        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 110826540-1774-01]
        RIN 0648-XA674
        Western Pacific Fisheries; 2012 Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed specifications; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes annual catch limits for western Pacific bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem fisheries, and accountability measures to correct or mitigate any overages of catch limits. The proposed catch limits and accountability measures support the long-term sustainability of fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by January 18, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments on this proposed specification, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2011-0269, may be sent to either of the following addresses:

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

            Instructions: Comments must be submitted to one of the two addresses to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent 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 may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Three environmental assessments (EA) were prepared that describe the impact on the human environment that would result from this proposed action. Based on the EAs, NMFS prepared a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the proposed action. Copies of the EAs and FONSI are available from www.regulations.gov.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Fisheries in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ, or Federal waters) around the U.S. Pacific Islands are managed under four archipelagic-based fishery ecosystem plans (FEP), including the American Samoa FEP, the Hawaii FEP, the Pacific Remote Islands FEP, and the Mariana FEP (covering Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)), and one FEP for pelagic fisheries. The FEPs were developed by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Each FEP contains a process for the Council and NMFS to specify annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs); that process is codified at 50 CFR 665.4 (76 FR 37285, June 27, 2011). The regulations require NMFS to specify, every fishing year, an ACL for each stock and stock complex of management unit species (MUS) included in an FEP, as recommended by the Council and in consideration of the best available scientific, commercial, and other information about the fishery. If an ACL is exceeded, the regulations require the Council to take action to reduce the ACL for the subsequent fishing year by the amount of the overage, or take other actions, as appropriate.
        Specification of Annual Catch Limits
        NMFS proposes to specify ACLs for bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem fishery MUS in American Samoa, Guam, the CNMI, and Hawaii. NMFS based the proposed specifications on recommendations from the Council at its 152nd meeting held on October 17-19, 2011. A total of 101 ACLs are proposed: 22 in American Samoa, 27 in Guam, 22 in the CNMI, and 30 in Hawaii. The ACLs would be specified for the 2012 fishing year which begins on January 1 and ends on December 31, except for precious coral fisheries which begin on July 1 and end on June 30 the following year.
        NMFS is not proposing ACLs at this time for bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, or coral reef ecosystem MUS in the PRIA because commercial fishing is prohibited out to 50 nautical miles by Presidential Proclamation 8336 which established the Pacific Remote Island Marine National Monument (74 FR 1565, January 12, 2009), and there is no habitat to support such fisheries in the EEZ beyond the monument boundaries. The Council is separately working on a draft amendment to the relevant FEP containing fishery management measures for the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (as well as the Rose Atoll and Marianas Trench Marine National Monuments). Additionally, ACLs are not proposed for MUS that are currently subject to Federal fishing moratoria or prohibitions. They include all species of gold coral (73 FR 47098, August 13, 2008), all species of deepwater precious corals at the Westpac Bed Refugia (75 FR 2198, January 14, 2010), and the three Hawaii seamount groundfish: pelagic armorhead, alfonsin, and raftfish (75 FR 69015, November 10, 2010). The current prohibitions on fishing for these MUS serve as a functional equivalent of an ACL of zero.
        NMFS is also not proposing ACLs for pelagic MUS at this time because it previously determined that pelagic species are subject to international fishery agreements or have a life cycle of approximately one year and, therefore, have statutory exceptions to the ACL requirements.

        NMFS and the Council developed the proposed ACLs in accordance with the FEPs and Federal regulations. At its 152nd meeting, the Council recommended specifying the 2012 ACL for each FEP MUS as being equal to the acceptable biological catch (ABC) as recommended by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) at the 108th SSC meeting held October 17-19, 2011, except for precious corals in Hawaii where the Council recommended maintaining the current harvest quotas (which are lower than the ABCs) as the ACLs. The Council did not recommend increasing catch limits to equal the SSC's ABCs on the basis that there has been no activity in the precious coral fishery for over a decade and industry lacks the capacity to exploit an increased quota. The data, methods, and procedures considered by the SSC and the Council in developing their respective fishing level recommendations are described in detail in the three environmental assessments that support this action (see ADDRESSES).
        Proposed Annual Catch Limit Specifications

          Table 1—American Samoa

            Fishery
            Management unit species
            Proposed ACL specification

            Bottomfish
            Bottomfish multi-species stock complex
            99,200 lb (44,996 kg).

            Crustacean
            Deepwater Shrimp
            80,000 lb (36,287 kg).

            Spiny Lobster
            2,300 lb (1,043 kg).

            Slipper Lobster
            30 lb (14 kg).

            Kona Crab
            3,200 lb (1,451 kg).

            Precious Coral
            Black Coral
            790 kg (1,742 lb).

            Precious Corals in the American Samoa Exploratory Area
            1,000 kg (2,205 lb).

            Coral Reef Ecosystem

              Acanthuridae—surgeonfish
            19,516 lb (8,852 kg).

              Lutjanidae—snappers
            18,839 lb (8,545 kg).

              Selar crumenophthalmus—atule or bigeye scad
            8,396 lb (3,808 kg).

            Mollusks—turbo snail; octopus; giant clams
            16,694 lb (7,572 kg).

              Carangidae—jacks
            9,490 lb (4,305 kg).

              Lethrinidae—emperors
            7,350 lb (3,334 kg).

              Scaridae—parrotfish
            8,145 lb (3,695 kg).

              Serranidae—groupers
            5,600 lb (2,540 kg).

              Holocentridae—squirrelfish
            2,585 lb (1,173 kg).

              Mugilidae—mullets
            2,857 lb (1,296 kg).

            Crustaceans—crabs
            2,248 lb (1,020 kg).

