        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No.: 180205127-8896-01]
        RIN 0648-BH68
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Proposed Rule To Expand the Scallop Dredge Exemption Areas Under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement modifications to the regulations implementing the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan to allow vessels issued a limited access general category individual fishing quota sea scallop permit to fish for scallops with small dredges in an expanded area. In addition, NMFS also proposes to modify open area days-at-sea trip reporting procedures for limited access scallop vessels. This action is intended to provide consistency, flexibility, and potential economic benefit to the scallop fleet. This rule notifies the public of these proposed measures and solicits comments on the potential scallop fishery management changes.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by December 3, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0118, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0118, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Scallop Dredge Exemption”.

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

          Copies of the proposed rule to expand the scallop dredge exemption areas, and of the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and preliminary Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR), are available from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. The EA/RIR is also accessible via the internet at: www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-5806.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Shannah Jaburek, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-282-8456.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Regulations implementing the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) include a bycatch control measure for the Gulf of Maine (GOM), Georges Bank (GB), and Southern New England (SNE) Regulated Mesh Areas (RMA). A vessel may not fish in these areas unless it is fishing under a multispecies or a scallop days-at-sea (DAS) allocation; is fishing with exempted gear; is fishing under the Handgear or Party/Charter permit restrictions; or is fishing in an exempted fishery (50 CFR 648.80(a)(3)(vi) and 50 CFR 648.80(b)(2)(vi)). The regulations found at 50 CFR 648.80(a)(8) give the Regional Administrator (RA) the authority to establish a new exempted fishery, or modify an existing exempted fishery, after consultation with the New England Fishery Management Council (Council), provided the bycatch of groundfish species is, or can be reduced to, less than five percent by weight of the total catch and the exempted fishery will not jeopardize the fishing mortality objectives of the NE Multispecies FMP.
        The limited access general category (LAGC) individual fishing quota (IFQ) fleet currently operates in four different exemption areas: GOM scallop dredge exemption area (SDEA); Great South Channel (GSC) SDEA; SNE SDEA; and the Mid-Atlantic Exemption Area (Figure 1). Recently, some members of the scallop industry requested that NMFS expand the GSC and GOM SDEAs to encompass all of GB and the GOM. As a result, at its meeting on June 20, 2017, the Council recommended that the RA use his authority to expand the GSC SDEA to encompass all of GB. The Council is considering an amendment to the Scallop FMP to develop comprehensive management measures for the GOM, and therefore, it did not recommend that we expand the GOM SDEA. This proposed rule proposes to adopt and implement the Council's recommendation.

          EP01NO18.021

        The current exemptions in the SDEAs allow LAGC IFQ vessels to fish within the designated SDEA using dredge gear that is less than 10.5 feet wide. The exemptions allow these vessels to retain only scallops and up to 50 lb of monkfish tails per trip. One purpose of this action is to expand the area where these exemptions apply. Because the Mid-Atlantic Exemption Area is not subject to the same exemption conditions under the NE Multispecies FMP as the SDEAs, no changes are being proposed for the Mid-Atlantic Exemption area.
        Based on consultations with the Council, the current SDEAs for the LAGC IFQ fleet would be expanded by eliminating the current GSC and SNE SDEAs designations and creating a new expanded exemption area called Georges Bank/Southern New England (GB/SNE) SDEA. The GB/SNE SDEA would encompass all fishing grounds south of 42°20′ N lat. and east of the Mid-Atlantic Exemption Area (Figure 2).

          EP01NO18.022

        This new expanded exemption area would provide continuity for IFQ scallop fishing and achieve the following benefits:
        • Include new areas that were originally part of the Nantucket Lightship Essential Fish Habitat Closure opened under the Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2) and are not currently accessible to the LAGC fleet; and
        • Include an area off the coasts of Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York that is not covered by current exemption areas, but where activity in the IFQ fishery has occurred.

        The primary area that would open to LAGC fishing as a result of this action is the GB Broad Stock Area (BSA), which is made up of statistical reporting areas 522, 525, 542, 561, 562, and 543 (a map of the statistical reporting areas is available from the Regional Administrator upon request). Because LAGC dredge fishing is not currently permitted in these areas, we analyzed potential effect on groundfish catch by LAGC dredge fishing in the expansion area by looking at limited access and LAGC observed hauls in the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) BSA and Statistical Area 521 from 2012 to 2016 (n=3,426). We determined that this information from these areas would be a valid way to estimate potential catch of groundfish in the newly expanded areas. In looking at this information, we excluded hauls that caught less than 40 lbs of scallop meats because these are not representative samples. Using the observer program information, we developed a ratio of groundfish discarded (D) to total catch (K) for both the limited access and LAGC fleets according to the following equation:

        Percent Multispecies = [D/K] × 100

        For this analysis, we summed the weights of groundfish caught on observed trips in the SNE/MA BSA and Statistical Area 521, and divided it into the total weight (n=374). Trips were aggregated across area, fishing year, and fleet. The ratios for both fleets were compared for differences using statistical analysis. We found that the limited access fleet had a bycatch rate of 0.52 percent of regulated species in the SNE BSA and the LAGC fleet had a bycatch rate of 0.53 percent of regulated species. There were no significant differences between bycatch rates of regulated species between the two fleets.
        Limited access D/K ratios were then calculated from observed trips within the GB BSA. We used additional statistical analysis to determine the range of the likely rate of groundfish bycatch by the LAGC fleet in the GB BSA. We found that the limited access fleet had a bycatch rate of 1.07 percent of regulated species. Based on the combination of these two analyses, the expected range of regulated species bycatch for the LAGC fleet in the GB BSA would be between 0.99 percent and 1.25 percent. Further, an examination of rates within fishing years and individual areas revealed that there were no years or areas where the D/K rate exceeded 5 percent.
        Based on data analysis perform by NMFS, the LAGC IFQ fishery is expected to meet the five-percent-or-less bycatch criteria for granting an exemption throughout the entirety of the GB and SNE RMAs. Further, because multispecies catch is controlled for the IFQ fleet by the sub-annual catch limits and there are accountability measures for yellowtail and windowpane flounder caught in the fishery, allowing the IFQ fleet to fish in the expanded area would not likely jeopardize fishing mortality limits for NE multispecies stocks.
        In addition, this expanded exemption would help offset the effects on the closure to fishing implemented by the OHA2. The GSC Habitat Management Area (HMA) was created under the OHA2 within the existing GSC SDEA. The GSC HMA prohibits the use of all mobile fishing gear, including scallop dredge gear, year-round. Creating the new GB/SNE SDEA would provide additional fishing area, fishing opportunity, and greater flexibility and simplicity to the IFQ fleet.

