        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [I.D. 051700B]
        South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Hearing

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public hearing.

          SUMMARY:
          The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene a public hearing regarding draft options for Amendment 3 to the Golden Crab Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The amendment addresses gear restrictions, permitting processes, limits on vessel size, crew safety and zoning/participation conflicts.
          The Council will take action on its proposed Amendment 3 during the full Council session at its June 2000 meeting.

          DATES:
          The hearing will be held in June. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific date and time of the public hearing.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of the draft amendment are available from Kim Iverson, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699; telephone: 843-571-4366. The draft options paper will also be available at the public hearing. The public hearing will be held in Florida. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific hearing location.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kim Iverson, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699; telephone: 843-571-4366; fax: 843-769-4520; E-mail address: kim.iverson@safmc.noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Council is considering gear modifications that would extend the use of wire cable for main lines through December 31, 2002, and adjust the size of the escape panel or door; allow vessel size to increase by 20 percent; and remove the 5000-pound harvest requirement for the biannual permit. To address zoning and participation conflicts, the Council is considering creating a sub-zone for smaller vessels in the southern zone that would be reviewed on an annual basis. The Council is also considering allowing vessels from the middle and southern zones to fish in the northern zone for a limited time.
        Time and Location of Public Hearing
        The public hearing regarding draft options for Amendment 3 to the Golden Crab Fishery Management Plan will be held at the following location, date, and time.
        June 12, 2000, 6:00 p.m., Cheeca Lodge, Mile Marker 82, U.S. Highway 1, Islamorada, FL 33036, Telephone: 800-327-2888 or 305-664-4651.

        Copies of the draft options paper can be obtained from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
        Special Accommodations

        These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) by June 5, 2000.

          Dated: May 26, 2000.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-13751 Filed 6-1-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 140214138-4138-01]
        RIN 0648-XD139
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Bluefish Fishery; 2014 Atlantic Bluefish Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed specifications; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes specifications for the 2014 Atlantic bluefish fishery, including an annual catch limit, total allowable landings, a commercial quota and recreational harvest limit, and a recreational possession limit. The intent of this action is to establish the allowable 2014 harvest levels and other management measures to achieve the target fishing mortality rate, consistent with the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before April 28, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0026, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0026, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to John Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

            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 publically accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of the specifications document, including the supplemental Environmental Assessment and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/IRFA) and other supporting documents for the specifications, are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The specifications document is also accessible via the Internet at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Carly Bari, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9224.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The Atlantic bluefish fishery is managed cooperatively by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission). The management unit for bluefish specified in the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) is U.S. waters of the western Atlantic Ocean. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and J. The regulations requiring annual specifications are found at § 648.162.
        The FMP requires the Council to recommend, on an annual basis, the annual catch limit (ACL), annual catch target (ACT), and total allowable landings (TAL) that will control fishing mortality (F). An estimate of annual discards is deducted from the ACT to calculate the TAL that can be harvested during the year by the commercial and recreational fishing sectors. The FMP requires that 17 percent of the ACT be allocated to the commercial fishery, with the remaining 83 percent allocated to the recreational fishery. The Council may also recommend a research set-aside (RSA) quota, which is deducted from the bluefish TAL (after any applicable transfer) in an amount proportional to the percentage of the overall TAL as allocated to the commercial and recreational sectors.

        The annual review process for bluefish requires that the Council's Bluefish Monitoring Committee and Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) review and make recommendations based on the best available scientific information, including, but not limited to, commercial and recreational catch/landing statistics, current estimates of fishing mortality, stock abundance, discards for the recreational fishery, and juvenile recruitment. Based on the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee and SSC, the Council makes a recommendation to the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator. Because this FMP is a joint plan, the Commission also meets during the annual specification process to adopt complementary measures.

        The Council's recommendations must include supporting documentation concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations. NMFS is responsible for reviewing these recommendations to ensure that they achieve the FMP objectives, and may modify them if they do not. NMFS then publishes proposed specifications in the Federal Register, and after considering public comment, NMFS will publish final specifications in the Federal Register.
        Proposed Specifications
        Updated Model Estimates

        According to Amendment 1 to the FMP, overfishing for bluefish occurs when fishing mortality exceeds the fishing mortality rate that allows maximum sustainable yield (FMSY), or the maximum F threshold to be achieved. The stock is considered overfished if the biomass (B) falls below the minimum biomass threshold, which is defined as 1/2 BMSY. Amendment 1 also established that the long-term target F is 90 percent of FMSY (FMSY = 0.19; therefore Ftarget = 90 percent of FMSY, or 0.17), and the long-term target B is BMSY = 324 million lb (147,052 mt).

        An age-structured assessment program (ASAP) model for bluefish was approved by the 41st Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC 41) in 2005 to estimate F and annual biomass. In September 2013, the ASAP model was updated in order to estimate the current status of the bluefish stock (i.e., 2012 biomass and F estimates) and enable the Monitoring Committee and SSC to recommend 2014 specifications using landings information and survey indices through the 2012 fishing year. The results of the assessment update were as follows: (1) An estimated stock biomass for 2012, B2012 = 277.359 million lb (125,808 mt); and (2) an estimated fishing mortality rate for 2012, F2012 = 0.097. Based on the updated 2012 estimate of bluefish stock biomass, the bluefish stock is not considered overfished: B2012 is slightly less than BMSY, but well above the minimum biomass threshold, 1/2 BMSY , of 162 million lb (73,526 mt). Estimates of F have declined from 0.41 in 1991 to 0.097 in 2012. The updated model results also conclude that the Atlantic bluefish stock is not experiencing overfishing; i.e., the most recent F (F2012 = 0.097) is less than the maximum F overfishing threshold specified by SARC 41 (FMSY = 0.19). Bluefish was declared rebuilt in 2009.
        2014 Catch Limits
        Following the framework implemented by the Council's ACL Omnibus Amendment, the Council recommended that ACL be set to acceptable biological catch (ABC) for 2014 (24.432 million lb, 11,082 mt). No deductions were recommended to account for management uncertainty; therefore, ABC=ACL=ACT. The ACT is initially allocated between the recreational fishery (83 percent) and the commercial fishery (17 percent). After deducting an estimate of recreational discards (commercial discards are considered negligible), the recreational harvest limit (RHL) would be 16.927 million lb (7,678 mt) and the commercial quota would be 4.153 million lb (1,884 mt).
        The FMP specifies that, if 17 percent of the TAL is less than 10.5 million lb, and the recreational fishery is not projected to land its harvest limit for the upcoming year, the commercial fishery may be allocated up to 10.5 million lb as its quota, provided that the combination of the projected recreational landings and the commercial quota does not exceed the TAL. The RHL would then be adjusted downward so that the TAL would be unchanged.
        The Council projected an estimated annual recreational harvest for 2014 of 13.179 million lb (5,978 mt). As such, it is expected that a transfer of up to 3.340 million lb (1,515 mt) from the recreational sector to the commercial sector could be approved. This option represents the preferred alternative recommended by the Council in its specifications document. The actual transfer amount in the final rule, if any, will depend on the final 2013 recreational landings data.
        RSA
        The Council preliminarily approved two research projects that would utilize bluefish RSA quota and forwarded them to NOAA's Grants Management Division. The Council preliminarily approved 632,418 lb (287 mt) of RSA quota for use by these projects during 2014. Proportional adjustments of these amounts to the commercial and recreational allocations would result in a final commercial quota of 7.269 million lb (3,297 mt), and a final RHL of 13.179 million lb (5,978 mt). NMFS staff will update the commercial and recreational allocations based on the final 2014 RSA awards as part of the final rule for the 2014 specifications.
        Proposed Recreational Possession Limit
        The Council recommended, and NMFS proposes, to maintain the current recreational possession limit of up to 15 fish per person to achieve the RHL for 2014.
        Proposed State Commercial Allocations
        The proposed state commercial allocations for the recommended 2014 commercial quota are shown in Table 1, based on the percentages specified in the FMP. These quotas do not reflect any adjustments for quota overages that may have occurred in some states in 2013. Any potential deductions for states that exceeded their quota in 2013 will be accounted for in the final rule.

