mackerel in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast.

        The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set these annual catch levels for the Pacific mackerel fishery based on the annual specification framework and control rules in the FMP. These control rules include the HG control rule, which in conjunction with the OFL and ABC rules in the FMP, are used to manage harvest levels for Pacific mackerel, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. According to the FMP, the quota for the principal commercial fishery is determined using the FMP-specified HG formula. The HG is based, in large part, on the current estimate of stock biomass. The annual biomass estimates are an explicit part of the various harvest control rules for Pacific mackerel, and as the estimated biomass decreases or increases from one year to the next, the resulting allowable catch levels similarly trend. The harvest control rule in the CPS FMP is HG = [(Biomass-Cutoff) * Fraction * Distribution] with the parameters described as follows:
        1. Biomass. The estimated stock biomass of Pacific mackerel. For the 2015-2016 management season this is 120,435 mt.
        2. Cutoff. This is the biomass level below which no commercial fishery is allowed. The FMP established this level at 18,200 mt.
        3. Fraction. The harvest fraction is the percentage of the biomass above 18,200 mt that may be harvested.
        4. Distribution. The average portion of the Pacific mackerel biomass estimated in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast is 70 percent and is based on the average historical larval distribution obtained from scientific cruises and the distribution of the resource according to the logbooks of aerial fish-spotters.

        At the June 2015 Council meeting, the Council adopted the “Pacific Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) Stock Assessment for USA Management in the 2015-16 and 2016-2017 Fishing Years” completed by NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center and the resulting Pacific mackerel biomass estimate for use in the 2015-2016 fishing year of 120,435 mt. Based on recommendations from its SSC and other advisory bodies, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing, an OFL of 25,291 mt, an ABC and ACL of 23,104 mt, a HG of 21,469 mt, and an ACT of 20,469 mt for the fishing year of July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016. Additionally, the Council also adopted and recommended harvest specifications for the 2016-2017 fishing year; however, currently NMFS is only proposing to implement the annual harvest measures for the 2015-2016 fishing year. A subsequent rule will be published later in the year that will propose the Council's recommendations for the 2016-2017 fishing year.

        Under this proposed action, upon attainment of the ACT, the directed fishing would close, reserving the difference between the HG and ACT (1,000 mt) as a set aside for incidental landings in other CPS fisheries and other sources of mortality. For the remainder of the fishing year incidental landings would also be constrained to a 45-percent incidental catch allowance when Pacific mackerel are landed with other CPS (in other words, no more than 45 percent by weight of the CPS landed per trip may be Pacific mackerel), except that up to 3 mt of Pacific mackerel could be landed incidentally without landing any other CPS. Upon attainment of the HG (21,469 mt), no retention of Pacific mackerel would be allowed in CPS fisheries. In previous years, the incidental set-aside established in the mackerel fishery has been, in part, to ensure that if the directed quota for mackerel was reached that the operation of the Pacific sardine fishery was not overly restricted. There is no directed Pacific sardine fishery for the 2015-2016 season, therefore the need for a high incidental set-aside is reduced. The purpose of the incidental set-aside and the allowance of an incidental fishery is to allow for restricted incidental landings of Pacific mackerel in other fisheries, particularly other CPS fisheries, when the directed fishery is closed to reduce potential discard of Pacific mackerel and allow for continued prosecution of other important CPS fisheries.

        The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator would publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the date of any closure to either directed or incidental fishing. Additionally, to ensure the regulated community is informed of any closure NMFS would also make announcements through other means available, including fax, email, and mail to fishermen, processors, and state fishery management agencies.

        Detailed information on the fishery and the stock assessment are found in the reports “Pacific Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) Stock Assessment for USA Management in the 2015-16 Fishing Year” and “Pacific Mackerel Biomass Projection Estimate for USA Management (2015-16)” (see ADDRESSES).
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Assistant Administrator, NMFS, has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        These proposed specifications are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 because they contain no implementing regulations.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, for the following reasons:
        On June 12, 2014, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued an interim final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33467). The rule increased the size standard for Finfish Fishing from $19.0 to 20.5 million, Shellfish Fishing from $ 5.0 to 5.5 million, and Other Marine Fishing from $7.0 to 7.5 million. 78 FR 33656, 33660, 33666 (See Table 1). NMFS conducted its analysis for this action in light of the new size standards.
        As stated above, the SBA now defines small businesses engaged in finfish fishing as those vessels with annual revenues of or below $20.5 million. Under the former, lower size standards, all entities subject to this action in previous years were considered small entities, and under the new standards, as described below, they all would continue to be considered small.
        The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are those vessels that harvest Pacific mackerel as part of the West Coast CPS purse seine fleet. The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations requires NMFS to set an OFL, ABC, ACL, HG and ACT for the Pacific mackerel fishery based on the harvest control rules in the FMP. These specific harvest control rules are applied to the current stock biomass estimate to derive these catch specifications, which are used to manage the commercial take of Pacific mackerel. A component of these control rules is that as the estimated biomass decreases or increases from one year to the next, so do the applicable quotas. For the 2015-2016 Pacific mackerel fishing season NMFS is proposing an OFL of 25,291 metric tons (mt), an ABC and ACL of 23,104 mt, an HG of 21,469 mt and an ACT, which is the directed fishing harvest target, of 20,469 mt. These catch specifications are based on a biomass estimate of 120,435 mt.
        Pacific mackerel harvest is one component of CPS fisheries off the U.S. West Coast, which primarily includes the fisheries for Pacific sardine, northern anchovy and market squid. Pacific mackerel are principally caught off southern California within the limited entry portion (south of 39 degrees N. latitude; Point Arena, California) of the fishery. Currently there are 58 vessels permitted in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California of which about 25 to 39 vessels have been annually engaged in harvesting Pacific mackerel in recent years (2009-2013). For those vessels that caught Pacific mackerel during that time, the average annual per vessel revenue has been about $1.25 million. The individual vessel revenue for these vessels is well below the SBA's threshold level of $20.5 million; therefore, all of these vessels are considered small businesses under the RFA. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed rule has an equal or similar effect on all of these small entities, and therefore will impact a substantial number of these small entities in the same manner.
        NMFS used the ex-vessel revenue information for a profitability analysis, as the cost data for the harvesting operations of CPS finfish vessels was limited or unavailable. For the 2014-2015 fishing year, the maximum fishing level was 29,170 mt and was divided into a directed fishing harvest target (ACT) of 24,170 mt and an incidental set-aside of 5,000 mt. Approximately 3,611 mt was harvested in 2014-2015 fishing season with an estimated ex-vessel value of approximately $940,000. The maximum fishing level for the 2015-2016 Pacific mackerel fishing season is 21,469 mt, with an ACT of 20,469 mt and an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt. If the fleet were to take the entire 2015-2016 ACT, the potential revenue to the fleet would be approximately $4.7 million (based on average ex-vessel price of $230 per mt during 2013-2014 and 2014-2015), which is the same as what the estimated potential revenue was last year for the 2014-2015 season (which was based on average ex-vessel price of $193 per mt during 2012-2013 and 2013-2014). However, this result will depend greatly on market forces within the fishery, and on the regional availability of the resource to the fleet and the fleets' ability to find schools of Pacific mackerel. The annual average U.S. Pacific mackerel harvest over the last decade (2001-2013) and in recent years (2009-2013) has been about 4,900 mt and 4,500 mt, respectively. In those periods, the landings have not exceeded 11,500 mt. The annual average landings during 2001-2013 and 2009-2013 were only about 20% and 15% of the annual average HGs, respectively. As a result, although this year's ACT represents a decrease compared to the previous fishing season, it is highly unlikely that the ACT proposed in this rule will limit the potential profitability to the fleet from catching Pacific mackerel. Accordingly, vessel income from fishing is not expected to be altered as a result of this rule as it compares to recent catches in the fishery, and specifically the fishery under the previous season's regulations.