              Bolbometopon muricatum—bumphead parrotfish
            235 lb (107 kg).

              Cheilinus undulatus—Humphead (Napoleon) wrasse
            1,743 lb (791 kg).

              Carcharhinidae—Reef Sharks
            1,309 lb (594 kg).

            All Other CREMUS combined
            18,910 lb (8,577 kg).

          Table 2—Mariana Archipelago—Guam

            Fishery
            Management unit species
            Proposed ACL specification

            Bottomfish
            Bottomfish multi-species stock complex
            48,200 lb (21,863 kg).

            Crustaceans
            Deepwater Shrimp
            48,488 lb (21,994 kg).

            Spiny Lobster
            2,700 lb (1,225 kg).

            Slipper Lobster
            20 lb (9 kg).

            Kona Crab
            1,900 lb (862 kg).

            Precious Coral
            Black Coral
            700 kg (1,543 lb).

            Precious Corals in the Guam Exploratory Area
            1,000 kg (2,205 lb).

            Coral Reef Ecosystem
            Acanthuridae—surgeonfish
            70,702 lb (32,070 kg).

            Carangidae—jacks
            45,377 lb (20,583 kg).

            Selar crumenophthalmus—atulai or bigeye scad
            56,514 lb (25,634 kg).

            Lethrinidae—emperors
            38,720 lb (17,563 kg).

            Scaridae—parrotfish
            28,649 lb (12,995 kg).

            Mullidae—goatfish
            25,367 lb (11,506 kg).

            Mollusks—turbo snail; octopus; giant clams
            21,941 lb (9,952 kg).

            Siganidae—rabbitfish
            26,120 lb (11,848 kg).

            Lutjanidae—snappers
            17,726 lb (8,040 kg).

            Serranidae—groupers
            17,958 lb (8,146 kg).

            Mugilidae—mullets
            15,032 lb (6,818 kg).

            Kyphosidae—chubs/rudderfish
            13,247 lb (6,009 kg).

            Crustaceans—crabs
            5,523 lb (2,505 kg).

            Holocentridae—squirrelfish
            8,300 lb (3,765 kg).

            Algae
            5,329 lb (2,417 kg).

            Labridae—wrasses
            5,195 lb (2,356 kg).

            Bolbometopon muricatum—bumphead parrotfish
            797 lb (362 kg) (CNMI and Guam combined).

            Cheilinus undulatus—Humphead (Napoleon) wrasse
            1,960 lb (889 kg).

            Carcharhinidae—Reef Sharks
            6,942 lb (3,149 kg).

            All Other CREMUS combined
            83,214 lb (37,745 kg).

          Table 3—Mariana Archipelago—CNMI

            Fishery
            Management unit species
            Proposed ACL specification

            Bottomfish
            Bottomfish multi-species stock complex
            182,500 lb (82,781 kg).

            Crustacean
            Deepwater Shrimp
            275,570 lb (124,996 kg).

            Spiny Lobster
            5,500 lb (2,495 kg).

            Slipper Lobster
            60 lb (27 kg).

            Kona Crab
            6,300 lb (2,858 kg).

            Precious Coral
            Black Coral
            2,100 kg (4,630 lb).

            Precious Corals in the CNMI Exploratory Area
            1,000 kg (2,205 lb).

            Coral Reef Ecosystem
            Lethrinidae—emperors
            27,466 lb (12,458 kg).

            Carangidae—jacks
            21,512 lb (9,758 kg).

            Acanthuridae—surgeonfish
            6,884 lb (3,123 kg).

            Selar crumenophthalmus—atulai or bigeye scad
            7,459 lb (3,383 kg).

            Serranidae—groupers
            5,519 lb (2,503 kg).

            Lutjanidae—snappers
            3,905 lb (1,771 kg).

            Mullidae—goatfish
            3,670 lb (1,665 kg).

            Scaridae—parrotfish
            3,784 lb (1,716 kg).

            Mollusks—turbo snail; octopus; giant clams
            4,446 lb (2,017 kg).

            Mugilidae—mullets
            3,308 lb (1,500 kg).

            Siganidae—rabbitfish
            2,537 lb (1,151 kg).

            Bolbometopon muricatum—bumphead parrotfish
            797 lb (362 kg) (CNMI and Guam combined).

            Cheilinus undulatus—Humphead (Napoleon) wrasse
            2,009 lb (911 kg).

            Carcharhinidae—Reef Sharks
            5,600 lb (2,540 kg).

            All Other CREMUS combined
            9,820 lb (4,454 kg).

          Table 4—Hawaii

            Fishery
            Management unit species
            Proposed ACL specification

            Bottomfish
            Non-Deep 7 Bottomfish
            135,000 lb (61,235 kg).

            Crustacean
            Deepwater Shrimp
            250,773 lb (113,749 kg).

            Spiny Lobster
            10,000 lb (4,536 kg).

            Slipper Lobster
            280 lb (127 kg).

            Kona Crab
            27,600 lb (12,519 kg).

            Precious Coral
            Auau Channel Black Coral
            2,500 kg (5,512 lb).

            Pink/Bamboo Coral; Makapuu Bed
            1,000/250 kg (2,205/551 lb).

            Pink/Bamboo Coral; 180 Fathom Bank
            222/56 kg (489/123 lb).

            Pink/Bamboo Coral; Brooks Bank
            444/111 kg (979/245 lb).

            Pink/Bamboo Coral; Kaena Point Bed
            67/17 kg (148/37 lb).

            Pink/Bamboo Coral; Keahole Bed
            67/17 kg (148/37 lb).