          Table 1—Proposed Bluefish Commercial State-by-State Allocations for 2014 (Including RSA Deductions)

            State
            Percent share
            2014 Council-Proposed commercial quota (lb)

            2014 Council-Proposed commercial quota (kg)

            ME
            0.6685
            48,593
            22,041

            NH
            0.4145
            30,130
            13,667

            MA
            6.7167
            488,233
            221,459

            RI
            6.8081
            494,877
            224,472

            CT
            1.2663
            92,047
            41,752

            NY
            10.3851
            754,888
            342,411

            NJ
            14.8162
            1,076,980
            488,510

            DE
            1.8782
            136,525
            61,927

            MD
            3.0018
            218,199
            98,973

            VA
            11.8795
            863,514
            391,683

            NC
            32.0608
            2,330,480
            1,057,088

            SC
            0.0352
            2,559
            1,161

            GA
            0.0095
            691
            313

            FL
            10.0597
            731,233
            331,682

            Total
            100.0001
            7,268,949
            3,297,140

        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Bluefish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        These proposed specifications are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
        An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.
        Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered

        A description of the action and why it is being considered are contained at the beginning of this preamble and in the SUMMARY.
        Statement of the Objective of, and Legal Basis for, This Proposed Rule

        The statement of the objective and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this preamble and in the SUMMARY.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which This Proposed Rule Would Apply
        An active participant in the commercial sector was defined as any vessel that reported having landed 1 or more pound (0.45 kg) in the Atlantic bluefish fishery in 2011. The active participants in the commercial sector were defined using two sets of data. The Northeast seafood dealer reports were used to identify 742 vessels that landed bluefish in states from Maine through North Carolina in 2011. However, the Northeast dealer database does not provide information about fishery participation in South Carolina, Georgia, or Florida. South Atlantic Trip Ticket reports were used to identify 768 vessels that landed bluefish in North Carolina and 791 vessels that landed bluefish on Florida's east coast in 2011.1
           Bluefish landings in South Carolina and Georgia were near zero in 2011, representing a negligible proportion of the total bluefish landings along the Atlantic Coast. Therefore, this analysis assumed that no vessel activity for these two states took place in 2011. In recent years, approximately 2,000 party/charter vessels may have been active in the bluefish fishery and/or have caught bluefish.

            1 Some of these vessels were also identified in the Northeast dealer data; therefore, double counting is possible.

        Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of This Proposed Rule
        There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action.
        Federal Rule Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This Proposed Rule
        NMFS is not aware of any relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
        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
        Small businesses operating in commercial and recreational (i.e., party and charter vessel operations) finfish fisheries have been defined by the Small Business Administration as firms with gross revenues of up to $19.0 and $7.0 million, respectively. The categories of small entities likely to be affected by this action include commercial and charter/party vessel owners holding an active Federal permit for Atlantic bluefish, as well as owners of vessels that fish for Atlantic bluefish in state waters. All federally permitted vessels fall into the definition of small businesses; thus, there would be no disproportionate impacts between large and small entities as a result of the proposed rule.
        When the 2014 specifications were set last year, there were three alternatives considered in the IRFA of the Original EA. Since the bluefish stock was updated in 2013, the Council recommended an additional alternative to be considered for the 2014 specifications through a supplement to the Original EA. The IRFA in the Draft Supplemental EA for this action addresses two alternatives (including a no action/status quo alternative) for the 2014 Atlantic bluefish fishing year. No additional alternatives are considered in this action because there is no other alternative that would both achieve the stated goals and objectives of the FMP and minimize cost to the fishery. Any other alternative considered would need to be more restrictive than the proposed action due to the specifications process and the National Standard 1 guideline requirement that catch limits cannot exceed the SSC's recommended ABC. Both quota alternatives considered in this analysis are based on various commercial harvest levels for bluefish (a low and medium level of harvest). For analysis of impacts of both alternatives, the maximum potential RSA quota of 3 percent of the TAL (703,385 lb (319 mt) for the No Action Alternative and 632,418 lb (287 mt) for the Preferred Action Alternative) was used. For analysis of impacts of the No Action Alternative, the recommended transfer of 4.342 million lb (1,970 mt) from the recreational sector to the commercial sector was used. For analysis of impacts of the Preferred Action Alternative, the transfer of 3.340 million lb (1,515 mt) from the recreational sector to the commercial sector was used.

        The No Action Alternative would implement a TAL of 23.446 million lb (10,635 mt). The Preferred Action Alternative would implement a TAL of 21.081 million lb (9,562 mt). The proposed 2014 Atlantic bluefish specification alternatives are shown in Table 2, along with the resulting commercial quota and RHL after any applicable transfer described earlier in the preamble and after deduction of the RSA quota. The Preferred Action Alternative (Council's preferred) would allocate 7.269 million lb (3,297 mt) to the commercial sector, and 13.179 million lb (5,978 mt) to the recreational sector for 2014. The No Action Alternative would allocate 8.674 million lb (3,934 mt) to the commercial sector and leave 14.069 million lb (6,381 mt) available to the recreational sector.