        Additionally, revenue derived from harvesting Pacific mackerel is typically only one factor determining the overall revenue for a majority of the vessels that harvest Pacific mackerel; as a result, the economic impact to the fleet from the proposed action cannot be viewed in isolation. From year to year, depending on market conditions and availability of fish, most CPS vessels supplement their income by harvesting other species. Many vessels in California also harvest anchovy, sardine, and in particular market squid, making Pacific mackerel only one component of a multi-species CPS fishery. For example, in recent years the annual total fleet revenue from Pacific mackerel alone has ranged from about $200,000 to $1.5 million with average fleet revenue of about $800,000 (or $23,422 per vessel). Thus, the revenue from Pacific mackerel in the CPS fleet is a very small fraction of the revenue whether from CPS species or all fish species. The revenue from Pacific mackerel constitutes about 1.98% and 1.95% of the total revenue from CPS species and all fish species, respectively. However, as a result of the closing of the directed Pacific sardine fishery for the 2015-2016 fishing year, there is the potential for more effort to be shifted to Pacific mackerel resulting in increased landings and therefore increased revenue from mackerel.
        These vessels typically rely on multiple species for profitability because abundance of mackerel, like the other CPS stocks, is highly associated with ocean conditions and different times of the year, and therefore are harvested at various times and areas throughout the year. Because each species responds to ocean conditions in its own way, not all CPS stocks are likely to be abundant at the same time; therefore, as abundance levels and markets fluctuate, it has necessitated that the CPS fishery as a whole rely on a group of species for its annual revenues.
        Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the SBA's June 20, 2013 and June 14, 2014 final rules (78 FR 37398 and 79 FR 33647, respectively), this certification was developed for this action using the SBA's revised size standards. NMFS considers all entities subject to this action to be small entities as defined by both the former, lower size standards and the revised size standards. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed action is considered to equally affect all of these small entities in the same manner.
        Based on the disproportionality and profitability analysis above, the proposed action, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.
        This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

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

          Dated: September 2, 2015.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-22781 Filed 9-9-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 1, 25, and 52
        [FAR Case 2011-029; Docket No. 2011-0029; Sequence 1]
        RIN 9000-AM20
        Federal Acquisition Regulation; Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the United States

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement Governmentwide requirements in National Defense Authorization Acts that establish minimum processes and requirements for the selection, accountability, training, equipping, and conduct of personnel performing private security functions outside the United States.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat on or before September 21, 2012 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by FAR case 2011-029 by any of the following methods:
          • Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov.

          Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for “FAR Case 2011-029” under the heading “Comment or Submission”. Select the link “Send a Comment or Submission” that corresponds with FAR Case 2011-029. Follow the instructions provided to complete the “Public Comment and Submission Form”. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2011-029” on your attached document.
          • Fax: 202-501-4067.
          • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), Attn: Hada Flowers, 1275 First Street NE., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20417.

            Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FAR case 2011-029 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, at 202-208-4949 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAR case 2011-029.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background
        The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 (Pub. L. 110-181, enacted January 28, 2008), section 862, entitled “Contractors Performing Private Security Functions in Areas of Combat Operations,” was amended by section 853 of the NDAA for FY 2009 (Pub. L. 110-417, enacted October 14, 2008) and sections 831 and 832 of the NDAA for FY 2011 (Pub. L. 111-383, enacted January 7, 2011). See 10 U.S.C. 2302 Note. The statute requires (1) the establishment of Governmentwide policies and (2) FAR coverage implementing the Governmentwide policies specified in the statutes and the resulting Governmentwide policy document.

        This proposed rule is focused solely on providing implementing contractual language and a contract clause, as mandated by statute. Agencies are reminded that they may further supplement the applicability of these requirements beyond those included in this rule in accordance with FAR subpart 1.3, Agency Acquisition Regulations. While section 862 of the 2008 NDAA required standardization of rules for private security contractors that are performing in designated areas of combat operations or other significant military operations, the underlying Governmentwide instruction was the responsibility of the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State. The resultant regulation was published as a final rule at 32 CFR part 159, entitled “Private Security Contractors Operating in Contingency Operations, Combat Operations or Other Significant Military Operations,” on August 11, 2011 (see 76 FR 49650) (or, see the corresponding Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 3020.50 at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302050p.pdf).