            Precious Corals in the Hawaii Exploratory Area
            1,000 kg (2,205 lb).

            Coral Reef Ecosystem
            Selar crumenophthalmus—akule or bigeye scad
            651,292 lb (295,421 kg).

            Decapterus macarellus—opelu or mackerel scad
            393,563 lb (178,517 kg).

            Carangidae—jacks
            193,423 lb (87,735 kg).

            Mullidae—goatfish
            125,813 lb (57,068 kg).

            Acanthuridae—surgeonfish
            80,545 lb (36,535 kg).

            Lutjanidae—snappers
            65,102 lb (29,530 kg).

            Holocentridae—squirrelfish
            44,122 lb (20,013 kg).

            Mugilidae—mullets
            41,112 lb (18,648 kg).

            Mollusks—turbo snails; octopus;  giant clams
            28,765 lb (13,048 kg).

            Scaridae—parrotfish
            33,326 lb (15,116 kg).

            Crustaceans—crabs
            20,686 lb (9,383 kg).

            Carcharhinidae—Reef Sharks
            111,566 lb (50,605 kg).

            All Other CREMUS combined
            142,282 lb (64,538 kg).

        Technical Corrections to Proposed ACL Specifications
        NMFS identified several technical errors in the calculation of ABC for some MUS after the Council made their recommendations. Because the ABCs were derived from control rules and formulas contained in the FEPs, NMFS corrected the technical errors in this proposed specification by recalculating the ABCs based on the corrected information. NMFS has provided the corrected proposed ACL specifications to the Council's Executive Director and Chairperson for their review and concurrence that the corrected proposed ACL specifications are consistent with the Council's recommendation to establish ACLs for precious corals in Hawaii that are equal to current harvest quotas, and to establish ACL equal to ABC for all other fisheries. The resulting corrected ACL specifications are proposed here. Descriptions of the affected MUS, technical errors, and corrected ABC and ACL values are provided in the EAs, and summarized as follows:
        Hawaii Deepwater Shrimp
        The pre-corrected recommended ACL for Hawaii deepwater shrimp was equal to the ABC of 544,000 lb, which was based on the application of the Tier 4 control rule: ABC = 0.91 × (maximum sustainable yield (MSY)). The most current estimate of MSY for the deepwater shrimp in Hawaii is 125 mt/yr or 275,575 lb/yr (Tagami and Ralston 1988); however, in calculating ABC, the value for exploitable biomass (271.4 mt/yr or 598,328 lb) as estimated by Ralston and Tagami, (1992) was used instead of MSY. The resulting ACL recommendation of 544,000 exceeded the estimated MSY by more than 268,000 lb. NMFS corrected the ABC by applying the correct MSY value of 125 mt/yr or 275,575 lb/yr into the Tier 4 control rule, resulting in a corrected ABC of 250,773 lb. Consistent with the Council recommendation that ACL be set equal to ABC, NMFS proposes an ACL of 250,773 lb for Hawaii deepwater shrimp in 2012.
        CNMI Deepwater Shrimp
        The pre-corrected recommended ACL for CNMI deepwater shrimp was equal to the ABC of 268,000 lb, which was based on the application of the Tier 4 control rule: ABC = 0.91 × MSY. The most current estimate of MSY for the deepwater shrimp in CNMI is 137.4 mt/yr or 302,830 lb/yr (Moffitt and Polovina 1987); however, in calculating ABC, the incorrect value for MSY was used (133.8 mt/yr or 294,975 lb/yr), resulting in an ABC of 268,000 lb. NMFS corrected the ABC by applying the correct MSY value of 137.4 mt/yr or 302,830 lb/yr in the Tier 4 control rule, resulting in a corrected ABC of 275,575 lb. Consistent with the Council recommendation that ACL be set equal to ABC, NMFS proposes an ACL of 275,575 lb for CNMI deepwater shrimp in 2012.
        Guam Deepwater Shrimp

        The pre-corrected recommended ACL for Guam deepwater shrimp was equal to the ABC of 56,000 lb which was based on the application of the Tier 4 control rule: ABC = 0.91 × MSY. The most current estimate of MSY for the deepwater shrimp in Guam is 24.1 mt/yr or 53,116 lb/yr (Moffitt and Polovina 1987); however, in calculating ABC, the incorrect value for MSY was used (27.7 mt/yr or 61,067 lb/yr), resulting in an ABC of 56,000 lb. The resulting ACL of 56,000 lb exceeded the MSY estimated by Moffitt and Polovina (1987) by over 2,800 lb. NMFS corrected the ABC by applying the correct MSY value of 24.1 mt/yr into the Tier 4 control rule, resulting in a corrected ABC of 22 mt/yr or 48,488 lb/yr. Consistent with the Council recommendation that ACL be set equal to ABC, NMFS proposes to specify an ACL of 48,488 lb for Guam deepwater shrimp in 2012.
        Hawaii Pink and Bamboo Corals
        The recommended ACLs for Hawaii deepwater pink and bamboo corals at all established and conditional beds were set equal to the current harvest quotas as specified in 50 CFR 665 (75 FR 2198, January 14, 2010), except at the Makapuu Established Bed. At this bed, the current harvest quotas for pink and bamboo corals are 2,000 kg and 500 kg, respectively, and may be taken over a two year timeframe. However, since ACLs must be specified annually, the recommended ACLs were set at one half of the current harvest quota, or 1,000 kg/yr and 250 kg/yr, respectively, and shown in Table 5.

