[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 6, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14490-14503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05077]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 300 and 679

[Docket No. 120223143-3156-01]
RIN 0648-BB94


Amendment 94 to the Gulf of Alaska Fishery Management Plan and 
Regulatory Amendments for Community Quota Entities

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 94 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP), 
which would amend certain sablefish provisions of the Individual 
Fishing Quota Program for the Fixed-Gear Commercial Fisheries for 
Pacific Halibut and Sablefish in Waters in and off Alaska (IFQ 
Program). Amendment 94 and its proposed implementing regulations would 
revise the vessel use caps applicable to sablefish quota share (QS) 
held by Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Community Quota Entities (CQEs). NMFS is 
proposing the same regulatory revisions to the vessel use caps 
applicable to halibut QS held by GOA CQEs. In this action, NMFS is also 
proposing to revise the IFQ Program regulations to add three eligible 
communities to the CQE Program; to allow CQEs in International Pacific 
Halibut Commission regulatory area 3A (Area 3A) to purchase vessel 
category D halibut QS; to revise CQE annual reporting requirements, 
including specifying requirements for the charter halibut program; to 
clarify the CQE floating processor landing reporting requirements; and 
to consolidate CQE Program eligibility by community in a single table 
in the regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., Alaska local 
time, on April 5, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by FDMS 
Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2012-0040, by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 
www.regulations.gov/

[[Page 14491]]

!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2012-0040, click the ``Comment 
Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your 
comments.
     Mail: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant 
Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, 
NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, 
AK 99802-1668.
     Fax: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant 
Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, 
NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Fax comments to (907) 586-7557.
     Hand delivery to the Federal Building: Address written 
comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, 
Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen 
Sebastian. Deliver comments to 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, 
AK.
    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). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in 
Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
    Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) prepared 
for Amendment 94 and the changes to the vessel use caps applicable to 
halibut IFQ derived from CQE QS, the RIR prepared for the regulatory 
amendment to add three communities to the list of CQE eligible 
communities, and the RIR prepared for the regulatory amendment to allow 
CQEs in Area 3A to purchase vessel category D halibut QS are available 
from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site 
at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
action may be submitted to NMFS at the above address and by email to 
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Murphy, (907) 586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Authority

    NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 94 to the FMP and 
regulatory amendments to revise the GOA CQE Program. The North Pacific 
Fishery Management Council (Council) recommended and NMFS approved the 
FMP in 1978 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 
et seq.). Regulations implementing the FMP and general regulations 
governing groundfish appear at 50 CFR part 679. Fishing for Pacific 
halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) is managed by the International 
Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and the Council under the Northern 
Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). Section 773(c) of the 
Halibut Act authorizes the Council to develop regulations that are in 
addition to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations. Such 
Council-recommended regulations may be implemented by NMFS only after 
approval by the Secretary of Commerce.