        The regulations implementing the referenced statutory provisions for contracts are proposed to be located in FAR subpart 25.3, entitled “Contracts Performed Outside the United States.” The coverage implementing section 862, as amended, is proposed to be located at a new FAR section 25.302.
        32 CFR part 159 provides two broad exemptions from this coverage, one for contracts entered into by elements of the intelligence community in support of intelligence activities (the source is paragraph (h)(1) of section 862, as amended), and a second for temporary arrangements entered into by non-DoD contractors for the performance of private security functions by individual indigenous personnel not affiliated with a local or expatriate security company (the source is 32 CFR 159.3, section (3) of the definition of “covered contract”).
        Further, 32 CFR part 159 applies differently to DoD and non-DoD agencies. It applies to DoD contracts performed in areas of contingency operations outside the United States. It applies to DoD and non-DoD contracts performed in areas of combat operations as designated by the Secretary of Defense. It applies to DoD contracts performed in areas of other significant military operations as designated by the Secretary of Defense and to non-DoD contracts performed in areas of other significant military operations as designated by the Secretary of Defense and agreed to by the Secretary of State.
        FAR 2.101, Definitions, currently provides the definition of “contingency operation” from 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(13). Definitions in this proposed rule include “private security functions,” “other significant military operations,” and “area of combat operations” from 32 CFR 159.3 and the statute. This coverage would not apply to the performance of private security functions within the U.S. It would not apply outside the U.S. in areas that are not (a) combat operations, (b) contingency operations, or (c) other significant military operations, as designated by the Secretary of Defense and agreed to by the Secretary of State. In addition, the proposed FAR coverage would apply to the performance of private security functions, regardless of whether the performance of the security functions are the primary function of the contract or ancillary functions. For example, a contractor delivering construction materials in an area of contingency operations might subcontract with a private security contractor to protect its supplies and employees during delivery. Although the supplier of the construction materials is not a private security contractor, the requirements of the clause proposed at FAR 52.225-XX, Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the United States, are applicable. As a further example, the same contractor, if delivering construction materials to a base in Germany would not be governed, at this time, by the requirements and limitations of FAR 52.225-XX because Germany is not a designated area. This is further clarified by the proposed FAR 25.302-4, Policy.
        The proposed FAR 25.302-4 subsection would implement the relevant policy document, 32 CFR part 159, and assign contractor responsibilities for the selection, accountability, training, equipping, and conduct of personnel performing private security functions under contracts in the covered areas. It also would assign responsibilities and establish procedures for incident reporting, use of and accountability for equipment, and rules for the use of force.

        The law includes specific remedies for violations of the responsibilities and procedures in the law. These are addressed at FAR 25.302-5, Remedies. Without impinging on the Government's usual contractual remedies (e.g., termination for default), the proposed rule would allow the Government, at its discretion, to direct the contractor to remove or replace any personnel who fail to comply with, or violate, applicable requirements of the clause at FAR 52.225-XX. Such corrective actions would be required to be taken at the contractor's own expense and without prejudice to any other contractual rights. The proposed rule also includes additional remedies as follows:
        1. Contracting officers must include a contractor's failure to comply in appropriate past-performance databases.
        2. If the contract is an award-fee contract, the contracting officer must include performance failure in the assessment of award fees for the relevant period (as well as authorizing the treatment of such failures as a basis for reducing or denying award fees for the relevant period or recovering all or part of award fees previously paid for such period).
        3. If the contractor's performance failures are severe, prolonged, or repeated, the statute requires the contracting officer to refer the matter to the appropriate suspension and debarment official.
        The clause prescription, at FAR 25.302-6, proposes to closely follow the applicability coverage at FAR 25.302-2.
        II. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a significant regulatory action, and therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        III. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The changes may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has been prepared and is summarized as follows:

          DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement section 862 of the NDAA for FY 2008, as amended by section 853 of the NDAA for FY 2009 and sections 831 and 832 of the NDAA for FY 2011. The statutory provisions, together with the implementing Governmentwide regulations required by the statute (32 CFR part 159, published at 76 FR 49650 on August 11, 2011) add requirements and limitations for contractors performing private security functions in areas of contingency operations, combat operations, or other military operations as designated by the Secretary of Defense, upon agreement of the Secretaries of Defense and State. These requirements are that contractors performing in areas such as Iraq and Afghanistan ensure that their personnel performing private security functions comply with 32 CFR part 159, including (1) accounting for Government-acquired and contractor-furnished property and (2) reporting incidents in which a weapon is discharged, personnel are attacked or killed or property is destroyed, or active, lethal countermeasures are employed.

          At this time, the only statistics available are from DoD. Other agencies are beginning to award contracts for performance in areas subject to the statute as U.S. troops are recalled. In FY 2010, DoD awarded 1,839 contracts for performance in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of this total, 361, or 20 percent, were awarded to small businesses. Firms performing under DoD contracts in these areas were already required to register their private security personnel, weapons, and certain vehicles under a web-based system (SPOT), and contractors for the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) have been using SPOT in Iraq and Afghanistan. The requirement to report the occurrence of certain incidences is on an as-needed basis and is minimal.

          As DoD personnel exit the areas of current contingency operations, e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan, support requirements are being transitioned to other Government agencies. The expected total number of contracts requiring the use of private security contractors is approximately one half of the DoD level, but the assumption was made that 20 percent of these contracts would continue to be awarded to small businesses.
          The impact on small business subcontractors will be minor, for several reasons. Not all subcontracts involve the performance of private security functions, in which case the clause does not flow down to the subcontract. Therefore, in these situations, there is no impact on small business subcontractors. Further, most subcontracts that require the performance of private security functions in the areas of Iraq and Afghanistan are being awarded to firms based in those countries. Such firms are, by definition, not small businesses because they are not U.S. firms. In the small proportion of situations where a subcontractor is both a U.S. small business and is performing private security functions, the costs of compliance will be included in the proposed and negotiated subcontract cost. At this time the clause would only apply to the Department of Defense, as the Secretary of Defense has made no designations of area (see FAR 25.302-2(b)).
          The publication of 32 CFR part 159 will provide consistency in reporting requirements and accountability for private security personnel and their weapons, thus simplifying compliance for small and large businesses.
          While DoD contractors and subcontractors currently are required by another clause to register equipment and personnel using the DoD's Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker (SPOT) System, there are, at present, no reporting systems that have been developed by non-DoD agencies. An information collection request has been prepared and submitted to the Office of Management and Budget with this proposed rule.
          The proposed rule does not unnecessarily overlap or conflict with existing coverage at Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 225.370. However, the DFARS coverage will be amended to delete duplicative text when a final rule is published for this FAR case. There are no alternatives that would further decrease the already minimal economic impact of the statute's implementation.