        This action also proposes to modify open area DAS trip reporting procedures by requiring that each limited access vessel submit a pre-landing notification form through its vessel monitoring system (VMS) unit prior to returning to port at the end of each DAS trip, including trips where no scallops were landed. At its June 13, 2018, meeting the Council requested that NMFS use its authority to require a VMS pre-landing notification on all limited access scallop trips to create reporting parity in the fishery with other limited access trips and LAGC trips where this notification is required. NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement may use this information to assist in monitoring vessel activity and to improve compliance with the regulations.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the NE Multispecies and Atlantic Sea Scallop FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        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 proposed rule would expand the Great South Channel (GSC) Scallop Dredge Exemption Area (SDEA), as requested by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council). The existing exemption allows the limited access general category (LAGC) individual fishing quota (IFQ) scallop fleet to operate in the GSC SDEA with dredge gear.
        The LAGC IFQ fleet currently operates in four different exemption areas: the Gulf of Maine (GOM), GSC, and Southern New England (SNE) SDEAs and the Mid-Atlantic Exemption Area. The current exemptions in the SDEAs allow LAGC IFQ vessels to fish within the designated SDEA using dredge gear that is less than 10.5 feet wide. The exemptions allow vessels to retain only scallops and up to 50 lb of monkfish tails per trip. The purpose this action is to expand the area where these exemptions apply. The Mid-Atlantic Exemption Area is not subject to the same exemption conditions under the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) as the SDEAs, therefore the restrictions under the proposed action would not apply.
        The proposed rule would:
        • Remove the GSC and SNE SDEAs and exempt LAGC IFQ scallop fishing using dredge gear that is less than 10.5-ft wide south of 42°20′ N lat. and east of 72°30′ W long.;
        • Provide continuity for IFQ scallop fishing south of 42°20′ N lat.;
        • Include new areas that were originally part of the Nantucket Lightship Essential Fish Habitat Closure opened under the Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2) and are not currently accessible to the LAGC fleet; and
        • Include an area off the coasts of Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York that is not covered by current exemption areas, but where the IFQ fishery has fished.
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires Federal agencies to consider disproportionality and profitability to determine the significance of regulatory impacts. The RFA defines a small business in the shellfish fishery as a firm that is independently owned and operated with receipts of less than $11 million annually. Individually-permitted vessels may hold permits for several fisheries, harvesting species of fish that are regulated by several different fishery management plans, even beyond those impacted by the proposed action. Furthermore, multiple permitted vessels and/or permits may be owned by entities affiliated by stock ownership, common management, identity of interest, contractual relationships, or economic dependency. For the purposes of this analysis, ownership entities are defined as those entities with common ownership as listed on the permit application. Only permits with identical ownership are categorized as an ownership entity. For example, if five permits have the same seven persons listed as co-owners on their permit applications, those seven persons would form one ownership entity, that holds those five permits. If two of those seven owners also co-own additional vessels, that ownership arrangement would be considered a separate ownership entity for the purpose of this analysis.
        On June 1 of each year, ownership entities are categorized as small. The current ownership dataset is based on the calendar year 2016 permits and contains average gross sales associated with those permits for calendar years 2014 through 2016. Matching the potentially impacted 2016 fishing year permits described above to calendar year 2016 ownership data results in 115 distinct ownership entities for the LAGC IFQ fleet. Less than three of the remaining LAGC IFQ entities are categorized as large entities.

          Number of Active Vessels and Business Entities With LAGC IFQ Permits

            Year
            Description
            Small business

            2014
            No. of Entities
            103

            No. of active LAGC IFQ Permits *
            111

            Average Revenue per affiliation
            $844,061

            Total Scallop revenue by vessels with IFQ permits
            $24,269,674

            Total Affiliation Revenue
            $86,938,240

            2015
            No. of Entities
            101

            No. of active LAGC IFQ Permits*
            108

            Average Revenue per affiliation
            $864,696

            Total Scallop revenue by vessels with IFQ permits
            $27,116,630

            Total Affiliation Revenue
            $87,334,298

            2016
            No. of Entities
            113

            No. of active LAGC IFQ Permits *
            120

            Average Revenue per affiliation
            $887,384

            Total Scallop revenue by vessels with IFQ permits
            $35,629,220

            Total Affiliation Revenue
            $100,274,409

          * Number of permits refer only to LAGC IFQ permits. Affiliations could include several vessels with permits other than scallop.

        The implementation of this action will expand the fishing area for all federal IFQ permit holders. Therefore, the small entities to which this action applies includes the majority of IFQ permit holders. NMFS does not expect the proposed action to have a substantial or disproportional negative impact on small businesses. NMFS expects the profits of regulated small businesses identified in this analysis to be positive relative to the no action alternative. If approved and implemented, this action would provide greater operational flexibility for permit holders than current SDEA regulations.
        Since there are cost savings resulting from this proposed rule, the impact on small entities would be a positive one. Permit holders would be able to maximize the profits of each fishing trip by having additional fishing grounds to choose from. Cost savings would be determined by individual permit holders based on the fuel cost variables associated with fishing trips. These costs would include the fuel needed to transit to the fishing grounds versus the fuel needed for fishing operations. If this rule is approved and implemented then individual permit holders would be able prioritize one cost over the other in order to maximize profits. For limited access vessels, the costs associated with the new requirement to send in a pre-landing notification report for open area trips is expected to be less than five dollars per fishing year and considered to be minimal in nature. Therefore, this rule 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.
        The proposed action contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The requirements will be submitted to OMB for approval under the NMFS Greater Atlantic Region Scallop Report Family of Forms (OMB Control No. 0648-0491).
        Under the proposed action, all 347 limited access scallop vessels would be required to submit a pre-landing notification form for each DAS trip through their VMS units. This information collection is intended to improve DAS trip monitoring, as well as create reporting consistency for all scallop trips.
        The pre-landing notification would include the following information: Operator's permit number; amount of scallop meats to be landed; the estimated time of arrival; the landing port and state where the scallops will be offloaded; and the vessel trip report (VTR) serial number recorded from that trip's VTR.
        The burden estimates for these new requirements apply to all limited access scallop vessels. In a given fishing year, NMFS estimates that for DAS reporting, each of the 313 full-time limited access scallop vessels would submit a pre-landing report 3 times (939 responses) and each of the 34 part-time limited access vessels would submit a pre-landing report up to 2 times (68 responses), for a total of 1,007 responses. Public reporting burden for submitting this pre-landing notification form is estimated to average 5 minutes per response with an associated cost of $1.25, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, 1,007 responses would impose total compliance costs of $1,259.

        Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to the Regional Administrator (See ADDRESSES above), and email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-5806.

        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

        This action contains no other compliance costs.
        Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With This Proposed Rule
        The proposed regulations do not create overlapping regulations with any state regulations or other Federal laws.

          List of Subjects 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: October 25, 2018.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEAST UNITED STATES

            Subpart A—General Provisions

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

         2. In § 648.10, revise paragraph (f)(4)(iii) to read as follows:

          § 648.10
           VMS and DAS requirements for vessel owners/operators.

          (f) * * *
          (4) * * *
          (iii) Scallop Pre-Landing Notification Form for limited access vessels fishing on scallop trips. A limited access vessel on a declared sea scallop trip must report through VMS, using the Scallop Pre-Landing Notification Form, the amount of any scallops kept on each trip, including declared trips where no scallops were landed. The report must be submitted no less than 6 hours before arrival, or, if fishing ends less than 6 hours before arrival, immediately after fishing ends. If scallops will be landed, the report must include the vessel operator's permit number, the amount of scallop meats in pounds to be landed, the number of bushels of in-shell scallops to be landed, the estimated time of arrival, the landing port and state where the scallops will be offloaded, and the VTR serial number recorded from that trip's VTR (the same VTR serial number as reported to the dealer). If no scallops will be landed, a limited access vessel on a declared sea scallop trip must provide only the vessel's captain/operator's permit number, the VTR serial number recorded from that trip's VTR (the same VTR serial number as reported to the dealer), and confirmation that no scallops will be landed. A limited access scallop vessel may provide a corrected report. If the report is being submitted as a correction of a prior report, the information entered into the notification form will replace the data previously submitted in the prior report. Submitting a correction does not prevent NMFS from pursuing an enforcement action for any false reporting. A vessel may not offload its catch from a Sea Scallop Access Area trip at more than one location per trip.