Background on the IFQ and CQE Program

    The IFQ Program, a limited access privilege program for the 
commercial fixed-gear halibut fisheries off Alaska and sablefish 
(Anoplopoma fimbria) fisheries in the EEZ off Alaska, was recommended 
by the Council in 1992 and approved by NMFS in 1993. Initial 
implementing rules were published November 9, 1993 (58 FR 59375), and 
fishing under the IFQ Program began on March 15, 1995. The IFQ Program 
limits access to the halibut and sablefish fisheries to those persons 
holding QS in specific management areas. The IFQ Program for the 
sablefish fishery is implemented by the FMP and Federal regulations at 
50 CFR part 679 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The 
IFQ Program for the halibut fishery is implemented by Federal 
regulations at 50 CFR part 679 under the authority of the Halibut Act. 
A comprehensive explanation of the IFQ Program can be found in the 
final rule implementing the program (58 FR 59375, November 9, 1993).
    The IFQ Program changed the management structure of the fixed-gear 
halibut and sablefish fishery by issuing QS to qualified persons who 
owned or leased a vessel that made fixed-gear landings of those species 
from 1988 to 1990. Halibut QS was issued specific to one of eight IPHC 
halibut management areas throughout the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
(BSAI) and GOA, and four vessel categories: Freezer (catcher/processor) 
category (A share); catcher vessel greater than 60 ft. length overall 
(LOA) (B share); catcher vessel 36 ft. to 60 ft. LOA (C share); and 
catcher vessel 35 ft. LOA or less (D share). Sablefish QS was issued 
specific to one of six sablefish management areas throughout the BSAI 
and GOA, and three vessel categories: freezer (catcher/processor) 
category (A share); catcher vessel greater than 60 ft. LOA (B share); 
and catcher vessel 60 ft. LOA or less (C share). The amount of halibut 
and sablefish that each QS holder may harvest is calculated annually 
and issued as individual fishing quota (IFQ) in pounds on an IFQ 
permit. An IFQ halibut permit authorizes participation in the fixed-
gear fishery for Pacific halibut in and off Alaska, and an IFQ 
sablefish permit authorizes participation in most fixed-gear sablefish 
fisheries off Alaska. IFQ permits are issued annually to persons 
holding Pacific halibut and sablefish QS or to those persons who are 
recipients of IFQ transfers from QS holders.
    The IFQ Program was structured to retain the owner-operator nature 
of the fixed-gear halibut and sablefish fisheries and limit 
consolidation of QS. The QS may be permanently transferred or leased 
with several restrictions by type of QS and management area. Only 
persons who were initially issued category B, C, and D catcher vessel 
QS, S-type corporations formed by initial issuee individuals, or 
individuals who qualify as IFQ crew members are allowed to hold or 
purchase catcher vessel QS. Thus, the IFQ Program restricts holders of 
catcher vessel QS to individuals and initial recipients. With few 
exceptions, individual QS holders are required to be on board the 
vessel to fish the IFQ.
    Although the IFQ Program resulted in significant safety and 
economic benefits for many fishermen, since the inception of the IFQ 
Program, many residents of Alaska's smaller remote coastal communities 
who held QS have transferred their QS to non-community residents or 
moved out of the smaller coastal communities. As a result, the number 
of resident QS holders has declined substantially in most of the GOA 
communities with IFQ Program participants. This transfer of halibut and 
sablefish QS and the associated fishing effort from the GOA's smaller 
remote coastal communities has limited the ability of residents to 
locally purchase or lease QS and reduced the diversity of fisheries to 
which fishermen in remote coastal communities have access. The ability 
of fishermen in a remote coastal community to purchase QS or maintain 
existing QS may be limited by a variety

[[Page 14492]]