        The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat. The Councils will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected FAR parts 1, 25, and 52 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Comments must be submitted separately and should cite 5 U.S.C 601, et seq. (FAR case 2011-029), in correspondence.
        IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C chapter 35) applies. The proposed rule contains information collection requirements. Accordingly, the Regulatory Secretariat submitted a request for approval of a new information collection requirement for non-DoD agencies to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB has assigned the number 9000-0184, entitled “Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the United States,” for this new information collection request. DoD's information collection has been approved previously under OMB Control Number 0704-0460, Synchronized Predeployment and Operation Tracker (SPOT) System.
        A. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.109 hours per response, including the time for identifying and inputting information.
        The annual reporting burden is estimated as follows:

          Respondents: 920.

          Responses per respondent: 5.

          Total annual responses: 4,600.

          Preparation hours per response: 0.109 hours.

          Total response Burden Hours: 501.
        B. Request for Comments Regarding Paperwork Burden.
        Submit comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden, not later than September 21, 2012 to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), ATTN: Hada Flowers, 1275 First Street NE., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20417.
        Public comments are particularly invited on: whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
        Requesters may obtain a copy of the supporting statement from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), Attn: Hada Flowers, 1275 First Street NE., 7th floor, Washington, DC 20417. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-0184, Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the United States, in all correspondence.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1, 25, and 52
          Government procurement.

          Dated: July 12, 2012.
          Laura Auletta,
          Director, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.

        Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 1, 25, and 52 as set forth below:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 1, 25, and 52 is revised to read as follows:

          Authority:
          40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.

          PART 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM

            1.106
            [Amended]
            2. Amend section 1.106, in the table following the introductory text, by adding in numerical sequence, FAR segment “52.225-XX” and its corresponding OMB Control No. “9000-0184”.

          PART 25—FOREIGN ACQUISITION
          3. Add subpart 25.302 to read as follows:

              Subpart 25.302 Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the United States
              Sec.
              25.302-1
              Scope.
              25.302-2
              Applicability.
              25.302-3
              Definitions.
              25.302-4
              Policy.
              25.302-5
              Remedies.
              25.302-6
              Contract clause.

            Subpart 25.302 Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the United States

              25.302-1
              Scope.
              This section prescribes policy for implementing section 862 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 (Pub. L. 110-181), as amended by section 853 of the NDAA for FY 2009 (Pub. L. 110-417), and sections 831 and 832 of the NDAA for FY 2011 (Pub. L. 111-383) (see 10 U.S.C. 2302 Note).

              25.302-2
              Applicability.

              (a) DoD: This section applies to acquisitions by Department of Defense components for supplies and services under a contract that requires performance—

              (1) During contingency operations outside the United States;
              (2) In an area of combat operations as designated by the Secretary of Defense; or
              (3) In an area of other significant military operations as designated by the Secretary of Defense.
              (b) Non-DoD agencies: This section applies to acquisitions by non-DoD agencies for supplies and services under a contract that requires performance—
              (1) In an area of combat operations as designated by the Secretary of Defense; or
              (2) In an area of other significant military operations as designated by the Secretary of Defense, and only upon agreement of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State.
              (c) These designations can be found at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pacc/cc/designated_areas_of_other_significant_military_operations.html and http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pacc/cc/designated_areas_of_combat_operations.html.

              (d) When the applicability requirements of this subsection are met, contractors and subcontractors must comply with 32 CFR part 159, whether the contract is for the performance of private security functions as a primary deliverable or the deliverable is other supplies or services and the provision of private security functions is ancillary.
              (e) The requirements of this section 25.302 shall not apply to contracts entered into by elements of the intelligence community in support of intelligence activities, and temporary arrangements entered into by non-DoD contractors for the performance of private security functions by individual indigenous personnel not affiliated with a local or expatriate security company; these temporary arrangements must still comply with local law.

              25.302-3
              Definitions.
              As used in this section—

                Area of combat operations means an area of operations designated as such by the Secretary of Defense when enhanced coordination of private security contractors working for Government agencies is required.

                Other significant military operations means activities, other than combat operations, as part of a contingency operation outside the United States that is carried out by United States Armed Forces in an uncontrolled or unpredictable high-threat environment where personnel performing security functions may be called upon to use deadly force (see 25.302-2(b)(2)).

                Private security functions means activities engaged in by a contractor, as follows—
              (1) Guarding of personnel, facilities, designated sites, or property of a Federal agency, the contractor or subcontractor, or a third party; or
              (2) Any other activity for which personnel are required to carry weapons in the performance of their duties in accordance with the terms of the contract.

              25.302-4
              Policy.
              (a) General. (1) The policy, responsibilities, procedures, accountability, training, equipping, and conduct of personnel performing private security functions in designated areas are addressed at 32 CFR part 159, entitled “Private Security Contractors (PSCs) Operating in Contingency Operations, Combat Operations, or Other Significant Military Operations.” Contractor responsibilities include ensuring that employees are aware of, and comply with, relevant orders, directives, and instructions; keeping appropriate personnel records; accounting for weapons; registering and identifying armored vehicles, helicopters, and other military vehicles; and reporting specified incidents in which personnel performing private security functions under a contract are involved.
              (2) In addition, contractors are required to cooperate with any Government-authorized investigation into incidents reported pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of the clause at 52.225-XX, Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the United States, by providing access to employees performing private security functions and relevant information in the possession of the contractor regarding the incident concerned.
              (b) Implementing guidance. In accordance with 32 CFR part 159—
              (1) Geographic combatant commanders will provide DoD private security contractors with guidance and procedures for the operational environment in their area of responsibility; and
              (2) In a designated area of combat operations, or areas of other significant military operations, as designated by the Secretary of Defense and only upon agreement of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, the relevant Chief of Mission will provide implementing instructions for non-DoD private security contractors and their personnel consistent with the standards set forth by the geographic combatant commander. In a designated area of combat operations, 32 CFR 159.4(c) gives the Chief of Mission the option of instructing non-DoD private security contractors and their personnel to follow the guidance and procedures of the geographic Combatant Commander and/or a sub-unified commander or joint force commander where specifically authorized by the combatant commander to do so and notice of that authorization is provided to non-DoD agencies.