          Table 2—Proposed 2014 Atlantic Bluefish Specification Alternatives for TAL, Commercial Quota, and RHL

            Year
            Alternatives
            TAL (million lb)

            TAL (mt)

            Commercial quota (million lb)

            Commercial quota (mt)

            RHL (million lb)

            RHL (mt)

            2014
            No Action
            23.446
            10,635
            8.674
            3,934
            14.096
            6,381

            Preferred Action
            21.081
            9,562
            7.269
            3,297
            13.179
            5,978

        Commercial Fishery Impacts
        To assess the impact of the alternatives on commercial fisheries, the Council conducted a threshold analysis and analysis of potential changes in ex-vessel gross revenue that would result from each alternative, using Northeast dealer reports and South Atlantic Trip Ticket reports.
        Under the No Action Alternative, nine vessels were projected to incur revenue losses of more than 5 percent, while 147 vessels would incur revenue losses of less than 5 percent, and 586 vessels would incur no revenue losses. The Preferred Action Alternative would likely result in quota reductions for vessels in New York and Massachusetts, which could have negative economic impacts. Under the Preferred Action Alternative, 69 vessels were projected to incur revenue losses of more than 5 percent, 594 vessels would incur losses of less than 5 percent, and 79 vessels would see no revenue changes. The majority of vessels with greater than 5 percent of revenue losses had gross sales of $10,000 or less, which may indicate that the dependence on fishing for some of these vessels is small. If commercial quota is transferred from a state or states that do not land their entire bluefish quota for 2014, as was done in 2011 and frequently in previous years, the number of affected entities could change, thus changing the adverse economic impact on vessels landing in the state(s) receiving quota transfers for both alternatives.
        Recreational Fishery Impacts
        Under the No Action Alternative, the recommended RHL for the recreational sector (14.069 million lb, 6,381 mt) is approximately 22 percent above the recreational landings for 2011 (11.499 million lb, 5,216 mt). The Preferred Action Alternative RHL (13.179 million lb, 5,978 mt) is approximately 14 percent above the recreational landings for 2011. It is not anticipated that the recommend RHL will result in decreased demand for party/charter boat trips or affect angler participation in a negative manner. Overall, it is not expected that the final recreational management measures will affect gross revenues of businesses providing goods and services to anglers participating in the party/charter boat, private/rental boat, and shore fisheries for bluefish.
        RSA Quota Impacts
        For analysis of each alternative, the maximum RSA quota amount (3 percent of the TAL) was deducted from the initial overall TAL adjusted 2014 commercial quotas and RHLs under each alternative. Specifications of RSA quota are expected to benefit all participants in the fishery as a result of improved data and information for management or stock assessment purposes.

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

          Dated: April 7, 2014.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2014-08202 Filed 4-10-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 070323069-7069-01;I.D. 031907A]
        RIN 0648-AV46
        Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
           NMFS issues a proposed rule to establish catch accounting requirements for persons who receive, buy, or accept Pacific whiting (whiting) deliveries of 4,000 pounds (lb) (1.18 mt) or more from vessels using mid-water trawl gear during the primary whiting season. This action would improve NMFS's ability to effectively monitor the whiting fishery such that catch of whiting and incidentally caught species, including overfished groundfish species, do not result in a species' optimum yield (OY), harvest guideline, allocations, or bycatch limits being exceeded. This action would also provide for timely reporting of Chinook salmon take as specified in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Biological Opinion for Chinook salmon catch in the Pacific groundfish fishery. This action is consistent with the conservation goals and objectives of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP).

          DATES:
           Comments must be received by April 24, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
           You may submit comments, identified by I.D. 031907A by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: HakeProcessors.nwr@noaa.gov: Include I.D 031907A in the subject line of the message.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Becky Renko
          • Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, Attn: Becky Renko

          Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action may be obtained from the Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070. 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 Northwest Region (see Addresses) and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285 Send comments on collection-of-information requirements to the NMFS address above and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington DC 20503 (Attn: NOAA Desk Officer).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Becky Renko, phone: 206-526-6110, fax: 206-526-6736, or e-mail: becky.renko@noaa.gov.

            Electronic Access: This proposed rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register's Web site at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html. Background information and documents are available at the NMFS Northwest Region Web site at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-Management/index.cfmand at the Council's Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The proposed action is to provide for electronic catch accounting and other monitoring improvements for the shore-based sector of the whiting fishery. The proposed action defines requirements for recordkeeping, reporting, catch sorting, and scale use for persons who receive, buy, or accept unsorted deliveries (generally processors or transporters) of 4,000 lb (1.8 mt) or more of whiting from vessels using midwater trawl gear during the primary season for the shore-based sector. This action is intended to address difficulties that occurred during the 2006 whiting season that could compromise the ability to account for the catch of target, incidental and prohibited species, and which could compromise the ability to manage groundfish species OYs, trip limits, bycatch limits, and Chinook salmon take in relation to Biological Opinion specifications.