          Table 5—Council Recommended ACLs for Hawaii Pink and Bamboo Corals

            Bed
            Pink coral ACL(kg)

            Bamboo coral ACL(kg)

            Makapuu Established Bed
            1,000
            250

            180 Fathom Bank Conditional Bed
            222
            56

            Brooks Bank Conditional Bed
            444
            111

            Kaena Point Conditional Bed
            67
            17

            Keahole Point Conditional Bed
            67
            17

        However, the Council's recommended ACL of 17 kg for bamboo corals at the Kaena Point and Keahole Point Conditional beds exceed the ABC of 16 kg as calculated by the SSC at its 108th meeting as shown in Table 6. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and National Standard 1, the ACL may not exceed the ABC.

          Table 6—SSC Recommended ABCs for Hawaii Pink and Bamboo Corals

            Bed
            Pink coral ABC
                (0.91*MSY)

              (kg)

            Bamboo coral ABC
                (0.91*MSY)

              (kg)

            Makapuu Established Bed
            1,400
            260

            180 Fathom Bank Conditional Bed
            1,400
            260

            Brooks Bank Conditional Bed
            1,400
            260

            Kaena Point Conditional Bed
            85
            16

            Keahole Point Conditional Bed
            85
            16

        The ABCs were based on the application of the Tier 4 control rule: ABC = 0.91 × MSY. In calculating ABC for pink coral at the Makapuu Established Bed, the SSC applied a revised estimate of MSY for pink coral reported in Grigg (2002). Specifically, Grigg (2002) estimated an MSY for pink coral at the Makapuu bed of 1,500 kg/year. In calculating ABC for bamboo coral at the Makapuu Established bed, the SSC relied on the MSY estimate of 285 as provided in the Hawaii FEP. Based on these MSY estimates the SSC calculated ABC for pink coral and bamboo coral at the Makapuu bed as 1,400 kg/yr and 260 kg/yr, respectively.
        There are no MSY estimates for pink or bamboo coral at any conditional beds. Therefore, to calculate an MSY proxy for pink coral and bamboo coral for these beds, the SSC applied the formula provided in the Hawaii FEP which was used to set the existing harvest quotas. Specifically, the Hawaii FEP explains that the harvest quotas for pink and bamboo corals at any conditional bed is extrapolated, based on bed size, by comparison with that of the Makapuu Established Bed using the following formula:

          EP03JA12.000

        Framework Amendment 1 to the Precious Corals FMP (WPFMC 2001) defines the bed area for all established and conditional beds in Hawaii and defines the Makapuu Established Bed as 3.60 km2, and both the Keahole Point and Kaena Point Conditional Beds as 0.24 km2. However, in calculating the MSY proxies for pink and bamboo corals at Keahole Point and Kaena Point Conditional Beds, incorrect values for the Makapuu Established Bed area (12.57 nm2) and both the Keahole and Kaena Point Conditional Bed area (0.79 nm2) were used in the formula above resulting in a bamboo coral MSY proxy of 18 kg/yr for the two latter beds. Applying the Tier 4 control rule (ABC = 0.91 × MSY) resulted in an ABC of 16 kg for both Keahole Point and Kaena Point Conditional Beds.

        NMFS corrected the ABCs by applying the correct bed area for Makapuu (3.60 km2) and for both Keahole Point and Kaena Point (0.24 km2) into the formula above, resulting in a corrected bamboo coral MSY proxy of 19 kg for the two latter beds. Next, NMFS applied the Tier 4 control rule (ABC = 0.91 × MSY), resulting in a corrected ABC of 17 kg. These technical corrections are consistent with the intent of the SSC and Council and represent the best available scientific information regarding Hawaii precious corals. Additionally, the technical corrections allow for the Council's recommended ACL of 17 kg for bamboo corals at the Kaena Point and Keahole Point Conditional Beds to be acceptable ACLs as they no longer exceed ABC.
        Proposed Accountability Measures
        Each fishing year, NMFS and local resource management agencies in American Samoa, Guam, the CNMI, and Hawaii will collect information about MUS catches and apply them toward the appropriate ACLs. Pursuant to 50 CFR 665.4, when the ACL for a stock or stock complex is projected to be reached, based on available information, NMFS must notify permit holders that fishing for that stock or stock complex will be restricted in Federal waters on a specified date. The restriction serves as the AM to prevent an ACL from being exceeded and may include, but is not limited to closure of the fishery, closure of specific areas, changes to bag limits, or restrictions in effort. However, local resource management agencies presently do not have the personnel or resources to process catch data in near-real time, so fisheries statistics are generally not available to NMFS until at least six months after the data has been collected. While the State of Hawaii has the capability to monitor and track the catch of seven preferentially-targeted bottomfish species in near-real time in comparison with previously specified ACLs (76 FR 54715, September 2, 2011), additional resources would be required to extend these capabilities to other bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem MUS. Significant resources would also be required to support the establishment of in-season monitoring and tracking capabilities in American Samoa, Guam and the CNMI. Additionally, reliance on Federal logbook and reporting from Federal waters will not be sufficient in accurately monitoring and tracking catches towards the proposed ACL specifications as the majority of fishing for bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem fishery MUS occurs primarily in non-Federal waters generally 0-3 nautical miles from shore. For these reasons, NMFS proposes to implement the Council's recommended AM, which requires the Council to conduct a post-season accounting of the annual catch for each stock and stock complex of MUS relative immediately after the end of the fishing year. If an ACL is exceeded, the Council would take action in accordance with 50 CFR 600.310(g) which may include a recommendation that NMFS reduce the ACL for the subsequent fishing year by the amount of the overage, or other measure, as appropriate.
        NMFS will consider public comments on the proposed ACLs and AMs and will announce the final specifications as soon as possible. Regardless of the final ACL specifications and AMs, all other management measures will continue to apply in the fisheries. To be considered, comments on these proposed specifications must be received by January 18, 2012, not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that this proposed specification is consistent with the applicable western Pacific FEPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that these proposed specifications, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for it are contained in the preamble to this proposed specification.