              25.302-5
              Remedies.
              (a) In addition to other remedies available to the Government—

              (1) The contracting officer may direct the contractor, at its own expense, to remove and replace any contractor personnel performing private security functions who fail to comply with or violate applicable requirements. Such action may be taken at the Government's discretion without prejudice to its rights under any other contract provision, e.g., termination for default;
              (2) The contracting officer shall include the contractor's failure to comply with the requirements of this section in appropriate databases of past performance and consider any such failure in any responsibility determination or evaluation of past performance; and
              (3) In the case of award-fee contracts, the contracting officer shall consider a contractor's failure to comply with the requirements of this subsection in the evaluation of the contractor's performance during the relevant evaluation period, and may treat such failure as a basis for reducing or denying award fees for such period or for recovering all or part of award fees previously paid for such period.
              (b) If the performance failures are severe, prolonged, or repeated, the contracting officer shall refer the matter to the appropriate suspension and debarment official.

              25.302-6
              Contract clause.
              (a) Use the clause at 52.225-XX, Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the United States, in the following solicitations and contracts:
              (1) A DoD contract for performance of services and/or delivery of supplies in an area of:
              (i) Contingency operations outside the United States;
              (ii) Combat operations, as designated by the Secretary of Defense; or

              (iii) Other significant military operations, as designated by the Secretary of Defense only upon agreement of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State.

              (2) A contract of a non-DoD agency for performance of services and/or delivery of supplies in:
              (i) An area of combat operations, as designated by the Secretary of Defense; or
              (ii) An area of other significant military operations, as designated by the Secretary of Defense and only upon agreement of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State.
              (b) The clause is not required to be used for:
              (1) Contracts entered into by elements of the intelligence community in support of intelligence activities; or
              (2) Temporary arrangements entered into by non-DoD contractors for the performance of private security functions by individual indigenous personnel not affiliated with a local or expatriate security company.

          PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
          4. Amend section 52.212-5 by—
          a. Revising the date of clause;
          b. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(43) through (51) as paragraphs (b)(44) through (52), respectively;
          c. Adding a new paragraph (b)(43);
          d. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(1)(xiii) and (xiv) as paragraphs (e)(1)(xiv) and (xv), respectively; and
          e. Adding a new paragraph (e)(1)(xiii).
          The revised and added text reads as follows:

            52.212-5
            Contract Terms and Conditions Required To Implement Statutes or Executive Orders—Commercial Items.

            Contract Terms and Conditions Required To Implement Statutes or Executive Orders—Commercial Items (DATE)

              (b) * * *
              (43) 52.225-XX, Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the United States (DATE) (Section 862, as amended, of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008; 10 U.S.C. 2302 Note).

              (e)(1) * * *
              (i) * * *
              (xiii) 52.225-XX, Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the United States (DATE) (Section 862, as amended, of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008; 10 U.S.C. 2302 Note).

            5. Add section 52.225-XX to read as follows:

            52.225-XX
            Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the United States.
            As prescribed in 25.302-6, insert the following clause:
            Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the United States (DATE)

              (a) Definition.

                Private security functions means activities engaged in by a Contractor, as follows:
              (i) Guarding of personnel, facilities, designated sites, or property of a Federal agency, the Contractor or subcontractor, or a third party; or
              (ii) Any other activity for which personnel are required to carry weapons in the performance of their duties in accordance with the terms of this contract.
              (b) Requirements. The Contractor is required to—
              (1) Ensure that all employees of the Contractor who are responsible for performing private security functions under this contract comply with 32 CFR part 159, and with any orders, directives, and instructions to Contractors performing private security functions that are identified in the contract for—
              (i) Registering, processing, accounting for, managing, overseeing, and keeping appropriate records of personnel performing private security functions;
              (ii) Authorizing and accounting for weapons to be carried by or available to be used by personnel performing private security functions;
              (iii) Registering and identifying armored vehicles, helicopters, and other military vehicles operated by Contractors performing private security functions; and
              (iv) Reporting incidents in which—
              (A) A weapon is discharged by personnel performing private security functions;
              (B) Personnel performing private security functions are attacked, killed, or injured;

              (C) Persons are killed or injured or property is destroyed as a result of conduct by contractor personnel;
              (D) A weapon is discharged against personnel performing private security functions or personnel performing such functions believe a weapon was so discharged; or
              (E) Active, non-lethal countermeasures (other than the discharge of a weapon) are employed by personnel performing private security functions in response to a perceived immediate threat;
              (2) Ensure that the Contractor and all employees of the Contractor who are responsible for performing private security functions under this contract are briefed on and understand their obligation to comply with—
              (i) Qualification, training, screening (including, if applicable, thorough background checks), and security requirements established by 32 CFR part 159, Private Security Contractors (PSCs) Operating in Contingency Operations, Combat Operations, or Other Significant Military Operations;
              (ii) Applicable laws and regulations of the United States and the host country and applicable treaties and international agreements regarding performance of private security functions;
              (iii) Orders, directives, and instructions issued by the applicable commander of a combatant command or relevant Chief of Mission relating to weapons, equipment, force protection, security, health, safety, or relations and interaction with locals; and
              (iv) Rules on the use of force issued by the applicable commander of a combatant command or relevant Chief of Mission for personnel performing private security functions; and
              (3) Cooperate with any Government-authorized investigation of incidents reported pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this clause and incidents of alleged misconduct by personnel performing private security functions under this contract by providing—
              (i) Access to employees performing private security functions; and
              (ii) Relevant information in the possession of the Contractor regarding the incident concerned.
              (c) Remedies. In addition to other remedies available to the Government—
              (1) The Contracting Officer may direct the Contractor, at its own expense, to remove and replace any Contractor personnel performing private security functions who fail to comply with or violate applicable requirements of this clause or 32 CFR part 159. Such action may be taken at the Government's discretion without prejudice to its rights under any other provision of this contract.
              (2) The Contractor's failure to comply with the requirements of this clause will be included in appropriate databases of past performance and considered in any responsibility determination or evaluation of past performance; and
              (3) If this is an award-fee contract, the Contractor's failure to comply with the requirements of this clause shall be considered in the evaluation of the Contractor's performance during the relevant evaluation period, and the Contracting Officer may treat such failure to comply as a basis for reducing or denying award fees for such period or for recovering all or part of award fees previously paid for such period.
              (d) Rule of construction. The duty of the Contractor to comply with the requirements of this clause shall not be reduced or diminished by the failure of a higher- or lower-tier Contractor or subcontractor to comply with the clause requirements or by a failure of the contracting activity to provide required oversight.
              (e) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (e), in all subcontracts that will be performed in areas of—
              (1) DoD contracts only: Contingency operations, combat operations, as designated by the Secretary of Defense, or other significant military operations, as designated by the Secretary of Defense; or
              (2) Non-DoD contracts: Combat operations, as designated by the Secretary of Defense, or other significant military operations, upon agreement of the Secretaries of Defense and State that the clause applies in that area.