of factors both shared among and unique to each community. Although the 
specific causes for decreasing QS holdings in a specific community may 
vary, the net effect is overall lower participation by residents of 
these communities in the halibut and sablefish IFQ fisheries. The 
substantial decline in the number of resident QS holders and the total 
amount of QS held by residents of remote coastal communities may have 
aggravated unemployment and related social and economic conditions in 
those communities. The Council recognized that a number of remote 
coastal communities were struggling to remain economically viable. The 
Council developed the CQE Program to provide these communities with 
long-term opportunities to access the halibut and sablefish resources. 
The Council recommended the CQE Program as an amendment to the IFQ 
Program in 2002 (GOA Amendment 66), and NMFS implemented the program in 
2004 (69 FR 23681, April 30, 2004).
    The Community Quota Entity (CQE) Program allows a distinct set of 
42 remote coastal communities in the GOA that met historic 
participation criteria in the halibut and sablefish fisheries to 
purchase and hold catcher vessel halibut QS in halibut Areas 2C, 3A, 
and 3B, and catcher vessel sablefish QS in the GOA. The communities are 
eligible to participate in the CQE Program once they are represented by 
a NMFS-approved non-profit entity called a CQE. The CQE is the holder 
of the QS and is issued the IFQ annually by NMFS. With certain 
exceptions, the QS must remain with the CQE. This program structure 
creates a permanent asset for the community to use. The structure 
promotes community access to QS to generate participation in, and 
fishery revenues from, the commercial halibut and sablefish fisheries.
    To participate in the CQE Program, an eligible community must first 
acquire a statement of support from the community governing body, then 
form a CQE and have that CQE approved by NMFS to represent the 
community. After NMFS approval, a CQE may receive catcher vessel QS for 
the represented community(ies) through NMFS-approved transfers. The 
eligible communities and the community governing body that recommends 
the CQE are listed in Table 21 to 50 CFR part 679. Once the CQE holds 
QS, the CQE can lease the annual IFQ resulting from the CQE-held QS to 
individual community residents. The CQE Program also promotes QS 
ownership by individual community residents. Individuals who lease 
annual IFQ from the CQE could use IFQ revenue to purchase their own QS. 
The Council believed, and NMFS agrees, that both the CQE and non-CQE-
held QS are important in terms of providing community residents fishing 
access that promotes the economic health of communities.
    Current CQE Program regulations include several provisions 
affecting the use of QS and the annual IFQ by the CQE. Under some 
provisions, a CQE has the same privileges and is held to the same 
limitations as individual users. For example, CQE-held QS is subject to 
the same area use cap that applies to non-CQE-held QS. In other 
instances, the CQE is subject to less restrictive measures than 
individual QS holders. For example, the catcher vessel size classes do 
not apply to QS and the IFQ held by CQEs. In yet other instances, the 
CQE must operate under more restrictive measures than individual QS 
holders, in part to protect existing QS holders and preserve entry-
level opportunities for fishermen. For example, CQEs currently cannot 
purchase Area 2C or Area 3A vessel category D halibut QS. This 
limitation is proposed to be changed through this rule. A comprehensive 
explanation of these CQE Program provisions can be found in the final 
rule authorizing the CQE program (69 FR 23681, April 30, 2004).
The Charter Halibut Limited Access Permit Program, License Limitation 
Program, and the CQE Program
    Since the CQE Program began, NMFS has implemented regulations that 
authorize the allocation of limited access fishing privileges for the 
guided sport halibut fishery and the GOA groundfish fishery for Pacific 
cod, to be allotted to select communities that are eligible to form a 
CQE. For the guided sport halibut fishery, the Council and NMFS 
authorized certain communities in Southeast Alaska and Southcentral 
Alaska, Areas 2C and 3A, to request and receive a limited number of 
charter halibut permits, and designate a charter operator to use a 
community charter halibut permit to participate in the charter halibut 
fisheries. Amendment 86 authorized CQEs representing certain 
communities in the Central and Western GOA to request and receive a 
limited number of Pacific cod endorsed non-trawl groundfish License 
Limitation Program (LLP) licenses and assign those LLP licenses to 
specified users and vessels operating in those CQE communities. The 
Council and NMFS wanted to enhance access to the groundfish and halibut 
fisheries and generate revenues for communities. Further, the Council 
and NMFS wanted to provide for direct participation by individuals 
residing in, or operating out of, CQE communities. A description of the 
specific rationale and criteria considered by the Council and NMFS when 
authorizing these additional fishery access opportunities to CQEs are 
provided in the final rules implementing these programs and are not 
repeated here (75 FR 554, January 5, 2010; 76 FR 15826, March 22, 
2011). Generally, the Council chose to rely on the criteria defined 
under Amendment 66 to determine the subsets of coastal communities that 
may benefit from participation opportunities in the guided sport 
halibut and GOA Pacific cod fisheries.

Review of the IFQ Program and CQE Program and Proposed Modifications to 
the Programs

    Between December 2010 and October 2011, the Council recommended 
three proposals to change the GOA CQE Program. In addition, NMFS has 
identified a need to revise recordkeeping and recording requirements 
for the CQE Program. Based on the Council's three recommendations and 
NMFS's review of recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the CQE 
Program, this proposed rule would implement four separate actions: (1) 
Revise the vessel use cap applied to sablefish QS held by GOA CQEs 
(Amendment 94) and to halibut QS held by CQEs; (2) add three 
communities to the list of CQE-eligible communities; (3) allow CQEs in 
Area 3A to purchase halibut vessel category D QS; and (4) add and 
update annual recordkeeping and recording requirements for CQEs 
participating in limited access programs for charter halibut fisheries 
and the GOA Pacific cod endorsed non-trawl groundfish fisheries. Action 
1 as it relates to sablefish requires amendment of the GOA FMP. Action 
1, as it relates to halibut and actions 2 through action 4, require 
amendments to the IFQ Program and CQE Program regulations. The Council 
recommended Action 1 in October 2011, Action 2 in December 2010, and 
Action 3 in February 2011. Under Action 4, NMFS is proposing 
regulations to: (1) Carry-out Council intent for CQE recordkeeping and 
reporting; (2) clarify community eligibility in the CQE Program in 
Table 21 to part 679; and (3) correct minor errors in current 
regulations.

Actions Proposed by This Rule

    The four proposed actions are described below.