        The shore-based whiting fishery needs to have a catch reporting system in place that: provides timely reporting of catch data so that whiting, overfished species and Chinook salmon can be adequately monitored and accounted for inseason; and, specifies catch sorting and weight requirements necessary to maintain the integrity of fish ticket values used to manage groundfish species OYs, trip limits, and bycatch limits. This proposed rule is part of an ongoing process to develop a maximized retention program for the shoreside whiting sector. The rule is intended to address shoreside monitoring that will be implemented in 2007 in conjunction with the issuance of exempted fishing permits (EFPs) to vessels. At its April 2007 meeting, the Council will consider recommending a rulemaking for 2008 and beyond for a related action titled “A Maximized Retention and Monitoring Program for the Whiting Shoreside Fishery.”
        Each year since 1992, EFPs have been issued to vessels in the whiting shoreside fishery to allow unsorted catch to be retained and landed at shoreside processing facilities. The EFPs have specified the terms and conditions that participating vessels must follow to be included in the EFP program. The EFPs have routinely required vessels to deliver EFP catch to state-designated processors. Designated processors were identified by each of the states and were processors that had signed written agreements that specified the standards and procedures they agreed to follow when receiving EFP catch.
        The whiting fishery is managed under a “primary” season structure where vessels harvest whiting until the sector allocation is reached and the fishery is closed. This is different from most West Coast groundfish fisheries, which are managed under a “trip limit” structure, where catch limits are specified by gear type and species (or species group) and vessels can land catch up to the specified limits. Incidental catch of groundfish in the whiting fishery, however, is managed under a trip limit structure. Vessels fishing under the whiting EFPs are allowed to land unsorted catch at shoreside processing facilities, including species in excess of the trip limits and species such as salmon that would otherwise be illegal to have on board the vessel. Without an EFP, groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.306(a)(2) and (a)(6) require vessels to sort their catch at sea and discard as soon as practicable all prohibited species (including salmon and halibut), protected species, and groundfish species in excess of cumulative limits at sea.
        Overall management of the salmon and groundfish fisheries has significantly changed since the early 1990's, when EFPs were first used in the whiting fishery. Since the beginning of the shore-based whiting fishery in 1992, new salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESUs) have been listed under the ESA, and several groundfish species that are incidentally taken in the whiting fishery have been declared overfished. In addition, “bycatch limit” management of overfished species has been used to allow the whiting fishery full access to the whiting OY. With the bycatch limit management approach, a bycatch limit amount is specified for an overfished species and the whiting fishery is allowed incidental catch of that species up to that amount. If a bycatch limit for any one of the species limits is reached before the whiting allocations are attained, all non-tribal commercial sectors of the whiting fishery must be closed.
        The Shoreside Whiting Observation Program (SHOP), a coordinated monitoring effort by the States of Oregon, Washington, and California, was established to provide catch data from vessels fishing under the EFPs. Although the program's structure and priorities have changed over the years, the SHOP has had the primary responsibility of monitoring the shore-based whiting fishery and providing catch data to NMFS for management of the fishery. In 2006, SHOP experienced ongoing difficulties in obtaining timely catch reports from some designated processors. Delays in catch reports can compromise the ability to adequately monitor the catch of whiting, bycatch limits, and in particular the bycatch limits for the overfished species that are most frequently encountered in the whiting fishery. Having the ability to closely monitor bycatch limits and close the whiting fishery if a limit is reached prevents the whiting fishery from affecting the other groundfish fisheries and reduces the risk of exceeding overfished species OYs.
        In 2007, the shore-based whiting fishery will be managed under an EFP, similar to what was in place in 2006. Therefore, NMFS believes that it is necessary to implement this rule to prevent catch accounting difficulties experienced in 2006. During 2007, NMFS and the Council will continue to develop the Maximized Retention and Monitoring Program for the whiting Shoreside Fishery, which is intended to be implemented by regulation before the 2008 fishery.
        This proposed rule would require persons called “first receivers” who receive, buy, or accept whiting deliveries of 4,000 lb (1.8 mt) or more from vessels using mid-water trawl gear during the primary whiting season (generally, these are whiting shoreside processing facilities, but also include entities that truck whiting to other facilities) to have and use a NMFS-approved electronic fish ticket program and to send daily catch reports to the Pacific States Marine Fish Commission (PSMFC). The electronic fish tickets are used to collect information similar to the information currently required in state fish receiving tickets or landing receipts (state fish tickets). The daily reports would be used to track catch allocations, bycatch limits and prohibited species catch. First receivers would provide the computer hardware, software (Microsoft Office with Access 2003 or later,) and internet access necessary to support the electronic fish ticket program and daily e-mail transmissions. Electronic fish tickets must be submitted within 24 hours from the date the catch is received upon landing. Because 2007 will be the first year that the electronic fish ticket program will be used, the proposed action includes waiver provisions and defines alternative means for submitting fish tickets to meet the daily reporting needs of the fishery, should there be performance issues with software or other system failures beyond a receiver's control.
        Federal regulations would not replace any state recordkeeping or reporting requirements. Regulations at 50 CFR 660.303 would continue to require vessels to make and/or file, retain, or make available any and all reports (i.e., logbooks, fish tickets, etc.) of groundfish harvests and landings as required by the applicable state law. At this time, only the State of Oregon allows printed and signed copies of the electronic fish tickets to be submitted as the official state fish ticket. The States of Washington and California could continue to require the submission of paper forms as issued by the state.
        In addition to the sorting requirements specified at §§ 660.306(a)(7) and 660.370(h)(6)(i), sorting requirements would be specified for whiting catch received by first receivers, since these deliveries may contain groundfish in excess of trip limits, unmarketable groundfish, prohibited species, and protected species that are not addressed by current groundfish regulations. In addition, Federal groundfish regulations would be revised to require that deliveries from vessels participating in the whiting shoreside fishery must be adequately sorted by species or species group and the catch weighed following offloading from the vessel and prior to transporting the catch. If sorting and weighing requirements specified in Federal regulation are more specific than state fish ticket requirements, the first receivers would be required to record the species that are sorted and weighed on all electronic fish ticket submissions.

        First receivers would be required to report, on electronic fish tickets, actual and accurate weights derived from scales. Though there are considerable differences in the requirements between states, each state has requirements for scale performance and testing established by state agencies for weights and measures. How these requirements apply to seafood processors varies between states.
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the FMP and has preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the RFA (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the analysis follows:
        The whiting shoreside fishery has been managed under an EFPs since 1992. However, an EFP is supposed to be a short-term, temporary and exploratory response to issues that potentially should be addressed by permanent regulations. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would be the first step towards replacing the EFP with permanent regulations as it would put in place new Federal catch accounting requirements. Although EFPs will continue to be issued in 2007, the proposed regulations are intended to supplement EFP activities with regulations that mainly affect the processors or other first receivers of whiting EFP catch. The proposed regulations will require the submission of electronic fish tickets within 24 hours of landing, the sorting of catch at time of offload and prior to transporting catch from the port of fish landing, the use of state approved scales with appropriate accuracy ranges for the amount of fish being weighed, and that all weights reported on the electronic fish tickets be from such scales. The proposed Federal regulations mirror or enhance existing state regulations and associated paper-based fish ticket systems or put into Federal regulation provisions associated with current EFP management. This action is expected to provide more timely reporting and improved estimates of the catch of whiting, ESA listed salmon species, and overfished groundfish species. The whiting shoreside fishery needs to have a catch reporting system in place to: adequately track the incidental take of Chinook salmon as required in the ESA Section 7 Biological Opinion for Chinook salmon catch in the whiting fishery; and to track the catch of target and overfished groundfish species such that the fishing industry is not unnecessarily constrained and that the sector allocation and bycatch limits are not exceeded. This action is intended to address catch accounting concerns that occurred during the 2006 season that compromised the ability to account for the catch of target, incidental and prohibited species.
        In 2006 there were 23 processors that purchased whiting from fishermen with ten of these processors purchasing from 4 lb (2 kg) to 8,000 lb (3,629 kg) of whiting. The other thirteen processors all processed at least 1 million lb (454 mt) of whiting each. During 2006 these thirteen processors purchased 280 million lb (127,007 mt) of whiting worth $17.4 million ex-vessel, and 110 million lb (49,896 mt) of other fish and shellfish worth $78.5 million. Over the 2000-2006 period there were seventeen different facilities that processed at least 1 million lb (454 mt) in any one year. These processors can be classified into “Main” and “Other” plants. Over this period there were eight “Main” processors that processed 1 million lb (454 mt) in at least seven of the eight years during this period. Because of entry and exit of the processors, the composition of the “Other” processor group changes significantly in most years. In 2005, there were no “Other” processors while in 2006, five new processors entered, only one of which had operated before. Over the 2000-2006 period, the “Main” processors typically harvest 90 to 100 percent of the whiting.
        The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including fish harvesting entities, for-hire entities, fish processing businesses, and fish dealers. A business involved in fish harvesting is a small business if it is independently owned and operated and not dominant in the field of operation (including its affiliates) and if it has combined annual receipts not in excess of $3.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. For-hire vessels are considered small entities, if they have annual receipts not in excess of $6 million. A seafood processor is a small business if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and employs 500 or fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations world wide. Finally, a wholesale business servicing the fishing industry (fish dealer) is a small business if it employs 100 or few persons on a full time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide.
        The SBA has established “principles of affiliation” to determine whether a business concern is “independently owned and operated.” In general, business concerns are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party controls or has the power to control both. The SBA considers factors such as ownership, management, previous relationships with or ties to another concern, and contractual relationships, in determining whether affiliation exists. Individuals or firms that have identical or substantially identical business or economic interests, such as family members, persons with common investments, or firms that are economically dependent through contractual or other relationships, are treated as one party with such interests aggregated when measuring the size of the concern in question. The SBA counts the receipts or employees of the concern whose size is at issue and those of all its domestic and foreign affiliates, regardless of whether the affiliates are organized for profit, in determining the concern's size.