        3. In § 648.14, revise paragraph (k)(5)(i) to read as follows:

          § 648.14
           Prohibitions.

          (k) * * *
          (5) * * *
          (i) Violate any of the provisions of § 648.80, including paragraphs (a)(5), the Small-mesh Northern Shrimp Fishery Exemption Area; (a)(6), the Cultivator Shoal Whiting Fishery Exemption Area; (a)(9), Small-mesh Area 1/Small-mesh Area 2; (a)(10), the Nantucket Shoals Dogfish Fishery Exemption Area; (h)(3)(i), the GOM Scallop Dredge Exemption Area; (a)(12), the Nantucket Shoals Mussel and Sea Urchin Dredge Exemption Area; (a)(13), the GOM/GB Monkfish Gillnet Exemption Area; (a)(14), the GOM/GB Dogfish Gillnet Exemption Area; (a)(15), the Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted Whiting Fishery; (a)(16), the GOM Grate Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted Whiting Fishery; (h)(3)(ii), the Georges Bank/Southern New England Scallop Dredge Exemption Area; (a)(19), the Eastern and Western Cape Cod Spiny Dogfish Exemption Areas; (b)(3), exemptions (small mesh); (b)(5), the SNE Monkfish and Skate Trawl Exemption Area; (b)(6), the SNE Monkfish and Skate Gillnet Exemption Area; (b)(8), the SNE Mussel and Sea Urchin Dredge Exemption Area; (b)(9), the SNE Little Tunny Gillnet Exemption Area;(h)(3)(ii); or (b)(12), the SNE Skate Bait Trawl Exemption Area. Each violation of any provision in § 648.80 constitutes a separate violation.

          Subpart D—Management Measures for the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery

        4. In § 648.51, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:

          § 648.51
          Gear and crew restrictions

          (b) * * *
          (1) Maximum dredge width. The combined dredge width in use by or in possession on board such vessels shall not exceed 31 ft (9.4 m), measured at the widest point in the bail of the dredge, except as provided under paragraph (e) of this section, in § 648.59(g)(2), and the scallop dredge exemption areas specified in § 648.80(h). However, component parts may be on board the vessel such that they do not conform with the definition of “dredge or dredge gear” in § 648.2, i.e., the metal ring bag and the mouth frame, or bail, of the dredge are not attached, and such that no more than one complete spare dredge could be made from these component's parts.

        5. In § 648.62, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

          § 648.62
          Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) Management Program.
          (a) The NGOM scallop management area is the area north of 42°20′ N. lat. and within the boundaries of the Gulf of Maine Scallop Dredge Exemption Area as specified in § 648.80(h)(3)(i). To fish for or possess scallops in the NGOM scallop management area, a vessel must have been issued a scallop permit as specified in § 648.4(a)(2).

          Subpart F—Management Measures for the Northeast Multispecies Fishery

        6. In § 648.80,
        a. Revise paragraphs (a)(3)(vi), (b)(2)(vi), (h)(1);
        b. Remove and reserve paragraphs (a)(11), (a)(18), and (b)(11); and
        c. Add new paragraph (h)(3), to read as follows:

          § 648.80
           NE Multispecies regulated mesh areas and restrictions on gear and methods of fishing.
          (a) * * *
          (3) * * *
          (vi) Other restrictions and exemptions. A vessel is prohibited from fishing in the GOM or GB Exemption Area as defined in paragraph (a)(17) of this section, except if fishing with exempted gear (as defined under this part) or under the exemptions specified in paragraphs (a)(5) through (7), (a)(9) through (a)(16) and (a)(18) through (a)(19), (d), (e), (h), and (i) of this section; or if fishing under a NE multispecies DAS; or if fishing on a sector trip; or if fishing under the Small Vessel or Handgear A permit specified in § 648.82(b)(5) and (6), respectively; or if fishing under a Handgear B permit specified in § 648.88(a); or if fishing under the scallop state waters exemptions specified in § 648.54 and paragraph (h)(3)(i)of this section; or if fishing under a scallop DAS or general category trip in accordance with paragraph (h) of this section; or if fishing pursuant to a NE multispecies open access Charter/Party or Handgear permit specified in § 648.88; or if fishing as a charter/party or private recreational vessel in compliance with § 648.89. Any gear used by a vessel in this area must be authorized under one of these exemptions. Any gear on a vessel that is not authorized under one of these exemptions must be stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2

          (b) * * *
          (2) * * *

            (vi) Other restrictions and exemptions. A vessel is prohibited from fishing in the SNE Exemption Area, as defined in paragraph (b)(10) of this section, except if fishing with exempted gear (as defined under this part) or under the exemptions specified in paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(5) through (9), (b)(12), (c), (e), (h), and (i) of this section; or if fishing under a NE multispecies DAS; or if fishing on a sector trip; or if fishing under the Small Vessel or Handgear A permit specified in § 648.82(b)(5) and (6), respectively; or if fishing under a Handgear B permit specified in § 648.88(a); or if fishing under a scallop state waters exemption specified in § 648.54; or if fishing under a scallop DAS or General Category scallop permit in accordance with paragraph (h) of this section; or if fishing pursuant to a NE multispecies open access Charter/Party or Handgear permit specified in § 648.88; or if fishing as a charter/party or private recreational vessel in compliance with the regulations specified in § 648.89. Any gear on a vessel, or used by a vessel, in this area must be authorized under one of these exemptions or must be stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2.

          (h) Scallop vessels. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (h)(2) and (3) of this section, a scallop vessel that possesses a limited access scallop permit and either a NE multispecies Combination vessel permit or a scallop/multispecies possession limit permit, and that is fishing under a scallop DAS allocated under § 648.53, may possess and land up to 300 lb (136.1 kg) of regulated species per trip, provided that the amount of regulated species on board the vessel does not exceed the trip limits specified in § 648.86, and provided the vessel has at least one standard tote on board, unless otherwise restricted by § 648.86(a)(2).

          (3) Scallop dredge exemption areas for general category scallop permits

          (i) GOM Scallop Dredge Exemption Area. Unless otherwise prohibited in § 648.81, § 648.370, or § 648.371, vessels with a limited access scallop permit that have declared out of the DAS program as specified in § 648.10, or that have used up their DAS allocations, and vessels issued a General Category scallop permit, may fish in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, when not under a NE multispecies DAS, providing the vessel fishes in the GOM Scallop Dredge Exemption Area and complies with the requirements specified in paragraph (h)(3)(iii) of this section. The GOM Scallop Dredge Fishery Exemption Area is bounded on the west and north by the coastlines of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine, bounded on the east by the U.S.-Canada Maritime Boundary, and bounded on the south by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated:

            GOM Scallop Dredge Exemption Area

              Point
              N lat.
              W long.