              (End of clause)

      [FR Doc. 2012-17477 Filed 7-20-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        Defense Acquisition Regulations System
        48 CFR Parts 215, 225, and 252
        RIN 0750-AH42
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Contracting With the Canadian Commercial Corporation (DFARS Case 2011-D049)

          AGENCY:
          Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          This document corrects the preamble to a proposed rule published in the Federal Register on October 4, 2011, regarding the requirement for the Canadian Commercial Corporation to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data. This correction clarifies background information concerning the origination of the proposed rule.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Amy G. Williams, telephone 703-602-0328.
          Correction

          In the proposed rule published October 4, 2011, at 76 FR 61296, make the following correction in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section by replacing the first sentence, at paragraph I. Background, with the following sentence:
          “This proposed rule solicits public comments on suggested DoD clarifications to DFARS subpart 215.4, discussed during bilateral integrated product team meetings of representatives from the U.S. Government and Canada.”

            Dated: October 18, 2011.
            Mary Overstreet,
            Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

      [FR Doc. 2011-26944 Filed 10-17-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 150227200-5200-01]
        RIN 0648-BE79
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Management Reference Point Updates for Three Stocks of Pacific Salmon

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes updates to management reference point values for Southern Oregon coastal Chinook salmon, Grays Harbor fall Chinook salmon, and Willapa Bay natural coho, as recommended by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) for use in developing annual management measures beginning in 2015. This update is implemented as part of the 2014 methodology review where the Council and its advisory bodies considered new information on the three stocks of salmon to make a determination on whether changes to reference points for these stocks were warranted.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before April 2, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0014, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0014, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Peggy Mundy at 206-526-4323.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The Council manages West Coast ocean salmon fisheries under the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The FMP has long used stock-specific conservation objectives to manage fishery impacts to Council-managed salmon stocks. Conservation objectives are, generally, fixed quantities intended to provide the necessary guidance during the course of the annual preseason planning process to establish salmon fishing seasons that achieve optimum yield. Under the FMP, conservation objectives can be added or changed either through a plan amendment or notice and comment rulemaking if a comprehensive technical review of the best scientific information available provides evidence that, in the view of the Salmon Technical Team (STT), Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and the Council, justifies a modification (FMP section 3.2.2).

        In 2009, NMFS amended the guidelines for National Standard 1 (NS1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) at 50 CFR 600.310 to provide guidance on how to comply with new annual catch limit (ACL) and accountability measure requirements for ending overfishing of fisheries managed by Federal fishery management plans, including status determination criteria (SDC) (74 FR 3204). Amendment 16 to the FMP (76 FR 81851) defined a suite of reference points for salmon, consistent with the revised NS1 guidelines. In the FMP, SDC are defined in terms of quantifiable, biologically-based reference points, or population parameters, including: maximum sustainable yield (MSY), MSY fishing mortality rate (FMSY), MSY spawner abundance (SMSY), minimum stock size threshold (MSST), and maximum fishery mortality threshold (MFMT, generally equal to FMSY). Under the FMP, changes to SDC can be made without a plan amendment if a comprehensive technical review of the best scientific information available provides evidence that, in the view of the STT, SSC, and the Council, a modification of the values of the SDC is justified (FMP section 3.1.7).

        As part of the 2014 methodology review, the Council and its advisory bodies considered new information on three stocks of salmon (Southern Oregon coastal Chinook salmon, Grays Harbor fall Chinook salmon, and Willapa Bay natural coho) to make a determination on whether changes to reference points for these stocks were warranted. A joint methodology review was conducted by the STT, SSC, and the Model Evaluation Workgroup at the Council offices in Portland, OR, October 21-23, 2014. The results of the methodology review were presented at the Council meeting in Costa Mesa, CA, November 12-19, 2014. Both the methodology review and the Council meeting were open to the public and were announced in the Federal Register (79 FR 59741, October 3, 2014 and 79 FR 63900, October 27, 2014). Documents considered by the Council are available on the Council Web site (http://www.pcouncil.org/resources/archives/briefing-books/november-2014-briefing-book/#salmonNov2014). The Council transmitted their recommended changes to NMFS in a letter dated January 23, 2015. This proposed rule describes the reference point updates that are being proposed for implementation in the FMP in developing annual management measures beginning in 2015.
        Southern Oregon Coastal Chinook Salmon