        Based on the SBA criteria and a review of West Coast processor company websites, state employment websites, newspaper articles, personal communications, and the “Research Group” publications (2006), it appears that the thirteen major whiting processors can be grouped into nine businesses under the SBA criteria based on analysis of affiliates. Three of the nine businesses generated at least $500 million in sales in 2003. One of these businesses reported employing 4,000 people, and it is presumed that the other two companies have employment levels much higher than 500 employees. Four of the nine businesses have employment estimates that range from 100-250 employees, while the remainder appear to be in the 50-100 range (because of missing data, one of these relatively small businesses may have less than 50 employees). In terms of the SBA size standard of 500 employees, there are six “small” businesses that participated in the shorebased whiting processing sector in 2006. Annual sales information for these “small” businesses is unavailable. Total ex-vessel revenues (the value of the fish purchased from fisherman) is available. In 2006, these six businesses purchased approximately $40 million in whiting and other fish and shellfish from West Coast fishermen. This compares to the $60 million in whiting and other fish and shellfish purchased by the three large businesses.
        In sizing up all the potential impacts, implementation of these rules will require firms to bear minimal costs in reporting data electronically that they already are required to report on paper. In terms of equipment purchases, it is expected that there will be few if any instances where processors have to purchase computers or software because this is equipment that most business already have. It is also not expected that processors will need to purchase scale equipment as the presumption about this rule is that it enhances existing state regulations that already require processors to use scales in conducting their businesses but may not specifically require the use of scale weights in reporting fisheries data to state agencies. There may be some interest by a few small processors to weigh and count fish at locations other than the point of first landing, but these instances appear to be few.
        In light of the recent economic improvement going on in the whiting fisheries, the proposed regulations are reasonable and affordable and do not appear to place small businesses at a competitive disadvantage to large businesses. The major benefits of this program from a conservation and management context is an allowance for more liberal management to obtain better and quicker data for use in quota monitoring and a potential reduction in costs of monitoring, and to move management measures for monitoring whiting from a temporary “EFP” to formal regulations. In the short term, from an industry and fishing community perspective, better management of the whiting shoreside fishery minimizes the risk that sector quotas and bycatch limits are not exceeded in ways that may lead to closure of other fisheries thus affecting other small businesses. In the medium term, the proposed rule will aid development of an Individual Fishing Quota (IQ) catch accounting system. IQs are expected to increase profitability in the fishing industry and improve the sustainability of fishing communities. In the long term, the entire fishing industry and its communities including associated small businesses will benefit by reducing the risk of overfishing and increasing the potential that the rebuilding schedules for the overfished species are maintained, thus increasing the chances that current levels of groundfish ex-vessel revenues of $70 million can be restored to levels above $100 million which were consistently seen in the early to mid 1990's. There were no other alternatives to the proposed action that would have accomplish the stated objectives. Under Status Quo, general catch sorting requirements and prohibited actions would continue to be specified for limited entry trawl vessel; each state would continue to specify requirements for landing reports.

        This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements approved under OMB control number 0648-0203, as well as a new collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. Public reporting burden for preparing and submitting electronic fish tickets is estimated to average ten minutes per individual response for whiting shoreside processors/first receivers in the states of California and Washington, and two minutes per individual response for whiting shoreside processors/first receivers in the State of Oregon, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. 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 Northwest Region at the ADDRESSES above, and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-7285.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to 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. There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
        NMFS issued Biological Opinions under the ESA on August 10, 1990, November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 15, 1999 pertaining to the effects of the Pacific Coast groundfish FMP fisheries on Chinook salmon (Puget Sound, Snake River spring/summer, Snake River fall, upper Columbia River spring, lower Columbia River, upper Willamette River, Sacramento River winter, Central Valley spring, California coastal), coho salmon (Central California coastal, southern Oregon/northern California coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal summer, Columbia River), sockeye salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle and lower Columbia River, Snake River Basin, upper Willamette River, central California coast, California Central Valley, south/central California, northern California, southern California). These biological opinions have concluded that implementation of the FMP for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery was not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
        NMFS reinitiated a formal section 7 consultation under the ESA in 2005 for both the whiting midwater trawl fishery and the groundfish bottom trawl fishery. The December 19, 1999 Biological Opinion had defined an 11,000 Chinook incidental take threshold for the whiting fishery. During the 2005 whiting season, the 11,000 fish Chinook incidental take threshold was exceeded, triggering reinitiation. Also in 2005, new data from the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program became available, allowing NMFS to complete an analysis of salmon take in the bottom trawl fishery.

        NMFS prepared a Supplemental Biological Opinion dated March 11, 2006, which addressed salmon take in both the whiting midwater trawl and groundfish bottom trawl fisheries. In its 2006 Supplemental Biological Opinion, NMFS concluded that catch rates of salmon in the 2005 whiting fishery were consistent with expectations considered during prior consultations. Chinook bycatch has averaged about 7,300 over the last 15 years and has only occasionally exceeded the reinitiation trigger of 11,000. Since 1999, annual Chinook bycatch has averaged about 8,450. The Chinook ESUs most likely affected by the whiting fishery have generally improved in status since the 1999 section 7 consultation. Although these species remain at risk, as indicated by their ESA listing, NMFS concluded that the higher observed bycatch in 2005 does not require a revision of its prior “no jeopardy” conclusion with respect to the fishery. For the groundfish bottom trawl fishery, NMFS concluded that incidental take in the groundfish fisheries is within the overall limits articulated in the Incidental Take Statement of the 1999 Biological Opinion. The groundfish bottom trawl limit from that opinion was 9,000 fish annually. NMFS will continue to monitor and collect data to analyze take levels. NMFS also reaffirmed its prior determination that implementation of the Groundfish FMP, including this current action, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the affected ESUs.
        Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) and the Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of green sturgeon (71 FR 17757, April 7, 2006) were recently listed as threatened under the ESA. As a consequence, NMFS has reinitiated its Section 7 consultation on the PFMC's Groundfish FMP. After reviewing the available information, NMFS concluded that, in keeping with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, the proposed action would not result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would have the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative measures.
        Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule was developed after meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials from the area covered by the FMP. At the Council=s September and November 2006 meetings, NMFS informed the Council, which includes a tribal representative, of the intent to evaluate and implement catch accounting requirements for whiting shoreside processors. This action does not alter the treaty allocation of whiting, nor does it affect the prosecution of the tribal fishery.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Fisheries, Fishing, Indian fisheries.

          Dated: April 3, 2007.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

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

          2. In § 660.302, the definitions for “Electronic Monitoring System,” “Pacific whiting shoreside or shore-based fishery,” “Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver,” and “Pacific whiting shoreside vessel” are added to read as follows:

          § 660.302
          Definitions.

            Electronic Monitoring System (EMS) means a data collection tool that uses a software operating system connected to an assortment of electronic components, including video recorders, to create a collection of data on vessel activities.

            Pacific whiting shoreside first receivers means persons who receive, purchase, take custody, control, or possession of Pacific whiting onshore directly from a Pacific whiting shoreside vessel.