              GOM1
              43°58′
              (1)

              GOM2
              43°58′
              67°22′

              GOM3
              43°41′
              68°00′

              GOM4
              43°12′
              69°00′

              GOM5
              42°49.5′
              69°40′

              GOM6
              42°20′
              69°40′

              GOM7
              42°20′
              (2)

              1 The intersection of 43°58′ N lat. and the U.S.-Canada Maritime boundary.

              2 The intersection of 42°20′ N lat. and the coastline of Massachusetts.

          (ii) Georges Bank/Southern New England Scallop Dredge Exemption Area. Unless otherwise prohibited in § 648.81, § 648.370, or § 648.371, vessels issued a LAGC scallop permit, including limited access scallop permits that have used up their DAS allocations, may fish in the Georges Bank/Southern New England Scallop Dredge Exemption Area, as defined under paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, when not under a NE multispecies or scallop DAS or on a sector trip, provided the vessel complies with the requirements specified in paragraph (h)(3)(iii) of this section and applicable scallop regulations in subpart D of this part.
          (A) Area Definition. The Georges Bank/Southern New England dredge exemption area is bounded on the north by 42°20′ N lat.; bounded on the east by the U.S.-Canada Maritime boundary and the outer limit of the US EEZ; bounded on the west by 72°30′ W long. from the outer limit of the US EEZ to the south-facing coastline of Long Island; and bounded on the northwest by the following points, connected as noted in the order listed:

            GB/SNE Scallop Dredge Exemption Area

              Point
              N lat.
              W long.
              Note

              1
              The south-facing coastline of Long Island
              72°30′ W
              From Point 1 to Point 2 following the coastline of Long Island.

              2
              41°00′ N
              The southeast-facing coast of Long Island
              From Point 2 to Point 3 following a straight line.

              3
              41°00′ N
              The 3 nautical mile line, approximately 71°51.841′ W long
              From Point 3 to Point 4 following the Submerged Lands Act (3 nautical mile) line.

              4
              41°4.25′ N
              The 3 nautical mile line, approximately 71°47.384′ W long
              From Point 4 to Point 5 following a straight line.

              5
              41°15′ N
              72°2.25′ W
              Point 5 represents Race Point, Fishers Island, NY. From Point 5 to Point 6 following a straight line northeasterly through Fishers Island, NY.

              6
              41°18.2′ N
              71°51.5′ W
              Point 6 represents Watch Hill, RI. From Point 6 to Point 7 following the coastlines of Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

              7
              42°20′ N
              The coastline of Massachusetts

          (B) [Reserved]
          (iii) Requirements. (A) A vessel fishing in the Scallop Dredge Fishery Exemption Areas specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section may not fish for, possess on board, or land any species of fish other than Atlantic sea scallops and up to 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight of monkfish per trip.
          (B) The combined dredge width in use by, or in possession on board, vessels fishing in the Scallop Dredge Fishery Exemption Areas may not exceed 10.5 ft (3.2 m), measured at the widest point in the bail of the dredge.
          (C) The exemption does not apply to the Cashes Ledge Closure Area or the Western GOM Area Closure specified in § 648.81(a)(3) and (4), respectively.

      [FR Doc. 2018-23790 Filed 10-31-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 216
        [Docket No. 180627584-9388-01]
        RIN 0648-BI00
        Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction and Operation of the Liberty Drilling and Production Island, Beaufort Sea, Alaska; Reopening of Public Comment Period

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), are reopening the public comment period on the proposed rule under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to authorize the taking of marine mammals, by mortality, serious injury, Level A harassment, and Level B harassment, incidental to the construction and operation of the Liberty Drilling and Production Island, Beaufort Sea, Alaska. The comment period for the proposed rule that published on May 29, 2019 closed on June 28, 2019. NMFS is reopening the public comment period until July 31, 2019, to provide the public with additional time to submit information and to comment on this proposed rule.

          DATES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by July 31, 2019. Comments received between the close of the first comment period on June 28, 2019 (84 FR 24926), and the reopening of the comment period on July 9, 2019 will be considered timely received.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, information, or data on the proposed rule, identified by NOAA-2019-0053, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-2019-0053, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Jolie Harrison, Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, Attn: Hilcorp Liberty Proposed Rule.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On May 28, 2019, we published a proposed rule to authorize the taking of marine mammals incidental to the construction and operation of the Liberty Drilling and Production Island, Beaufort Sea, Alaska. The proposed rule allowed for a 30-day public comment period, which ended on June 28, 2019. On June 26, 2019, we received a request from the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) requesting a 30-day extension of the comment period. The request indicated that the AEWC and North Slope Borough required more time to conduct their review of the proposed rule and associated documents and provide comments. Due to the timing of the request, it was not feasible to publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing a comment period extension prior to the close of the initial public comment period. Therefore, we are reopening the public comment period until July 31, 2019, to receive additional information and comments that may be relevant to any aspect of the proposal. Comments and information submitted during the prior comment period will be fully considered in the preparation of the final rule and need not be resubmitted.
        NMFS also takes this opportunity to note that, due to changes in Hilcorp's proposed schedule for this proposed project, the dates of the proposed regulations would be shifted one year later than the dates in the proposed rule. Under this revised schedule, the proposed regulations would be valid for a period of 5 years from December 1, 2021, through November 30, 2026. This change shifts all of the proposed dates for the project one year later, but it does not otherwise affect any of NMFS' analyses or conclusions.

          Dated: July 3, 2019.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2019-14529 Filed 7-8-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 181031994-8999-01]
        RIN 0648-XG608
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Adjustment to Atlantic Herring Specifications and Sub-Annual Catch Limits for 2019

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This action proposes an in-season adjustment to the Atlantic herring specifications and sub-annual catch limits for 2019. These adjustments are necessary to reduce 2018 herring catch limits that would otherwise remain in effect for 2019. This action is intended to prevent overfishing of the herring resource while minimizing negative social and economic impacts of reduced catch limits.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received by December 31, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0131, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0131, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Adjustments to Atlantic Herring Specifications for 2019.”

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

          Copies of this action, including the Supplemental Environmental Assessment and the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (SEA/RIR/IRFA) prepared in support of this action, are available from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. The supporting documents are also accessible via the internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9272.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        We implemented 2016-2018 Atlantic herring specifications on November 1, 2016 (81 FR 75731), as recommended by the New England Fishery Management Council. The specifications included an overfishing limit (OFL) of 111,000 mt for 2018. The acceptable biological catch (ABC) for 2018 was also set at 111,000 mt. The ABC was based on the Council's interim control rule, set equal to the OFL with at least a 50-percent probability of preventing overfishing, and consistent with the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee's (SSC) advice. The annual catch limit (ACL) for 2018 was 104,800 mt.