        NMFS based the proposed specifications on recommendations from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) at its 152nd meeting held on October 17-19, 2011. A total of 101 ACLs are proposed: 22 in American Samoa, 27 in Guam, 22 in the CNMI, and 30 in Hawaii. The ACLs would be specified for the 2012 fishing year, which begins on January 1 and ends on December 31, except for precious coral fisheries. These measures would apply to precious coral fisheries from July 1, 2011—June 30, 2012. Some ACLs would be applied to fisheries for which there are no participants. These include certain crustacean fisheries (i.e., deepwater shrimp and Kona crab), and all precious coral fisheries outside Hawaii.
        Fishery participants should not face any adverse economic impacts as a direct result of the proposed ACLs and AMs. The Council and NMFS are not considering in-season closures in any of the fisheries to which these ACLs apply, due to the current inability of fishery management entities to conduct in-season tracking of catch in relation to the ACLs. As a result, participants in these fisheries would be able to fish throughout the entire season; in addition, the ACLs, as proposed, would not change the gear types, areas fished, effort, or participation of the fishery during the 2012 fishing season. A post-season review of the catch data would be required to determine whether any of those ACLs is exceeded. If any of the ACLs is exceeded, the Council and NMFS would take action to correct the operational issue that caused the ACL overage. NMFS cannot, however, speculate on operational measures or the magnitude of any potential overage adjustment; therefore, the environmental and socio-economic impacts of future actions, such as changes to future ACLs or AMs, would need to be evaluated separately once the required data are available.
        Other alternatives that were considered but not selected called for alternative specifications for the 101 ACLs, some higher and some lower than those that were proposed. However, because in-season tracking of catch data cannot be achieved in these fisheries, in-season AMs such as a fishery closure are not possible, and fishery participants would be able to fish throughout the entire season under all alternatives considered. Therefore, the direct economic impacts to small entities during the 2012 fishing season would not likely differ among the alternatives.

        As described earlier, the proposed action of specifying ACLs and AMs is expected to have little, if any, direct adverse economic impact. For fisheries with active participants, the ACLs are generally in line with or greater than the current annual yields and there should be no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Furthermore, there is likely to be no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of vessels based on gear, home port, or vessel length. Because the proposed action would have little to no direct economic impact, NMFS has determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

        As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

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

          Dated: December 27, 2011.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-33691 Filed 12-30-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AV51
        [FWS-R4-ES-2008-0058; 92210-1117-0000-FY08-B4]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Alabama Sturgeon (Scaphirhyncus suttkusi)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the extension of the public comment period on the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhyncus suttkusi) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are extending the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the revised proposed rule, the associated draft economic analysis, and the amended required determinations following a public hearing that will take place January 28, 2009.

          DATES:

            Written Comments: We will consider comments received on or before February 9, 2009.

            Public Hearings: We will hold a public hearing on January 28, 2009, at the Alabama Southern Community College in Monroeville, AL (see ADDRESSES). The hearing is open to all who wish to provide formal, oral comments regarding the proposed revised critical habitat and will be held from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., central time, with an open house from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., central time.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2008-0058, Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203.
          • Public Hearing: A public hearing will be held (see DATES) at the Nettles Auditorium at Alabama Southern Community College, 2800 South Alabama Avenue, Monroeville, AL 36460.

          We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jeff Powell, Aquatic Species Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama Field Office, 1208 Main Street, Daphne, AL 36526; telephone: 251-441-5858; facsimile: 251-441-6222. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        We published a proposed designation of critical habitat for the Alabama sturgeon in the Federal Register on May 27, 2008 (73 FR 30361). The proposed rule opened a 60-day comment period, which closed on July 28, 2008.
        On December 30, 2008, we published a proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the Alabama sturgeon and announced the opening of a second public comment period and the scheduling of a public hearing (73 FR 79770). We also announced the availability for public comment of a draft economic analysis and an amended required determinations section of the proposal. We further sought comment on our proposal to change the first primary constituent element from its original description because we have determined that the original wording failed to indicate that the flow needs of the species are relative to the season of the year.
        The second comment period was opened for 30 days from December 30, 2008, to January 29, 2008. We are extending the comment period an additional 11 days to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment after the January 28, 2009, public hearing. Our December 30, 2008, revised proposed rule (73 FR 79770) specifies the information that we seek from the public. If you submitted comments previously, you do not need to resubmit them because we have already incorporated them into the public record and will fully consider them in preparation of the final rule.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Southeast Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: January 15, 2009.
          Lyle Laverty,
          Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. E9-1455 Filed 1-27-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 64
        [CC Docket No. 91-281; FCC 17-76]
        Calling Number Identification Service—Caller ID

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          In this document, the Commission proposes to amend its Caller ID rules to allow carriers to disclose blocked Caller ID information in the limited case of threatening calls as an aid to law enforcement investigations. Media and law enforcement reports indicate that the number of threatening calls targeting schools, religious organizations, and other entities appears to be increasing dramatically. In many cases, the perpetrators block the Caller ID information, making it difficult to trace the threatening calls. The Commission's current rules require that carriers not reveal blocked Caller ID information or use that information to allow the called party to contact the caller. Recognizing that threatening callers do not have a legitimate privacy interest in having blocked Caller ID protected from disclosure, the Commission seeks to amend its Caller ID rules to permit carriers to disclose blocked Caller ID information in the limited case of threatening calls as an aid to law enforcement investigations.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before August 21, 2017, and reply comments are due on or before September 19, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments identified by CC Docket No. 91-281 and/or FCC Number 17-76, 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://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. 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 CC Docket No. 91-281.
          • Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy 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.