            Pacific whiting shoreside or shore-based fishery means Pacific whiting shoreside vessels and Pacific whiting shoreside first receivers.

            Pacific whiting shoreside vessel means any vessel that fishes using midwater trawl gear to take, retain, possess and land 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) or more of Pacific whiting per fishing trip from the Pacific whiting shore-based sector allocation for delivery to a Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver during the primary season.

        3. In § 660.303, paragraph (a) is revised and paragraph (e) is added to read as follows:

          § 660.303
          Reporting and recordkeeping.
          (a) This subpart recognizes that catch and effort data necessary for implementing the PCGFMP are collected by the States of Washington, Oregon, and California under existing state data collection requirements.
          (e) Participants in the Pacific whiting shoreside fishery. Reporting requirements defined in the following section are in addition to reporting requirements under applicable state law and requirements described at § 660.303(b).
          (1) Reporting requirements for any Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver—(i) Responsibility for compliance. The Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver is responsible for compliance with all reporting requirements described in this paragraph.
          (ii) General requirements. All records or reports required by this paragraph must: be maintained in English, be accurate, be legible, be based on local time, and be submitted in a timely manner as required in paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of this section.
          (iii) Required information. All Pacific whiting shoreside first receivers must provide the following types of information: date of landing, delivery vessel, gear type used, first receiver, round weights of species landed listed by species or species group including species catch with no value, number of salmon by species, number of Pacific halibut, and any other information deemed necessary by the Regional Administrator as specified on the appropriate electronic fish ticket form.
          (iv) Electronic fish ticket submissions. The Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver must:
          (A) Sort catch, prior to first weighing, by species or
          species groups as specified at § 660.370 (h)(6)(iii).
          (B) Include as part of each electronic fish ticket submission, the actual scale weight for each groundfish species as specified by requirements at § 660.373 (j)(2)(i) and the catcher vessel identification number.
          (C) Use for the purpose of submitting electronic fish tickets, and maintain in good working order, computer equipment as specified at § 660.373 (j)(2)(ii)(A);
          (D) Install, use, and update as necessary, any NMFS-approved software described at § 660.373 (j)(2)(ii)(B);
          (E) Submit a completed electronic fish ticket for every landing that includes 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) or more of Pacific whiting (round weight equivalent) no later than 24 hours after the date the fish are received, unless a waiver of this requirement has been granted under provisions specified at paragraph (e)(1) (vii) of this section.
          (v) Revising a submitted electronic fish ticket submission. In the event that a data error is found, electronic fish ticket submissions may be revised by resubmitting the revised form. Electronic fish tickets are to be used for the submission of final catch data. Preliminary data, including estimates of catch weights or species in the catch, shall not be submitted on electronic fish tickets.
          (vi) Retention of records. [Reserved]
          (vii) Waivers for submission of electronic fish tickets. On a case-by-case basis, a temporary waiver of the requirement to submit electronic fish tickets may be granted by the Assistant Regional Administrator or designee if he/she determines that circumstances beyond the control of a Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver would result in inadequate data submissions using the electronic fish ticket system. The duration of the waiver will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
          (viii) Reporting requirements when a temporary waiver has been granted. Pacific whiting shoreside first receivers that have been granted a temporary waiver from the requirement to submit electronic fish tickets must submit on paper the same data as is required on electronic fish tickets within 24 hours of the date received during the period that the waiver is in effect. Paper fish tickets must be sent by facsimile to NMFS, Northwest Region, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 206-526-6736 or by delivering it in person to 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115. The requirements for submissions of paper tickets in this paragraph are separate from, and in addition to existing state requirements for landing receipts or fish receiving tickets.
          (2) [Reserved]

        4. In § 660.306, paragraphs (b)(4) and (f)(6) are added to read as follows:

          § 660.306
          Prohibitions.
          (b) * * *
          (4) Fail to comply with all requirements at § 660.303 (d); or to fail to submit, submit inaccurate information, or intentionally submit false information on any report required at § 660.303 (d) when participating in the Pacific whiting shoreside fishery.
          (f) * * *
          (6) Pacific whiting shoreside first receivers. (i) Receive for transport or processing catch from a Pacific whiting shoreside vessel that does not have a properly functioning EMS system as required by Federal regulation or by an EFP, unless a waiver for EMS coverage was granted by NMFS for that trip.
          (ii) Fail to sort catch from a Pacific whiting shoreside vessel prior to first weighing after offloading as specified at § 660.370 (h)(6)(iii) for the Pacific whiting fishery.
          (iii) Process, sell, or discard groundfish catch that has not been weighed on a scale that is in compliance with requirements at § 660.373 (j)(1)(i) and accounted for on an electronic fish ticket with the identification number for the catcher vessel that delivered the catch.
          (iv) Fail to weigh catch landed from a Pacific whiting shoreside vessel prior to transporting any fish from that landing away from the point of landing.

        5. In § 660.370, paragraph (h)(6)(iii) is added to read as follows:

          § 660.370
          Specifications and management measures.
          (h) * * *
          (6) * * *
          (iii) Sorting requirements for the Pacific whiting shoreside fishery. Catch delivered to Pacific whiting shoreside first receivers (including shoreside processing facilities and buying stations that intend to transport catch for processing elsewhere) must be sorted, prior to first weighing after offloading from the vessel and prior to transport away from the point of landing, to the species groups specified in paragraph (h)(6)(i)(A) of this section for vessels with limited entry permits. Prohibited species must be sorted according to the following species groups: Dungeness crab, Pacific halibut, Chinook salmon, Other salmon. Non-groundfish species must be sorted as required by the state of landing.

        6. In § 660.373, paragraph (j) is added to read as follows:

          § 660.373
          Pacific whiting (whiting) fishery management.
          (j) Additional requirements for participants in the Pacific Whiting Shoreside fishery—(1) Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver responsibilities—(i) Weights and measures. All groundfish weights reported on fish tickets must be recorded from scales with appropriate weighing capacity that ensures accuracy for the amount of fish being weighed. For example: amounts of fish less than 1,000 lb (454 kg) should not be weighed on scales that have an accuracy range of 1,000 lb-7,000 lb (454 - 3,175 kg) and are therefore not capable of accurately weighing amounts less than 1,000 lb (454 kg).
          (ii) Electronic fish tickets—(A) Hardware and software requirements. First receivers using the electronic fish ticket software provided by Pacific States Marine Fish Commission are required to meet the hardware and software requirements below. Those whiting first receivers who have NMFS-approved software compatible with the standards specified by Pacific States Marine Fish Commission for electronic fish tickets are not subject to any specific hardware or software requirements.
          (1) A personal computer with Pentium 75-MHz or higher. Random Access Memory (RAM) must have sufficient megabyte (MB) space to run the operating system, plus an additional 8 MB for the software application and available hard disk space of 217 MB or greater. A CD-ROM drive with a Video Graphics Adapter(VGA) or higher resolution monitor (super VGA is recommended).
          (2) Microsoft Windows 2000 (64 MB or greater RAM required), Windows XP (128 MB or greater RAM required) or later operating system.
          (3) Microsoft Access 2003 or newer for.
          (B) NMFS Approved Software Standards and Internet Access. The Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver is responsible for obtaining, installing and updating electronic fish tickets software either provided by Pacific States Marine Fish Commission, or compatible with the standards specified by Pacific States Marine Fish Commission and for maintaining internet access sufficient to transmit data files via email.
          (C) Maintenance. The Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver is responsible for ensuring that all hardware and software required under this subsection are fully operational and functional whenever the Pacific whiting primary season deliveries are accepted.
          (2) Pacific whiting shoreside first receivers and processors that receive groundfish species other than Pacific whiting in excess of trip limits from Pacific whiting shoreside vessels fishing under an EFP issued by the Assistant Regional Administrator are authorized to possess the catch.