        In June 2018, a new Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) for herring, reviewed by the Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC), was completed. The assessment concluded that although herring was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring in 2017, poor recruitment would likely result in a substantial decline in herring biomass. The stock assessment estimated that recruitment had been at historic lows during the most recent 5 years (2013-2017). The assessment projected that biomass could increase, after reaching a low in 2019, if recruitment returns to average levels, but that herring catch would need to be reduced, starting in 2018, to prevent overfishing and lower the risk of the stock becoming overfished. The final assessment summary report is available on the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) website (www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/).
        The Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP) allows us to make in-season adjustments to the herring specifications and sub-ACLs, after consultation with the Council, consistent with the Herring FMP's objectives and other FMP provisions. In August 2018, at the request of the Council, we used an in-season adjustment to reduce the 2018 ACL from 104,800 mt to 49,900 mt to reduce the risk of overfishing (83 FR 42450, August 22, 2018). This ensured at least a 50-percent probability of preventing overfishing in 2018. However, assessment projections indicated that catch would need to be further reduced in 2019 to prevent overfishing and lower the risk of the stock becoming overfished.
        By regulation, herring catch limits for 2018, as modified by the 2018 in-season adjustment, will remain in effect until replaced. At its September 2018 meeting, the Council adopted a new ABC control rule for the herring fishery developed in Amendment 8 to the Herring FMP and recommended we use an in-season adjustment to reduce 2018 herring catch limits for 2019 while it develops new specifications starting in 2020. The Council was scheduled to begin developing the 2019-2021 herring specifications at its September meeting and take final action on the new specifications at its December 2018 meeting. The Council planned for us to implement the new specifications during 2019, based on the new ABC control rule it adopted in Amendment 8. However, because of the time required for the Council to prepare the necessary documentation and for us to review and approve the control rule in Amendment 8 and implement final approved measures, the new specifications would not have been effective early enough to prevent catch from exceeding the lower catch limits required to prevent overfishing in 2019.
        Proposed Adjustments to Herring Specifications
        We are proposing to adjust the current herring specifications and sub-ACLs for 2019, consistent with the Herring FMP's objectives of preventing overfishing while maximizing social and economic benefits. We will strive to publish the final rule as close as possible to the start of the new fishing year in January 2019. The 2019 specifications and sub-ACLs proposed in this action, as well as the Council's recommendations for 2019, are shown in Table 1.

          Table 1—2019 Atlantic Herring Specification and Sub-ACL Alternatives (mt)

            Alternative 1—no action
            Alternative 2—council-recommended

            Alternative 3—proposed action

            Overfishing Limit
            111,000
            30,688
            30,688

            Acceptable Biological Catch
            111,000
            21,266
            30,688

            Management Uncertainty
            6,200
            6,200
            6,200

            Optimum Yield/ACL
            49,900 *
            15,065 *
            24,488 *

            Domestic Annual Harvest
            104,800
            15,065
            24,488

            Border Transfer
            4,000
            0
            0

            Domestic Annual Processing
            100,800
            15,065
            24,488

            U.S. At-Sea Processing
            0
            0
            0

            Area 1A Sub-ACL
            27,743 * (55.6%)
            4,354 * (28.9%)
            7,077 * (28.9%)

            Area 1B Sub-ACL
            2,639 (5.3%)
            647 (4.3%)
            1,053 (4.3%)

            Area 2 Sub-ACL
            8,200 (16.4%)
            4,188 (27.8%)
            6,808 (27.8%)

            Area 3 Sub-ACL
            11,318 (22.7%)
            5,876 (39%)
            9,550 (39%)

            Fixed Gear Set-Aside
            295
            39
            64

            Research Set-Aside
            3% of sub-ACLs
            3% of sub-ACLs
            3% of sub-ACLs

          * If New Brunswick weir fishery catch through October 1 is less than 4,000 mt, then 1,000 mt will be subtracted from the management uncertainty buffer and added to the ACL and Area 1A Sub-ACL.

        We consulted with the Council on potential 2019 specifications during the Council's September 2018 meeting. At that meeting, the Council recommended that we:
        • Use the most recent assessment and projections to develop the 2019 specifications.
        • Use the ABC control rule approved by the Council in Amendment 8.
        • Maintain the sub-annual catch limits for herring management areas based on the proportions allocated in the 2016-2018 specifications package.
        ○ Area 1A: 28.9 percent.
        ○ Area 1B: 4.3 percent.
        ○ Area 2: 27.8 percent.
        ○ Area 3: 39 percent.
        • Proportionally reduce the fixed gear set-aside allocation which is based on a small weir fishery west of Cutler, ME.
        • Set the border transfer (which allows U.S. vessels to transfer herring to Canadian vessels to be processed as food) at 0 mt.
        Based on the best available science, we are proposing to reduce the OFL for 2019 to 30,688 mt. The Herring FMP specifies that the OFL must be equal to catch resulting from applying the maximum fishing mortality threshold to a current or projected estimate of stock size. When the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring, this is usually the fishing rate supporting maximum sustainable yield. Catch that exceeds this amount would result in overfishing. An OFL of 30,388 mt would ensure at least a 50-percent probability of preventing overfishing in 2019. This OFL is based on projections by the SAW/SARC, as updated by NOAA's NEFSC staff using 2018 catch, and was recommended by both the SSC and the Council.
        The Herring FMP specifies that the ABC may be equal to or less than the OFL depending on scientific uncertainty concerning stock size estimates, variability around recruitment estimates, and consideration of ecosystem issues. For the 2019 ABC reduction, we are proposing to continue applying the interim control rule that was used to set ABC in recent specifications (2016-2018). Our proposed ABC would have a 50-percent probability of preventing overfishing in 2019 and would be set equal to the OFL. In contrast, the SSC and Council recommended reducing the ABC for 2019 based on the new control rule the Council adopted in Amendment 8 that accounts for herring's role in the ecosystem. Our proposed ABC is 30,688 mt and the SSC/Council recommended ABC is 21,266 mt.
        Our proposed ABC prevents overfishing and accounts for scientific uncertainty in the short-term until we are able to consider the Council's recommendation for addressing scientific uncertainty in a long-term control rule in Amendment 8. The approach to continue using the interim control rule for 2019 is independent of and involves different considerations than our consideration of the Council's recommended control rule in Amendment 8. We expect the Council to submit Amendment 8 to us for review and approval in late 2018. Additionally, while the 2018 assessment showed that the probability of the stock becoming overfished has increased since the last stock assessment, our proposed ABC is intended to reduce the risk of the stock becoming overfished.
        We are proposing to maintain the current management uncertainty buffer (6,200 mt), as recommended by the Council, so the resulting ACL would be 24,488 mt. This ACL is almost 10,000 mt higher than the ACL that would result from the Council-recommended ABC (15,065 mt). Allowing this additional harvest helps to achieve optimum yield (OY) by accounting for social, economic, and ecological factors, specifically the need to conserve herring biomass while mitigating severe economic hardship on the herring industry. Because the majority of herring catch is bait for the lobster fishery, we expect this additional harvest to help minimize the negative economic impacts associated with bait shortages and higher bait prices on the lobster fishery. The management uncertainty buffer, in conjunction with low fishery closure thresholds (95 percent of the ACL and 92 percent of a sub-ACL), has prevented herring catch from ever exceeding the ABC, which further minimizes the probability of overfishing.
        We are proposing to maintain the sub-ACL allocations used in the recent specifications (2016-2018) for 2019. This means that 28.9 percent of the ACL would be allocated to Area 1A, 4.3 percent allocated to Area 1B, 27.8 percent allocated to Area 2, and 39 percent allocated to Area 3. These sub-ACL allocations were recommended by the Council for past specifications, as well as for 2019, because they do not substantially impact one stock component (inshore versus offshore) more than the other while maximizing opportunities for the fishery to achieve OY. Adjusting the sub-ACL allocations for the herring management area may have impacts beyond those we considered in this action. For that reason, we are seeking public comment on the proposed sub-ACL allocation versus other possible sub-ACL allocations that would be consistent with the Herring FMP's objectives.