          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:

          Nellie Foosaner, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), at: (202) 418-2925, email: Nellie.Foosaner@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC 17-76, adopted on June 22, 2017, and released on June 22, 2017. The full text of document FCC 17-76 will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. A copy of document FCC 17-76 and any subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be found by searching ECFS at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert CC Docket No. 91-281 into the Proceeding block).

        Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using ECFS. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
        • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. 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.

        Pursuant to § 1.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1200, this matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substances of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

        To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to: fcc504@fcc.gov or call CGB at: (202) 418-0530 (voice), or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Document FCC 17-76 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-rules-aid-investigation-threatening-calls.

        Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

        Document FCC 17-76 seeks comment on proposed rule amendments that may result in modified information collection requirements. If the Commission adopts any modified information collection requirements, the Commission will publish another notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission seeks comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. Public Law 107-198, 116 Stat. 729; 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
        SYNOPSIS
        1. In the document FCC 17-76, the Commission proposes to amend its Caller ID rules to enable called parties and/or law enforcement to obtain blocked Caller ID information in connection with threatening calls. For purposes of document FCC 17-76, the Commission defines a “threatening call” as any call that includes a threat of serious and imminent unlawful action posing a substantial risk to property, life, safety, or health.

        2. Based on reports of widespread and increasing numbers of threatening calls that have targeted schools, religious organizations and other entities, the Commission proposes amending § 64.1601 of its rules, which provides that “[n]o common carrier subscribing to or offering any service that delivers [the Calling Party Number (CPN)] may override the privacy indicator associate with an interstate call,” to ensure that all parties who receive threatening calls are not hindered by the Commission's rules in gaining timely access to CPN information that may allow them to identify threatening callers. Amending the Commission's Caller ID rules to permit threatened parties, law enforcement and security personnel of threatened entities to gain access to the CPN of threatening callers could promote public safety and provide administrative efficiencies over the current process, which necessitates addressing individual waiver requests on a case-by-case basis. Even when threatening calls prove to be a hoax, they can often result in substantial disruption and expenditure of public resources by law enforcement. The Commission therefore proposes to amend its rules to recognize an exemption from the privacy protections contained in § 64.1601(b) of its rules in the limited case of threatening calls. The Commission seeks additional comment on ways to facilitate the ability of law enforcement and security personnel to investigate and identify threatening callers while protecting the legitimate privacy interests of non-threatening callers. In that regard, the Commission seeks comment on how to define the term “security personnel” to ensure that only the appropriate personnel responsible for the safety of any threatened entity has access to the information they require to perform their duties.
        3. Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission's rules requires that carriers must act in accordance with the customer's privacy request that CPN not be passed on interstate calls. The Commission has recognized, however, certain exemptions to this requirement. The Commission has concluded, for example, that to the extent CPN-based services are used to deliver emergency services, privacy requirements should not apply to delivery of CPN to a public agency's emergency lines, a poison control line, or in conjunction with 911 emergency services. In these instances, the Commission concluded that Caller ID blocking mechanisms could jeopardize emergency services and therefore pose a serious threat to the safety of life and property. The Commission believes that threatening calls present equally compelling circumstances in which the need to ensure public safety, in accordance with the Commission's fundamental statutory mission, outweighs the threatening caller's interest in maintaining the privacy of his or her CPN.
        4. Specifically, the Commission proposes amending § 64.1601 of its rules to recognize an exemption to § 64.1601(b)'s of its rules prohibition on overriding a privacy indicator associated with an interstate call when such call contains a threat of a serious nature. For purposes of this context, the Commission proposes defining a “threatening call” as any call that includes a threat of serious and imminent unlawful action posing a substantial risk to property, life, safety, or health. The Commission seeks comment on this definition and on any alternatives. Accordingly, the Commission proposes adding an exemption in § 64.1601(d) of its rules to exclude threatening calls from the privacy protections afforded by § 64.1601(b) of its rules.
        5. In this context, the Commission seeks comment on how evaluations should be made to determine whether a threat meets the proposed definition of a threatening call, including who should make that evaluation. Should the Commission require, for example, that otherwise restricted CPN be made available only after a law enforcement agency confirms that it constitutes a threat of a serious and imminent unlawful action posing a substantial risk to property, life, safety, or health? Would this approach provide sufficient privacy safeguards to ensure that blocked CPN is released only in those limited situations? Conversely, to what extent would involving law enforcement in this process hinder the ability of threatened parties to gain timely access to the CPN of threatening callers?
        6. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and any additional options that might aid law enforcement and threatened parties in obtaining the information they need to identify threatening callers. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on how to facilitate the provision of CPN to threatened entities in a manner that minimizes administrative burdens on carriers while ensuring that such information is provided to the threatened party and law enforcement in a timely manner. How are carriers burdened today when law enforcement uses lawful processes to compel disclosure of call details? In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the potential burdens on small providers that may be asked to disclose information upon a report of a threatening call, including measures that could mitigate those burdens. The Commission recognizes that telecommunications systems utilized by threatened entities and relationships with their carriers may vary widely. The Commission therefore seeks the input of carriers on how best to facilitate the process of providing CPN information in a timely manner to parties that report a threatening call. Given the existing exemption for public agencies that deliver emergency services as noted above, the Commission also seeks comment on whether it should extend that exemption to non-public entities that provide emergency services such as private ambulance companies.
        7. Privacy. In proposing this amendment to the Caller ID rules, the Commission endeavors to ensure that this exemption is not abused and that the legitimate privacy interests of non-threatening callers are not infringed, particularly when the calling party has a higher need for CPN blocking protections to mitigate the risk of personal injury, such as in the case of calls made from domestic violence agencies. When the Commission adopted the rule in 1994, it concluded based on an extensive record that “the calling public has an interest in exercising a measure of control over the dissemination of telephone numbers that must be reflected in federal policies governing caller ID services.” As a result, the Commission adopted a rule requiring carriers to offer per-call blocking of Caller ID and allowed carriers to continue offering per-line blocking as long as they also provided per-call unblocking. Because of this recognized privacy interest, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should require anyone reporting a threatening call for purposes of obtaining otherwise restricted CPN to do so in conjunction with a law enforcement agency, so as to provide some assurance that the called party is not attempting to circumvent the privacy obligations of the rule by reporting a false threat. Should access to restricted CPN be limited only to law enforcement authorities? Would the risk of abuse be further reduced by limiting application of this exemption only to non-residential entities such as schools, religious organizations, and other public and private business and governmental entities? Would excluding private individuals who are not typically the target of mass phone threats limit the potential for abuse of this exemption? The Commission notes, for example, that petitions seeking waivers on the basis of a pattern of threatening calls, including most press reports, relate to threatening calls that target entities such as these rather than private individuals. Finally, how would a carrier's obligations under section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 (the Act) be affected? Is CPN that a caller intends to block protected by section 222 of the Act, and would a rule that requires or allows carriers to divulge blocked CPN conflict with section 222 of the Act?