          (3) Vessel owners and operators, or shoreside processor owners, or managers may contact NMFS in writing to request assistance in improving data quality and resolving monitoring issues. Requests may be submitted to: Attn: Frank Lockhart,National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region Sustainable Fisheries Division, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115, or via email to frank.lockhart@noaa.gov.

      [FR Doc. E7-6643 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [Docket No. 100330171-0232-01]
        RIN 0648-AY79
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fishing Capacity Reduction Framework

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes amendments to the framework regulations specifying procedures for implementing fishing capacity reduction programs (reduction programs) in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management (Magnuson-Stevens) Reauthorization Act of 2007. A reduction program pays harvesters in a fishery that has more vessels than capacity either to surrender their fishing permits including relevant fishing histories for that fishery, or surrender all their fishing permits and cancelling their fishing vessels= fishing endorsements by permanently withdrawing the vessel from all fisheries. The cost of the program can be paid by post-reduction harvesters, taxpayers, or others. The intent of a program is to decrease the number of harvesters in the fishery, increase the economic efficiency of harvesting, and facilitate the conservation and management of fishery resources in each fishery in which NMFS conducts a reduction program.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by July 29, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AY79, by either of the following methods:

          Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov; or
          Mail: Michael A. Sturtevant, Financial Services Division, NMFS-MB5, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

          Instructions: Comments will be posted for public viewing after the comment period has closed. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Send comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule to Michael A. Sturtevant at the address specified above and also to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attention: NOAA Desk Officer) or e-mail to David_Rosker@ob.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7825. Copies of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and Regulatory Impact Review prepared for this action may be obtained from Michael A. Sturtevant at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael A. Sturtevant at 301-713-2390 or michael.a.sturtevant@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access
        This Federal Register document is also accessible via the Internet at www.gpoaccess.gov/fr.
        I. Statutory and Regulatory Background
        Many U.S. fisheries have excess fishing capacity. Excess fishing capacity decreases earnings, complicates management, and imperils conservation. To provide for fishing capacity reduction programs, in 1996 Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by adding section 312(b)-(e) (16 U.S.C. 1861a(b)-(e)). The framework regulations to conduct these reduction programs were published as an interim final rule on May 18, 2000 (65 FR 31430) and codified as subpart L to 50 CFR part 600. To finance reduction costs, Congress amended Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (Title XI), by adding new sections 1111 and 1112. The Title XI provisions involving fishing capacity reduction loans have been codified at 46 U.S.C. 53735.
        This action proposes to amend subpart L to 50 CFR part 600 to implement the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (Public Law 109-479) amendments for requesting and conducting fishing capacity reduction programs.
        II. Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act Changes
        The Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act requires several modifications to the framework regulations.
        First, the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act contained a provision that states that, in addition to the appropriate fishery management Council or Governor of a State, a majority of permit holders in the fishery may request a buyback program. Such a program may be conducted if the Secretary determines that the program is necessary to prevent or end overfishing, rebuild stocks of fish, or achieve measurable and significant improvements in the conservation and management of the fishery. As a result of this change, NMFS is amending the definition of “Requester@ and the regulations outlining the process for submission requests to allow permit holders, if they constitute a majority, to request a buyback program.
        Second, the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act clarified that a permit holder relinquishes any future limited access system claims associated with the permit or vessel participating in a reduction program and that (if not scrapped) the vessel will be effectively prevented from fishing in Federal or state waters, or fishing on the high seas or in the waters of a foreign nation. The Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act revised section 312(b)(2)(A) to recognize that the owner of a fishing vessel may be different from the permit holder. As a result of this change, NMFS is amending the regulations to require that, along with surrendering the permit authorizing the participation of the vessel in the fishery, for permanent revocation, both the vessel owner and the permit holder, if different from the vessel owner, relinquish any claim associated with the vessel or permit that could qualify such owner or permit holder for any present or future limited access system permit in the fishery for which the program is established or in any other fishery.

        Third, the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act added Section 312(b)(5) regarding payment conditions stating that if a vessel is not scrapped, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) must certify that the vessel will not be used for fishing in the waters of a foreign nation or fishing on the high seas. As a result of this change, NMFS is amending the regulations so that the Secretary must make such certification before making payment. Because each program is so different, and would need to include fishery-specific information and requirements, NMFS is not proposing at this time specific details that must be included in the certification plans, but will provide the requirements for the certification process on a case-by-case basis for each reduction fishery program when the regulations for that program is published in the Federal Register.
        Although NMFS is not proposing a certification process in this rulemaking, NMFS solicits comments on whether harvester proponents who do not wish to scrap buyback vessels should develop and provide as part of their plan, a clearly outlined plan to help track and monitor the vessels in order to be granted certification by the Secretary under Section 312(b)(5) of the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act.
        NMFS desires to minimize the potential for post buyback misuse of vessels as contract obligations by some buyback participants have been breached in the past. In cases where vessels are sold, new owners have violated the spirit and the letter of the statute and regulations in the use of the buyback vessel. In addition, even if the vessels are not sold after reduction payment is tendered, some vessel owners do not maintain proper documentation of their vessel with the Coast Guard which makes tracking the proper use of the vessel nearly impossible. Additionally, some vessel owners have abandoned their vessels. In some cases, this has caused environmental damage, created abandonment issues, and/or forfeiture proceedings.
        NMFS believes that the burden of tracking and monitoring of reduction vessels should fall on the owner of the vessel, and not NOAA, other Federal agencies, or the taxpayers. Monitoring and tracking vessels whose fisheries endorsement has been cancelled is simply not budgeted for in the NMFS, NOAA, Commerce, or Coast Guard annual budgets. Therefore, any action that is taken by NMFS or other agencies to identify, track, enforce rules, or correct any problems created by vessels that are not scrapped cannot be undertaken with ease, and without substantial cost of taxpayer dollars, either through direct tracking and enforcement, or through re-tasking limited government resources. For these reasons, NMFS solicits comments on the submission of a clearly outlined plan to help track and monitor the vessels in order to be granted certification by the Secretary under Section 312(b)(5) of the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act.
        Fourth, the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act also changed the approval threshold for the capacity reduction referendum. The reauthorized Act now states that a fee system shall be considered approved if the referendum votes which are cast in favor of the proposed system constitute “at least a majority of the permit holders in the fishery, or 50 percent of the permitted allocation of the fishery, who participate in the fishery”. Previously, a referendum was approved with a two-thirds majority of the participating voters. As a result of this amendment, NOAA is proposing to amend its regulations that discusses the referendum procedure to implement this change.
        III. Summary of Revisions
        NMFS proposes to revise the following sections of the regulations of subpart L to 50 CFR part 600 with this proposed action:
        (1) Sec. 600.1000. This section is revised to amend the definition of “Requester” to include the majority of permit holders in a fishery.
        (2) Sec. 600.1001(a). This section is amended to provide for authority that a majority of permit holders in the fishery may initiate a voluntary fishing capacity reduction program.
        (3) Sec. 600.1002(c). This new provision states the Secretary may not make a fishing capacity reduction program payment with respect to a reduction vessel that will not be scrapped unless the Secretary certifies that the vessel will not be used for fishing in the waters of the U.S., a foreign nation, or on the high seas.
        (4) Sec. 600.1009(a)(5)(ii). This section is revised to clarify title restrictions on any reduction vessel that is not scrapped.
        (5) Sec. 600.1010(a). This section is revised to reflect the new industry fee system approval threshold to at least a majority of the permit holders in the fishery who participated in the fishery.
        IV. Classification
        The Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS, determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act (Public Law 109-479), and other applicable laws.
        The proposed revisions to the framework regulations do not propose any major new programs. The framework modifications implemented by this rule impact only the process under which fishery capacity reduction programs are created and implemented, and would not directly implement changes to specific fisheries. Therefore, the rulemaking does not lend itself to quantitative or qualitative analysis. For example, the analysis of impacts on vessels, vessel revenues, port revenues, fish stock impacts, etc. are not possible in the absence of identifying specific fisheries and buyback program fishery components. Each individual program will be implemented through the rulemaking process in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus, each program will be individually evaluated and appropriately analyzed under NEPA at the appropriate time. This action is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment in accordance with NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6.