        Based on the Council's recommendations, we are also proposing to reduce border transfer to 0 mt and reduce the fixed gear set-aside to 64 mt for 2019. Border transfer is a processing quota and is the maximum amount of herring that can be transshipped to Canada via Canadian carrier vessels for human consumption. Border transfer has been under-utilized in recent years, and there has been no border transfer since 2015. Reducing the border transfer to 0 mt for 2019 would ensure all herring caught in U.S. waters are available to U.S. Federal dealers for lobster bait or human consumption. Additionally, we are proposing that the fixed gear set-aside be reduced proportionally to the Area 1A sub-ACL to 64 mt. The Herring FMP allows up to 500 mt of the Area 1A sub-ACL to be allocated for the fixed gear fisheries in Area 1A (weirs and stop seines) that occur west of 67°16.8′ W long (Cutler, Maine). This set-aside is available for harvest by fixed gear within the specified area until November 1 of each fishing year. Any portion of this allocation that has not been harvested by November 1 is transferred back to the sub-ACL allocation for Area 1A. The proposed reduction of the fixed gear set aside is intended to allow additional herring harvest to be available to both fixed and mobile gears in Area 1A to help ensure OY is achieved. Like border transfer, the fixed gear set-aside has been under-utilized in recent years. Fixed gear landings tracked against the set-aside have averaged less than 12 mt in the past 5 years.
        The Herring FMP requires we adjust for catch overages and underages in a subsequent year. Total catch in 2017 did not reach or exceed any of the management area sub-ACLs, so typically we would carryover those underages, or a portion of the underages, to increase sub-ACLs in 2019. However, to help ensure catch does not exceed the ABC/OFL in 2019 and to help prevent overfishing, we are proposing to not increase any sub-ACLs in 2019 based on carryover from underages in 2017.
        All other herring specifications for 2019, including the river herring and shad catch caps, would remain unchanged from 2018. While our proposed adjustments to the herring specifications in 2019 are generally consistent with the Council's recommendations, our proposed ABC and the resulting ACL and sub-ACLs are not as conservative as those recommended by the Council. However, the specifications proposed in this action are expected to prevent overfishing and reduce the risk of the stock becoming overfished. We expect that implementing an ABC lower than the 30,688 mt ABC proposed in this action would not increase the probability of preventing overfishing or the stock from becoming overfished enough to outweigh the increased financial hardship on the herring and lobster fisheries. If herring specifications are too low, they may preclude a viable fishery in 2019 and some businesses may not be sustainable and may fail. Our proposed specifications for 2019 are intended to balance preventing overfishing and maintaining a viable herring fishery to achieve OY, while we consider approval and implementation of a long-term ABC control rule in Amendment 8 to the Herring FMP.
        Herring Research Set-Aside Announcement
        We are soliciting public comment on the Herring Research Set-Aside (RSA) program awards for 2019-2021. The Herring RSA Program allocates up to 3 percent of each management area sub-ACL annually, as established by the Council in Amendment 1 to the Herring FMP (72 FR 11251, March 12, 2007). Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs) exempting vessels from certain herring management regulations have been routinely approved since 2007 to support compensation fishing that funds herring-related research consistent with RSA priorities identified by the Council. By continuing to issue these EFPs we would facilitate compensation fishing in support of the projects funded under the 2019 Herring RSA Program. Herring RSA proposals for 2019 are currently under review with the NEFSC, with selections expected in late November or early December of this year. RSA compensation fishing may be allowed as early as January 2019.
        Consistent with previous herring RSA compensation fishing EFPs, vessels would be authorized to harvest herring RSA after a herring management area sub-ACL had been caught and the directed herring fishery is limited to a 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) limit of herring per day/trip. It would also allow vessels to harvest RSA during times when the sub-ACLs were not seasonally available for harvest, specifically during January through May in Area 1A and January through April in Area 1B. RSA grant recipients would be required to meet all EFP application requirements prior to the issuance of the EFPs.
        If approved, the EFP applicants may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be issued without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
        Classification
        The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Herring FMP, national standards and other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and other applicable law.
        This proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 because this action contains no implementing regulations.

        NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603. The IRFA describes the economic impact that this proposed rule would have on small entities, including small businesses, and also determines ways to minimize these impacts. The IRFA includes this section of the preamble to this rule and analyses contained in the SEA/RIR/IRFA for this action. A copy of the full analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
        Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered and Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule
        This action proposes in-season adjustments to the herring specifications and sub-ACLs for 2019. A complete description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and are not repeated here.
        Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which This Proposed Rule Would Apply
        The RFA recognizes three kinds of small entities: Small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of the RFA only, the small business criteria in the finfish fishing industry (NAICS 114111) is a firm that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation, with gross annual receipts of $11 million or less. Small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions are not directly regulated by this action.

        There are five permit categories in the herring fishery: (1) Limited access permit for all management areas (Category A); (2) limited access permit for access to Areas 2 and 3 only (Category B); (3) limited access incidental catch permit for 25 mt per trip (Category C); (4) an open access incidental catch permit for 3 mt per trip (Category D); and (5) an open access permit for limited access mackerel permit holders authorizing up to 9 mt per trip (Category E) in Areas 2 and 3.

        In 2017 there were a total of 1,566 permitted herring vessels. Of those, 1,434 were exclusively Category D vessels. Of the remaining 132 permitted herring vessels, 22 belonged to large businesses. Every Category B permit was also authorized for Category C, and all but one Category E permitted vessel also carried a Category D authorization. We included Category E vessels that also have Category D authorization in the analysis. Table 2 presents the counts of permitted vessels by category along with their affiliated entity's small or large business status (the status of the company that holds the herring permit).

          Table 2—Number of Herring Permits by Category, 2015-2017

            Herring permit categories
            Number of herring permits
            2015
            Large
            Small
            2016
            Large
            Small
            2017
            Large
            Small

            A
            5
            32
            5
            30
            6
            30

            B/C
            4
            4
            4
            4
            4
            4

            C (exclusive)
            3
            37
            3
            37
            3
            37

            D (exclusive)
            112
            1222
            115
            1306
            114
            1320

            E
            9
            39
            9
            40
            9
            39

            Total
            133
            1334
            136
            1417
            136
            1430

          Source: NMFS.

        Table 3 refines the counts from Table 2 to include only those vessels that had revenue from herring at least once in the 3-year period of analysis. In 2017, there were 4 large businesses and 69 small that had revenue from herring.

          Table 3—Number of Herring Permits With Herring Revenue, 2015-2017

            Herring permit categories
            Number of herring permits
            2015
            Large
            Small
            2016
            Large
            Small
            2017
            Large
            Small

            A
            4
            20
            4
            19
            4
            19

            B/C
            0
            2
            0
            2
            0
            3

            C (exclusive)
            0
            11
            0
            9
            0
            12

            D (exclusive)
            0
            27
            0
            29
            0
            31

            E
            0
            4
            0
            1
            0
            4

            Total
            4
            64
            4
            60
            4
            69

          Source: NMFS

        Finally, Table 4 defines the small entities affected by this proposed action—small businesses with a Herring Category A, B, C, or E permit and revenue from herring during the 2015-2017 period of analysis. There were 37, 31, and 38 such vessels in 2015, 2016, and 2017 respectively.