        8. Are there other means to ensure that legitimate privacy protections are not infringed should the Commissions exempt threatening calls from the privacy requirements of § 64.1601(b) of its rules? The Commission notes, for example, that CGB, in granting waivers of the Commission's rule, has imposed certain conditions and obligations on entities granted waivers of § 64.1601(b) of its rules in the past to ensure that restricted CPN information is disclosed only to authorized personnel for purposes of investigating threatening calls, and hence, any legitimate expectation of privacy by non-threatening callers is adequately protected. These conditions typically include: (1) The CPN on incoming restricted calls not be passed on to the line called; (2) any system used to record CPN be operated in a secure way, limiting access to designated telecommunications and security personnel; (3) telecommunications and security personnel may access restricted CPN data only when investigating phone calls of a threatening and serious nature, and shall document that access as part of the investigative report; (4) transmission of restricted CPN information to law enforcement agencies must occur only through secure communications; (5) CPN information must be destroyed in a secure manner after a reasonable retention period; and (6) any violation of these conditions must be reported promptly to the Commission. The Commission seeks comment on whether similar conditions should be imposed on any party that obtains restricted CPN pursuant to the proposed exemption. The Commission seeks comment on these and any other proposals to achieve the Commission's objective in assisting threatened parties and law enforcement officials in identifying threatening callers in a timely manner.
        9. The Commission seeks comment on whether circumstances have changed since the Commission originally adopted § 64.1601 of its rules. At the time, the Commission rejected arguments that parts of the rule would infringe on callers' expectations of privacy and anonymity. This was in part because the rule would allow callers to choose to block passage of CPN by choosing either per-call or per-line blocking. Would this logic hold true if the Commission were to allow call recipients to demand that CPN be revealed by asserting that the call contained a threat? In concluding that compelling the transmission of CPN would not violate any privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment, the Commission reasoned that callers have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their phone numbers because those numbers are voluntarily exposed to the telephone company's equipment. Does this hold true today, and would it be true if callers intending to block CPN delivery could have it unblocked by a called party's assertion that a call contained a threat?
        The JCC Temporary Waiver
        10. Based on the large numbers of recent threats phoned in to the JCCs and the record compiled in this matter, the Commission confirms that good cause continues to exist to maintain the temporary waiver of § 64.1601(b) of its rules granted to JCCs and the carriers who serve them for disclosure of CPN associated with threatening calls to JCCs.
        11. In the event the Commission amends its rules to recognize an exemption for threatening calls as proposed herein, this waiver, along with other similar prior waivers, will be encompassed within the protections afforded by that exemption. In the meantime, this temporary waiver ensures that JCCs are afforded certainty that they will continue to have the necessary protections from threatening calls.
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