[[Page 14493]]

Action 1: Revise Vessel Use Cap for Sablefish (Amendment 94) and 
Halibut

    Action 1 would amend the GOA FMP and Federal regulations at Sec.  
679.42(h)(1)(ii) and (h)(2)(ii) to make the vessel use caps applicable 
to vessels fishing either sablefish or halibut IFQ derived from CQE-
held QS similar to those applicable to vessels fishing sablefish or 
halibut derived from non-CQE-held QS. The current vessel use cap that 
applies to vessels fishing IFQ derived from CQE-held QS can be more 
restrictive than the vessel use caps that apply to vessels harvesting 
only non-CQE-held IFQ. Revising the current vessel use cap would 
provide community residents with additional access to vessels to fish 
IFQs leased from CQEs and may enable more CQEs and eligible community 
residents to participate in the IFQ Program.
    The existing FMP and IFQ CQE regulations provide that a vessel may 
not be used to harvest more than 50,000 pounds (22.7 mt) of IFQ from 
any QS source if the vessel is used to harvest IFQ derived from QS held 
by a CQE. As a result, community residents leasing IFQ from a CQE may 
use the IFQ only on vessels that harvest annually no more than 50,000 
pounds of IFQ in total: IFQ derived from CQE-held QS plus IFQ derived 
from non-CQE-held QS count towards the cap. The Council established 
these limitations in the original CQE Program to prevent consolidation 
of IFQ harvest on a small number of vessels and broadly distribute the 
benefits from fishing activities among CQE community residents.
    The proposed regulations would exclude IFQ derived from non-CQE-
held QS from the 50,000 pound vessel use cap. Only IFQ derived from 
CQE-held QS would count towards the vessel use cap. The effect would be 
that the following annual vessel use caps would apply to all vessels 
harvesting IFQ: No vessel could be used to harvest (1) more than 50,000 
pounds (22.7 mt) of halibut or sablefish IFQ leased from a CQE, and (2) 
more halibut or sablefish IFQ than the IFQ Program overall vessel use 
caps. The existing IFQ Program halibut vessel use caps would remain at 
1 percent of the Area 2C halibut IFQ total catch limit and 0.5 percent 
of the combined halibut total catch limits in all halibut regulatory 
areas off Alaska (Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E). The 
existing IFQ Program sablefish vessel use caps would remain at 1 
percent of the Southeast sablefish IFQ total allowable catch (TAC) and 
1 percent of the combined sablefish TAC in all sablefish regulatory 
areas off Alaska (GOA and BSAI).
    Under Action 1, if, during any fishing year, a vessel was used to 
harvest halibut IFQ or sablefish IFQ derived from CQE-held QS and non-
CQE-held QS, the harvests of IFQ derived from the non-CQE-held QS would 
not accrue against either the halibut 50,000 pound vessel use cap or 
the sablefish 50,000 pound vessel use cap for IFQ leased from a CQE. 
However, the harvests of halibut and sablefish IFQ derived from all 
sources would accrue against the overall vessel use caps. In effect, a 
vessel could not use more than 50,000 pounds of halibut IFQ and 50,000 
pounds of sablefish IFQ derived from QS held by a CQE during the 
fishing year. A vessel could be used to harvest additional IFQ from 
non-CQE-held QS up to the overall vessel use caps applicable in the IFQ 
Program, if the overall vessel use caps are greater than 50,000 pounds. 
If the vessel use caps in the IFQ Program are lower than 50,000 pounds 
in a given year, then the lowest vessel use cap would apply. For 
example, in the Area 2C halibut fishery in 2011, the overall vessel use 
cap for the IFQ Program of 1 percent of the Area 2C halibut IFQ total 
catch limit was 23,300 pounds. This 23,300-pound limit would have been 
more restrictive than the 50,000-pound vessel use cap for IFQ leased 
from a CQE, as proposed under Action 1. Alternatively, for Areas 3A and 
3B, the 50,000-pound vessel use cap for halibut IFQ derived from CQE-
held QS would have been more restrictive in 2011 because the overall 
vessel use cap of 0.5 percent of the combined halibut total catch 
limits in all halibut regulatory areas was 151,910 pounds.
    Since the CQE Program was implemented, community residents have 
found that the current vessel use cap prevents CQE communities and 
residents from realizing the intended benefits of the Program. The 
restrictions impede development of community-based fisheries by 
limiting the use of IFQ by CQEs, community residents, and owners of 
vessels in the IFQ fleet. The current CQE vessel use cap eliminates the 
opportunity for community residents leasing IFQ from a CQE to use a 
vessel that has harvested or will harvest more than 50,000 pounds of 
IFQ, even if it is the only vessel available for use by a CQE 
community. Also, the existing regulations restrict the option for 
multiple residents leasing IFQ from a CQE to combine their IFQ on a 
vessel if the cumulative IFQ, derived from both CQE-held and non-CQE-
held QS, exceeds 50,000 pounds.
    CQE representatives told the Council that the existing 50,000-pound 
(22.7 mt) IFQ vessel use cap reduces flexibility and opportunity to use 
IFQ leased from CQEs on larger vessels. The use of larger vessels could 
increase employment of community residents as crew and improve safety 
at sea during bad weather. As discussed in Section 2.1 of the analysis 
prepared for this action (See ADDRESSES), representatives of CQEs also 
told the Council that the use of CQE-leased IFQ on vessels owned by 
non-CQE community residents is important to the program's success, as 
many of the eligible CQE community residents may be entry-level 
fishermen or fishermen with no vessels or very small vessels. Changing 
the vessel use cap would increase the flexibility of CQEs to lease IFQ 
to community residents who do not own vessels. The change also could 
help residents find employment as crew members. These entry-level 
fishermen could fish the IFQ derived from CQE-held QS on other vessels 
to work their way into the fishery. The opportunity to lease IFQ in the 
short-term and sell fish may help community residents purchase QS from 
the CQE over the longer term.
    The proposed rule likely would provide additional opportunities for 
a CQE to lease IFQ to community residents, as the pool of potential 
resident applicants could increase if there were a larger pool of 
potential vessels from which residents could fish CQE-leased IFQ. CQEs 
and community residents leasing IFQ from CQEs may benefit from an 
increased availability of vessels that would be able to use additional 
CQE-leased IFQ onboard under the proposed revision to exclude IFQ 
derived from non-CQE-held QS from the 50,000-pound vessel use cap 
applicable when using IFQ derived from CQE-held QS is onboard. The 
proposed revision, in effect, would increase a vessel's overall IFQ use 
cap. The resulting increased harvesting opportunity could benefit CQE 
communities through increases in revenues and CQE purchases of QS. Such 
resources are important for CQE communities to develop short and longer 
term financial and fishery business plans.
    The Council also considered the Status Quo Alternative and a third 
alternative (Alternative 3) that would have eliminated the existing 
50,000-pound vessel use caps applicable when using CQE quota onboard. 
Under Alternative 3, vessels would not have been restricted to 50,000 
pounds of IFQ derived from CQE-held QS but would have continued to be 
subject to the regular vessel use caps. Section 2.6 of the analysis 
discusses the alternative actions reviewed by the Council. In