          Table 4—Affected Small Entities, Permitted Herring Vessels With Herring Revenue, 2015-2017

            Herring permit categories
            Number of herring permits
            2015
            Large
            Small
            2016
            Large
            Small
            2017
            Large
            Small

            A
            4
            20
            4
            19
            4
            19

            B/C
            0
            2
            0
            2
            0
            3

            C (exclusive)
            0
            11
            0
            9
            0
            12

            E
            0
            4
            0
            1
            0
            4

            Total
            4
            37
            4
            31
            4
            38

          Source: NMFS.

        To better understand the impact of this action on the affected small businesses, we compared the revenue from herring fishing to total revenue brought in by the entity (business) that holds the herring permit. The 17 to 18 small entities with Category A permits show the most dependence on the herring fishery, with 49.75 percent to 62.03 percent of their revenue coming from herring landings. The 4 small Category E permitted entities have the least dependence on the herring fishery with less than one percent of total entity revenue coming from the herring fishery.

        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        This proposed rule does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
        Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule
        This action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
        Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statues and Which Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
        We are proposing to adjust the current herring specifications and sub-ACLs for 2019, consistent with the Herring FMP's objectives of preventing overfishing while maximizing social and economic benefits. Non-preferred alternatives would likely not accomplish these objectives for this action as well as the proposed action.
        Alternative 1 would not achieve the stated objectives of the action because it has a less than 50-percent probability of preventing overfishing in 2019 and, thus, is inconsistent the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Additionally, Alternative 1 would negatively impact the herring stock by increasing the probability that it would become overfished. The primary difference between Alternative 2 (Council-recommended) and Alternative 3 (proposed action) are the proposed specifications for ABC and the resulting ACL for 2019. The ABC associated with the proposed action (30,688 mt) is higher than the ABC associated with Alternative 2 (21,266 mt). After applying the management uncertainty buffer (6,200 mt) to the ABC, the resulting ACL associated with the proposed action (24,488 mt) is almost 10,000 mt higher than the ACL associated with the Alternative 2 (15,065 mt).
        We expect that implementing an ABC lower than 30,688 mt in 2019 would not increase the probability of preventing overfishing or the stock from becoming overfished enough to outweigh the increased financial hardship on the herring and lobster fisheries. If the ACL is too low, it may preclude a viable fishery in 2019 and some businesses may not be sustainable and may fail. The proposed ABC for 2019 is intended to balance preventing overfishing and maintaining a viable herring fishery to achieve OY, while we consider approval and implementation of a long-term ABC control rule in Amendment 8 the Herring FMP.

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

          Dated: November 27, 2018.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2018-26097 Filed 11-29-18; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 61
        [CC Docket No. 96-262; FCC 01-146]
        Access Charge Reform; Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether tariffed competitive LEC-provided access service for toll free, or “8YY,” numbers should be benchmarked to a different figure than the Commission has adopted for CLEC tariffed switched access traffic generally.

          DATES:
          Comments are due by June 20, 2001. Reply comments are due by July 20, 2001. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information collections discussed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are due by June 20, 2001. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information collections by July 20, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, or via the Internet to vhuth@omb.eop.gov. Parties should also send one paper copy of their filings to Jane Jackson, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room 5-A225, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jeffrey H. Dygert, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-1500.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 96-262 released on April 27, 2001. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20554.
        This FNPRM contains proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the proposed information collections contained in this proceeding.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        The FNPRM contains a proposed information collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the information collection(s) contained in this FNPRM, as required by the PRA, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments on the proposed and/or modified information collections discussed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are due by June 20, 2001. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information collections by July 20, 2001.
        Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
        Synopsis of FNPRM
        I. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

        1. Shortly before we issued the final rule that is published elsewhere in this issue, AT&T asserted, for the first time in this proceeding, that CLEC originating 8YY, toll-free traffic should be subject to a different benchmark scheme than other categories of switched access traffic. AT&T argues that the benchmark for CLEC 8YY traffic should immediately move to the access rate of the competing ILEC and that CLECs should be mandatorily detariffed above that point. In support of this position, AT&T asserts that certain CLECs with higher access charges attempt to obtain as customers end users that typically generate high volumes of 8YY traffic, such as hotels and universities. AT&T further asserts that some CLECs then “install limited, high-capacity facilities designed only to handle 8YY traffic” and “share their access revenues with the customers generating the [8YY] traffic” through agreements that provide for payments to the end user based on the level of 8YY traffic it generates. AT&T contends that such arrangements do not promote the development of local exchange competition. Rather, it argues that these arrangements merely create the incentive for end users artificially to generate heavy 8YY traffic loads, which, in turn generate revenues for CLECs and their end-user customers.
        2. Given the paucity of record evidence on this issue, we seek comment generally on AT&T's proposal immediately to benchmark CLEC 8YY access services to the ILEC rate. Is the generation of 8YY traffic in order to collect greater access charges, as AT&T complains, something that the Commission should attempt to address through a rulemaking, or should the IXCs be left to address specific instances of abuse directly with the relevant CLEC, with the aid of the Commission's complaint process where appropriate? In this regard, we note AT&T's assertion that one recent case of apparent abuse, confirmed by WorldCom, arose from the sequential dialing of over 800,000 8YY calls by a single end user. It appears that, even without the rule it now requests, AT&T may, through discussions with the relevant CLEC, have been able to act to prevent payment for improperly generated 8YY access minutes.
        3. We seek comment on the magnitude of the potential problem with 8YY traffic that AT&T identifies. AT&T estimates that approximately 30% of its CLEC access traffic is generated by 8YY aggregators that, it speculates, have revenue-sharing agreements with their end-user subscribers. Is this an accurate figure across the industry? How many minutes and what premium over the competing ILEC rate does this represent? More generally, what proportion of CLEC access traffic is composed of originating 8YY service? What proportion of CLEC end users have 8YY revenue-sharing agreements with their carrier?
        4. Are CLECs continuing to offer 8YY revenue-sharing agreements to their new end users, or are they currently available only to end users that negotiated them at some point in the past? Do CLECs notice a difference in the 8YY traffic patterns generated by end users with revenue-sharing agreements, compared to those end users without such agreements? What are the typical terms of a revenue-sharing agreement? Do they provide for payment of a per-minute fee for 8YY traffic, a per-call fee or some other arrangement? What is the magnitude of the fee paid? How, if at all, will the Commission's imposition of the switched-access benchmark affect CLECs' existing revenue-sharing agreements?
        5. We are concerned that AT&T's proposed solution to the problem it identifies may paint with too broad of a brush. Does the existence of some CLECs' revenue-sharing agreements justify immediately limiting CLEC tariffed access rates for all 8YY traffic to the rate of the competing ILEC? Should the Commission instead impose such a limitation only on those CLECs that actually offer revenue-sharing agreements to their end users?
        6. Additionally, we seek comment on AT&T's assertion that it promotes neither appropriate policy goals nor the development of local exchange competition when a CLEC carries an end user's 8YY traffic without also providing that end user with local exchange service or other types of access service. Would we be justified in immediately tying 8YY access tariffs to the ILEC rate for all CLECs, regardless of the services that they provide to their end users? Or would such a rule be appropriate, if at all, only for those CLECs that carry exclusively their end users' 8YY traffic? How does the presence or absence of revenue-sharing agreements, discussed, fit into the analysis of whether a CLEC's service offerings support restricting their tariffed 8YY access rates to the competing ILEC's rate?
        7. We question whether, at bottom, CLEC 8YY traffic is inherently worthy of lower access charges than are other types of access traffic. A CLEC provides a closely similar service and uses similar or identical facilities, regardless of whether it provides originating 8YY access service, or terminating or originating access service for conventional 1+ calls. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether the presence of certain incentives to generate artificially high levels of 8YY traffic necessarily justifies reducing the tariffed rate for all such traffic immediately to the ILEC rate. Should we instead presume that there exists some “legitimate” level of CLEC 8YY traffic that should be treated as other categories of access traffic and subject to a lower benchmark only the traffic that exceeds this “legitimate” level? If this is an appropriate alternative, how should we define the level at or below which 8YY access traffic may be subject to the higher tariff benchmark that we permit for other categories of CLEC access service? Additionally, we seek comment on any other reasons that CLEC 8YY traffic should be subjected to a different tariff benchmark than are other categories of CLEC access traffic. We also seek comment on whether, if we adopt a different benchmark for 8YY access services, there are any different tariff filing requirements or timetables that we might adopt to account for the resources available to small entities. Commenters should indicate whether and how such provisions would be consistent with our goals in this proceeding, including our obligation to ensure just and reasonable rates for interstate access services.
        II. Procedural Matters
        A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