        The Office of Management and Budget determined that this proposal is not significant under Executive Order 12866. NMFS prepared a Regulatory Impact Review which is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), first enacted in 1980, was designed to place the burden on the government to review all regulations to ensure that, while accomplishing their intended purposes, they do not unduly inhibit the ability of small entities to compete. The RFA recognizes that the size of a business, unit of government, or nonprofit organization frequently has a bearing on its ability to comply with a Federal regulation. The major goals of the RFA are: (1) to increase agency awareness and understanding of the impact of their regulations on small business, (2) to require that agencies communicate and explain their findings to the public, and (3) to encourage agencies to use flexibility and to provide regulatory relief to small entities.

        The RFA emphasizes predicting significant adverse impacts on small entities as a group distinct from other entities and on the consideration of alternatives that may minimize the impacts while still achieving the stated objective of the action. When an agency publishes a proposed rule, it must either 'certify' that the action will not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities, and support that certification with the “factual basis” for the decision; or it must prepare and make available for public review an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis that describes the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. When an agency publishes a final rule, it must prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
        Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The framework modifications implemented by this rule impact only the process under which fishery capacity reduction programs are created and implemented, and would not directly implement changes to specific fisheries. Therefore, the rulemaking does not lend itself to quantitative or qualitative analysis. Each individual program will be implemented through the rulemaking process in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus, each program will be individually evaluated and analyzed at the appropriate time including its impact on small businesses. Therefore, 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.

         This proposed rule does not contain any new collection of information requirements subject to the PRA. The estimates of the public reporting burden that have been previously approved by OMB, under OMB Control No. 0648-0376 remain valid. Send comments regarding the collection of information requirements contained in this proposed rule, including the burden hour estimates, and suggestions for reducing the burdens to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and to OMB (see ADDRESSES).
        Notwithstanding any other provision of 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 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 600

        Fisheries, Fishing capacity reduction, Fishing permits, Fishing vessels, Intergovernmental relations, Loan programs-business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: June 8, 2010.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 600 as follows:
        1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 600 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS

        2. In § 600.1000, the definition of “Requester” is revised to read as follows:

          § 600.1000
          Definitions.

            Requester means a Council for a fishery identified in § 600.1001(c) or a state governor for a fishery identified in § 600.1001(d), or a majority of permit holders in the fishery.

        3. In § 600.1001, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

          § 600.1001
          Requests.
          (a) A Council, the Governor of a State under whose authority a proposed reduction fishery is subject, or a majority of permit holders in the fishery may request that NMFS conduct a program in that fishery. Each request shall be in writing. Each request shall satisfy the requirements of § 600.1003 or § 600.1005, as applicable, and enable NMFS to make the determinations required by § 600.1004 or § 600.1006, as applicable.

        4. In § 600.1002, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:

          § 600.1002
          General requirements.
          (c) The Secretary may not make a fishing capacity reduction program payment with respect to a reduction vessel that will not be scrapped unless the Secretary certifies that the vessel will not be used for fishing in the waters of the U.S., a foreign nation, or on the high seas.

        5. In § 600.1009, paragraph (a)(5)(ii) is revised to read as follows:

          § 600.1009
          Bids.
          (a) * * *
          (5) * * *
          (ii) Where the program also involves the withdrawal of reduction vessels from fishing:
          (A) Title restrictions imposed by the U.S. Coast Guard on any reduction vessel that is Federally documented to forever prohibit and effectively prevent any future use of the reduction vessel for fishing:
          (1) In any area subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or any state, territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States, or
          (2) On the high seas, or
          (3) In the waters of a foreign nation; or
          (B) Scrapping of all reduction vessels involved in a fishing capacity reduction program, unless the reduction program vessel has been certified by the Secretary, and the requirements established under § 600.1002(c) are met. Where reduction vessel scrapping is involved and the reduction vessel's owner does not comply with the owner's obligation under the reduction contract to scrap the reduction vessel, the Secretary may take such measures as necessary to cause the reduction vessel's prompt scrapping. The scrapping will be at the reduction vessel owner's risk and expense. Upon completion of scrapping, NMFS will take such action as may be necessary to recover from the reduction vessel owner any cost, damages, or other expense NMFS incurred in the scrapping of the reduction vessel.

        6. In § 600.1010, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

          § 600.1010
          Referenda.
          (a) Referendum success. A referendum is successful if at least a majority of the permit holders in the fishery who participate in the fishery cast ballots in favor of an industry fee system.

      [FR Doc. 2010-14246 Filed 6-11-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 90
        [WC Docket No. 10-90; Report No. 2986]
        Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petition for reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by Elizabeth Bowles, President, on behalf of the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before August 7, 2013. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before August 19, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ryan Yates, Wireline Competition Bureau (202) 418-7400—voice or (202) 418-0484—TTY.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 2986, released July 12, 2013. The full text of this document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). The Commission will not send a copy of this document pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this document does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

          Subject: Amendment of part 90 of the Commission's Rules, document FCC 13-52, published at 78 FR 28749, May 16, 2013, in WC Docket No. 10-90, and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also § 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules.

          Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of Managing Director.

      [FR Doc. 2013-17593 Filed 7-22-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P