        12. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in document FCC 17-76. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified in the DATES section. The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 17-76, including the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
        Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
        13. In recent years, media and law enforcement reports indicate that the number of threatening calls appears be increasing dramatically. In the past the Commission has addressed such situations on a case-by-case basis via a waiver process at the request of individual entities that report receiving threatening calls. In document FCC 17-76, the Commission takes steps to amend the Caller ID rules to ensure that law enforcement and threatened parties are not hindered in their ability to investigate and respond to threatening phone calls. The Commission recognizes the privacy interests of non-threatening callers that may have valid reasons to block their telephone numbers by limiting the proposal strictly to those situations that involve threatening calls of a serious and imminent nature while further limiting access to such restricted CPN information in the case of threatening calls only to those parties responsible for safety and security of the threatened party. The Commission proposes to amend the current process that necessitates addressing individual waiver requests on a case-by-case basis. The Commission proposes and seeks additional comment on ways to facilitate the ability of law enforcement and security personnel to investigate and identify callers while protecting the legitimate privacy interests of non-threatening callers.
        14. Specifically, the Commission proposes to amend § 64.1601(d)(4)'s of its rules current list of exemptions by adding a new section (iv) to read: (4) CPN delivery—“(iv) Is made in connection with a threatening call. Upon report of such a threatening call, the carrier will provide any CPN of the calling party to the called party and/or law enforcement for the purpose of identifying the responsible party.” The Commission proposes defining a “threatening call” as any called that includes a threat of serious and imminent unlawful action posing a substantial risk to property, life, safety, or health. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on how to facilitate the provision of CPN to threatened entities in a manner that minimizes administrative burdens on carriers while ensuring that such information is provided to the threatened party and law enforcement in a timely manner.
        15. For privacy purposes, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should require anyone reporting a threatening call for purpose of obtaining otherwise restricted CPN to do so in conjunction with a law enforcement agency to provide some assurance that the called party is not attempting to circumvent the privacy obligations of the rule by reporting a false threat. The Commission also inquiries into the possibility of excluding private individuals, who are not typically the target of mass phone threats, from this exemption in order to limit the potential for abuse. The Commission notes, for example, that CGB has imposed certain conditions and obligations on entities granted waivers of § 64.1601(b) of its rules in the past to ensure that restricted CPN information is disclosed only to authorized personnel for purposes of investigating threatening calls, and hence, any legitimate expectation of privacy by non-threatening callers is adequately protected. The Commission seeks comment on whether similar conditions should be imposed on any party that obtains restricted CPN pursuant to the proposed exemption.
        Legal Basis
        16. The proposed and anticipated rules are authorized under sections 1-4 and 201 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, and 201.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

        17. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. Under the Small Business Act, a “small business concern” is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the SBA. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 28.8 million small businesses, according to the SBA.
        Wireline Carriers
        18. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “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 communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
        19. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “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 communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of local exchange service are small businesses.
        20. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “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 communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses.
        21. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “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 communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and other local service providers are small entities.

        22. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in the RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. The Commission has therefore included small incumbent LECs in the RFA analysis, although it emphasizes that the RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
        23. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “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 communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of IXCs are small entities.
        24. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “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 communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of Other Toll Carriers can be considered small.
        Wireless Carriers
        25. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category. Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities. Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) services. Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Thus, using available data, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
        26. Satellite Telecommunications Providers. The category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” This category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities.
        27. All Other Telecommunications. All Other Telecommunications comprises, inter alia, “establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Establishments providing Internet services or VoIP services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,400 had annual receipts below $25 million per year. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are small entities.
        Resellers
        28. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition for Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS Code Category is Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these resellers can be considered small entities. According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of this total, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small entities.
        29. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. MVNOs are included in this industry. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these prepaid calling card providers can be considered small entities.
        30. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. MVNOs are included in this industry. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these prepaid calling card providers can be considered small entities.
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        31. As indicated above, document FCC 17-76 seeks comment on a proposed amendment to the rules to require carriers to make available, upon report of a threatening call from the called party, any CPN of the calling party to the called party and/or law enforcement for the purpose of identifying the responsible party. Until these requirements are defined in full, it is not possible to predict with certainty whether the costs of compliance will be proportionate between small and large providers. The Commission seeks to minimize the burden associated with reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for the proposed rules, such as modifying software, developing procedures, and training staff.
        32. Under the proposed rules, carriers will need to make the CPN of a calling party available to a threatened recipient of the call. They may need to work with law enforcement and the entity called to ensure there is a genuine threat in order to protect the privacy of the caller.
        Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
        33. 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.
        34. The Commission has proposed rules for carriers, upon report of a threatening call from the called party, to provide any CPN of the calling party to the called party and/or law enforcement for the purpose of identifying the responsible party. The Commission requested feedback from small businesses in document FCC 17-76, and seeks comment on ways to make the proposed rules less costly. The Commission asks how to facilitate the provision of CPN to threatened entities in a manner that minimizes the administrative burdens on carriers while ensuring that such information is provided to the threatened party and law enforcement in a timely manner. The Commission seeks the input of carriers on how to best facilitate the process of providing CPN information in a timely manner to parties that report a threatening call. To help carriers protect privacy interests, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should require anyone reporting a threatening call for purposes of obtaining otherwise restricted CPN to do so in conjunction with a law enforcement agency to provide some assurance that the called party is not attempting to circumvent the privacy obligations of the rule by reporting a false threat. The Commission also asks whether excluding private individuals would limit the potential for abuse. The Commission seeks comment on how to minimize the economic impact of its proposals, particularly to small businesses.
        35. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to document FCC 17-76 and the IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding.
        Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule
        36. None.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
          Claims, Communications common carriers, Computer technology, Credit, Foreign relations, Individuals with disabilities, Political candidates, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telegraph, Telephone.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

          PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

        1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           47 U.S.C. 154, 225, 254(k), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 715, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless otherwise noted.

        2. Amend § 64.1600 by adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:

          § 64.1600
          Definitions.

          (l) Threatening Call. The term “threatening call” means any call that includes a threat of serious and imminent unlawful action posing a substantial risk to property, life, safety, or health.

        3. Amend § 64.1601 by revising paragraph (d)(4) (ii) through (iv) to read as follows:

          § 64.1601
          Delivery requirements and privacy restrictions.

          (d) * * *
          (4) * * *
          (ii) Is used on a public agency's emergency telephone line or in conjunction with 911 emergency services, or on any entity's emergency assistance poison control telephone line;

          (iii) Is provided in connection with legally authorized call tracing or trapping procedures specifically requested by a law enforcement agency; or
          (iv) Is made in connection with a threatening call. Upon report of such a threatening call, the carrier will provide any CPN of the calling party to the called party and/or law enforcement for the purpose of identifying the responsible party.

      [FR Doc. 2017-15303 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P