        8. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on this Notice, which are set out. The Commission will send a copy of this Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, this Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
        1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Action
        9. In this Further Notice, the Commission sets a benchmark for CLEC interstate switched access services that declines over time to the competing ILEC rate. In the Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on a proposal offered by AT&T to move immediately the benchmark for CLEC 8YY access services to the competing ILEC rate and to mandatorily detariff CLEC interstate access rates for such 8YY traffic above that point. The Commission seeks comment on the nature and extent of the problem alleged by AT&T and on various means of addressing CLEC 8YY access service rates. Through the Further Notice, the Commission seeks to ensure that CLEC rates for 8YY access services are just and reasonable.
        2. Legal Basis

        10. The legal basis for the action as proposed for this rulemaking is contained in sections 1-5, 201-205, 208, 251-271, 403, 502, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 201-205, 208, 251-271, 403, 502, and 503.

        3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Action May Apply
        11. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. To estimate the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, we first consider the statutory definition of “small entity” under the RFA. The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the term “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, unless the Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities. Under the Small Business Act, a “small business concern” is one that is independently owned and operated; is not dominant in its field of operation; and meets any additional criteria established by the SBA. The SBA has defined a small business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (Radiotelephone Communications) and 4813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they have no more than 1,500 employees.
        12. The rules adopted in this order apply to CLECs and IXCs. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small CLECs or small IXCs. The closest applicable definition for these carrier-types under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of these carriers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that telecommunications carriers file annually in connection with the Commission's universal services requirements. According to our most recent data, 349 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive access services or competitive local exchange services (referred to collectively as CLECs) and 204 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of interexchange services. Among these companies, we estimate that approximately 297 of the CLECs have 1500 or fewer employees and that approximately 163 of the IXCs have 1500 or fewer employees. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of these carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are 297 or fewer small CLECs, and 163 or fewer small IXCs that may be affected by the decisions and rules adopted in this order.
        4. Description of Proposed Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        13. In the CLEC Access Order, the Commission sets a benchmark for CLEC interstate switched access services that declines over time to the competing ILEC rate. Through the Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should move immediately the benchmark for CLEC 8YY access services to the competing ILEC rate and mandatorily detariff CLEC interstate access rates for such 8YY access services above that point. Adopting this proposal may require CLECs to refile tariffs with the Commission or to negotiate contracts with IXCs, rather than filing tariffs.
        5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
        14. 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 the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
        15. As mentioned, through the Further Notice, the Commission seeks to ensure that CLEC rates for 8YY access services are just and reasonable. Our proposals may affect CLECs, by altering the rates that they may tariff for 8YY access services. At the same time, our proposals might affect indirectly IXCs that must pay access charges for 8YY traffic. Because there are both small entity IXCs and small entity CLECs—with conflicting interests in this proceeding—we expect that small entities may be affected by any approach that we adopt. We seek an approach that both reduces opportunities for regulatory arbitrage and minimizes the burdens placed on carriers.
        16. Among the alternatives proposed, the Commission seeks comment whether it should move immediately the benchmark for CLEC 8YY access services to the competing ILEC rate and mandatorily detariff CLEC interstate access rates for such 8YY access services above that point. The Commission seeks comment, to the extent that it finds that a separate benchmark is appropriate for 8YY access rates, on whether it should instead impose such a limitation only on those CLECs that offer revenue-sharing agreements to their end users or only on those CLECs that do not offer local exchange services in addition to their 8YY access services. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should take no additional action and whether IXCs should be left to address specific instances of abuse directly with the relevant CLEC, with the aid of the Commission's complaint process where appropriate.
        17. We also seek comment on whether, if we adopt a different benchmark for 8YY access services, there are any different tariff filing requirements or timetables that we might adopt to account for the resources available to small entities. We ask commenters to indicate whether and how such provisions would be consistent with our goals in this proceeding, including our obligation to ensure just and reasonable rates for interstate access services.
        6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules
        18. None.
        B. Comment Filing Procedures

        19. Pursuant to §§ 1.415, 1.419, and 1.430 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments by June 20, 2001, and reply comments by July 20, 2001. All filings should refer to CC Docket No. 96-262. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number, CC Docket No. 96-262. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to <ecfs@fcc.gov>, and should include the following words in the body of the message: “get form <your e-mail address>.” A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.
        20. Parties that choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-B204, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Regardless of whether parties choose to file electronically or by paper, parties should also serve: (1) Jane Jackson, Common Carrier Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5-A225, Washington, DC 20554; and (2) the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS), 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 857-3800, with copies of any documents filed in this proceeding. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
        21. Parties that choose to file by paper should also submit their comments on diskette to the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. These submissions should be on a 3.5-inch diskette formatted in a Windows-compatible format using Microsoft Word or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in “read only” mode. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding (including the docket number, CC Docket No. 96-262), type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase: “Disk Copy—Not an Original.” Each diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file.
        22. Comments and reply comments must comply with § 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the Commission's rules. We also direct all interested parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments.

        23. That this proceeding will continue to be governed by “permit-but-disclose” ex parte procedures that are applicable to non-restricted proceedings under 47 CFR 1.1206. This will provide an opportunity for all interested parties to receive notice of the various issues raised in ex parte presentations made to the Commission in this proceeding; it will also allow interested parties to file responses or rebuttals to proposals made on the record in this proceeding. We find that it is in the public interest to continue this proceeding's designation as “permit-but-disclose.”
        24. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio recording, and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 voice, (202) 418-7365 TTY, or <bmillin@fcc.gov>. This further notice of proposed rulemaking can also be downloaded in Microsoft Word and ASCII formats at <http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/cpd>.
        III. Ordering Clauses
        25. Pursuant to sections 1-5, 201-205, 303(r), 403, 502, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
        26. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

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

      [FR Doc. 01-12756 Filed 5-18-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P