        The Southern Oregon coastal Chinook salmon stock, a component of the Southern Oregon Northern California Chinook stock complex, is an aggregate of natural and hatchery fall and spring Chinook salmon populations in Oregon streams south of the Elk River (e.g., Rogue River, Pistol River, and Chetco River), plus spring Chinook salmon from the Umpqua River. Rogue River fall Chinook are used to indicate relative abundance of Southern Oregon coastal Chinook salmon. The current conservation objective for this stock is 60-90 fish per mile in three standard index areas. At the 2014 methodology review, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) provided an analysis that was used by the State of Oregon in 2013 to adopt new State management objectives for Rogue River fall Chinook. The analysis used a Ricker spawner-recruit relationship for Rogue River fall Chinook that included smolt survival and mean summer flow covariates. ODFW proposed that the Council adopt their conservation objective and reference points for Southern Oregon coastal Chinook salmon in the FMP, while keeping this stock as a component of the Southern Oregon Northern California stock complex (where Klamath River fall Chinook is the indicator stock). ODFW's spawner-recruit analysis resulted in an SMSY point estimate of 34,992 and FMSY of 54 percent. ODFW used the 75th percentile of the SMSY posterior distribution (36,880 natural-area spawners) as an estimate of SMSY to determine an MSST of 18,440 natural-origin spawners (MSST = 0.5 * 36,880). ODFW also proposed a stock conservation objective of 41,000 naturally-produced adults passing Huntley Park in the Rogue River, near Gold Beach, OR.

        The STT and SSC evaluated ODFW's analysis and recommended that the Council adopt ODFW's proposed values as described above. The SSC recommended ODFW's proposed values for SMSY and FMSY but noted that the choice of MSST, above 50 percent of SMSY, was a policy decision. Based on information from the 2014 methodology review and the advisory body recommendations, the Council adopted the following reference point value updates for southern Oregon coastal Chinook salmon and NMFS proposes to implement them:

        • Conservation objective: 41,000 naturally-produced adults passing Huntley Park
        • SMSY 34,992 natural-area spawners
        • MFMT (FMSY): 54 percent
        • MSST: 18,440 (20,500 measured at Huntley Park) natural-origin spawners
        Grays Harbor Fall Chinook Salmon

        During the 2014 methodology review, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) staff presented a spawner-recruit analysis for Grays Harbor fall Chinook salmon. The analysis produced an estimated SMSY of 13,326 for the Chehalis and Humptulips Rivers combined (9,753 and 3,573, respectively). This estimate is slightly lower than the current management objective of 14,600 natural-area spawners, which was adopted in 1979 based on available spawning habitat. The new SMSY estimate of 13,326 is currently being used by the Pacific Salmon Commission; adoption by the Council provides consistency between the FMP and the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The STT and SSC agreed that WDFW's estimate of SMSY represents the best available science, and recommended that the Council adopt this estimate of SMSY, and associated reference points developed by the STT, for the salmon FMP.

        Based on information from the 2014 methodology review and the advisory body recommendations, the Council adopted the recommended stock productivity methodology and the resulting SMSY value. However, the Council's action was not explicit with respect to the values for the associated reference points, specifically MSST and MFMT. The Council and NMFS use MSST to determine if a stock is overfished, and MFMT to determine if overfishing is occurring. Because it is necessary to make determinations as to whether the Grays Harbor fall Chinook salmon stock is overfished or experiencing overfishing in preparation for the development of the 2015 management measures, NMFS is proposing to implement values for MSST and MFMT based on the recommendations of the STT, pursuant to NMFS' independent rulemaking authority (18 U.S.C. 1855(d)). Should the Council choose to adopt a different value for MSST or MFMT, NMFS will determine the appropriate process for considering those values. The FMP states that MSST is generally defined as 0.5 * SMSY or 0.75 * SMSY, although there are some exceptions. Currently, MSST for Grays Harbor fall Chinook is MSST = 0.5 * SMSY. Applying the same approach to the proposed SMSY value of 13,326 results in an MSST of 6,663 natural-area spawners. Applying the spawner-recruit parameter estimates from WDFW's analysis, as recommended by the STT as the best available science, yields an MFMT of 63 percent. Therefore, based on the recommendation of the Council and the advisory bodies, NMFS proposes the following reference point value updates for Grays Harbor fall Chinook salmon:

        • Conservation objective: 13,326 spawners (equal to SMSY, per FMP section 3.2.1)
        • SMSY: 13,326 spawners (9,753 in the Chehalis River and 3,573 in the Humptulips River)
        • MFMT (FMSY): 63 percent (application of WDFW's spawner-recruit analysis as recommended by the STT)
        • MSST: 6,663 natural-area spawners (MSST = 0.5 * SMSY) (application of current policy to updated SMSY).
        Willapa Bay Natural Coho

        The Willapa Bay natural coho salmon stock was added to the FMP under Amendment 16, but without a conservation objective and other reference point values. WDFW's habitat-based escapement goal (i.e., adult salmon escaping the fishery to return to freshwater habitat for spawning) for this stock is 13,090 natural-origin fish. The STT performed a spawner-recruit analysis, which produced an estimated SMSY of 17,200 natural-area spawners, and an FMSY of 74 percent. The STT recommended that the Council adopt reference points for this stock based on this analysis. The STT's recommendation also included an MFMT of 74 percent, a MSST of 8,600 natural-area spawners (MSST = 0.5 * SMSY), and annual catch limit calculated on the basis of FACL = 0.95 * FMSY = 71 percent. The SSC supported these recommendations.

        Based on information from the 2014 methodology review and the advisory body recommendations, the Council adopted the recommended stock productivity methodology and the resulting SMSY and MFMT values. However, the Council's action was not explicit with respect to the value for MSST. The Council and NMFS use MSST to determine if a stock is overfished. Because it is necessary to determine whether the Willapa Bay natural coho stock is overfished, in preparation for the development of the 2015 management measures, NMFS is proposing to implement a value for MSST based on the recommendations of the STT, pursuant to NMFS' independent rulemaking authority (18 U.S.C. 1855(d)). Should the Council choose to adopt a different value for MSST, it should confer with NMFS regarding the appropriate process for addressing this value. As noted above, the FMP states that MSST is generally defined as 0.5 * SMSY or 0.75 * SMSY. The Council has generally applied a policy of MSST = 0.5* SMSY. Applying this approach to the proposed SMSY value of 17,200 results in an MSST of 8,600 natural-area spawners. Therefore, based on the recommendation of the Council and the advisory bodies, NMFS proposes the following reference point values for Willapa Bay natural coho:

        • Conservation objective: 17,200 natural-area spawners (equal to SMSY, per FMP section 3.2.1)
        • SMSY: 17,200 natural-area spawners
        • MFMT (FMSY): 74 percent
        • MSST: 8,600 natural-area spawners (MSST = 0.5 * SMSY)

        In addition, because Willapa Bay natural coho is not managed under an international agreement, listed under the ESA, or designated as a hatchery stock, the FMP requires that it be managed with an ACL (FMP sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.4). Because it is not part of a stock complex, it will be managed using an individual stock ACL. The Council and NMFS will determine the ACL annually, based on annual abundance projections and the appropriate formula set forth in the FMP (FMP section 3.3.4). Because the Council has recommended, and NMFS proposes to adopt, a directly estimated value for FMSY, Willapa Bay natural coho is a Tier 1 stock for purposes of determining the acceptable biological catch (ABC) and the ACL. According to the FMP, for a Tier 1 stock, FABC = FMSY * 0.95, FABC = FACL, and FACL is applied to the projected annual abundance to determine the ACL escapement level for the year (FMP sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.4).

        As noted earlier, the Council is expected to address the reference points for Willapa Bay natural coho salmon that were not explicit in its prior action at its March meeting. It is possible that it could recommend values for MSST that are different from those proposed above. Were this to occur, the recommended values would likely be 0.75 * SMSY or between that value and 0.5 * SMSY, based on the definition of MSST set forth in the FMP.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Pacific Salmon Fishery Management Plan, the MSA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. As described above, NMFS is proposing portions of this rule according to section 305(d) of the MSA.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The West Coast Regional Administrator has determined that the actions of this proposed rule qualify for categorical exclusion from further NEPA analysis under NAO 216-6.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) is to relieve small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental entities of burdensome regulations and record-keeping requirements. Major goals of the RFA are: (1) To increase agency awareness and understanding of the impact of their regulations on small business, (2) to require agencies communicate and explain their findings to the public, and (3) to encourage agencies to use flexibility and to provide regulatory relief to small entities. The RFA emphasizes predicting impacts on small entities as a group distinct from other entities and the consideration of alternatives that may minimize the impacts while still achieving the stated objective of the action. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) is conducted unless it is determined that an action will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”

        The objective of this proposed rule is to update management reference points for three stocks of salmon under the FMP. This proposed rule would impact vessels harvesting salmon from the ocean troll fishery. The following fishery information is found in the Council's Review of 2013 Ocean Salmon Fisheries Stock Assessment and Fisheries Evaluation Document. In 2013, there were 2,270 permits issued for this fishery, with a total ex-vessel value of $34.1 million. Of the 2,270 permits, only 1,177 actually landed salmon all within the states of California, Oregon and Washington. In California, 670 vessels landed salmon for an ex-vessel value of $23.6 million; in Oregon, 399 vessels landed salmon for an ex-vessel value of $7.6 million; and in Washington, 108 vessels landed salmon for an ex-vessel value of $2.8 million. Treaty Indian ocean fisheries landed salmon with an ex-vessel value of $6.4 million.
        On June 12, 2014, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued an interim final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33467 (June 12, 2014)). The rule increased the size standard from $19.0 to $20.5 million for finfish fishing, from $5 to $5.5 million for shellfish fishing, and from $7.0 million to $7.5 million for other marine fishing, for-hire businesses, and marinas. Based on this size standard, all 1,177 vessels that landed salmon from the ocean troll fishery are considered small under the Small Business Administration approved definition of a small fish harvester. Therefore, there are no disproportionate impacts between small and large vessels. Furthermore, there are no disproportionate impacts based on homeport, gear type, or vessel size from the promulgation of this proposed rule.
        This proposed rule would not result in any immediate impacts on revenues or costs for the small entities participating in the Pacific salmon fishery; the updated management reference point values will be considered within the overall suite of criteria that are used to frame the annual management measures. The management reference points are used to set Council management goals, identify when overfishing is occurring, and identify when a stock is overfished. These values all have the potential to impact how annual salmon management measures are structured, specifically what constraints are needed to manage impacts. However, the salmon fishery impacts a large number of stocks, and the fishery as a whole must be managed to meet management goals for every stock. Depending on abundance projections for a given year, meeting management goals for a few particularly limiting stocks typically results in fisheries that are not limited by management goals for the remaining stocks. Therefore, the proposed changes would only impact fishery revenues in years when any of the three affected salmon stocks are constraining to fisheries, which is unlikely based on historical data.
        As a result, an IRFA is not required and none has been prepared. NMFS will conduct the appropriate analyses for any subsequent rulemakings stemming from this proposed rule.
        This proposed rule would not establish any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements. This proposed rule does not include a collection of information. No Federal rules have been identified that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
        This action is not expected to have adverse effects on any species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or designated critical habitat. This action modifies reference points used in the setting of annual management measures for West Coast salmon fisheries. NMFS has current ESA biological opinions that cover fishing under annual regulations adopted under the FMP on all listed salmon species. NMFS reiterates their consultation standards for all ESA-listed salmon and steelhead species in their annual Guidance letter to the Council. Some of NMFS past biological opinions have found no jeopardy, and others have found jeopardy, but provided reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy. The annual management measures are designed to be consistent with the biological opinions that found no jeopardy, and with the reasonable and prudent alternatives in the jeopardy biological opinions. The Council's recommended management measures, which will be consistent with the reference points proposed here, therefore comply with NMFS' consultation standards and guidance for all listed salmon species which may be affected by Council fisheries. In some cases, the recommended measures are more restrictive than NMFS' ESA requirements.
        In 2009, NMFS consulted on the effects of fishing under the Salmon FMP on the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whale Distinct Population Segment (SRKW) and concluded the salmon fisheries were not likely to jeopardize SRKW. Annual salmon management measures are designed to be consistent with the terms of that biological opinion.
        This proposed rule was developed after meaningful collaboration with the affected tribes, through the Council process. Under the MSA at 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Council must be a representative of an Indian Tribe with Federally recognized fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction.

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

          Dated: March 12, 2015.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-06144 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P