[[Page 14494]]

selecting the Preferred Alternative and not Alternative 3, the Council 
made a policy choice to retain some limitation on the distribution of 
benefits among vessels. The Council's choice is intended to equitably 
distribute the potential benefits of CQE-held QS and IFQ throughout the 
communities.

Action 2: Add Three CQE Communities

    Proposed Action 2 would add the communities of Game Creek and 
Naukati Bay in Area 2C, and Cold Bay in Area 3B to the list of 
communities that are eligible to participate in the GOA CQE Program. In 
establishing the CQE Program, the Council adopted a specific list of 
eligible communities to limit entry of new communities into the CQE 
Program. A community not specifically designated on the list of 
communities adopted by the Council may apply directly to the Council to 
be included. In this event, the Council may modify the list of eligible 
communities through a regulatory amendment approved by the Secretary. 
The purpose of proposed Action 2 is to add three communities to the 
list of eligible communities in Table 21 to part 679. To qualify as 
eligible to purchase QS, a community must meet the following criteria: 
(1) Have a population of less than 1,500 people and at least 20 
persons, based on the 2000 U.S. Census; (2) be located on the GOA coast 
of the North Pacific Ocean; (3) have direct access to saltwater; (4) 
have no direct road access to larger communities with a population 
greater than 1,500 persons; (5) have historic participation in the 
halibut and sablefish fisheries; and (6) be listed in Table 21 to part 
679.
    The communities of Game Creek and Naukati Bay petitioned the 
Council in March 2010 to be added to the list of CQE-eligible 
communities. Upon receiving the petitions from Game Creek and Naukati 
Bay, the Council reviewed all communities that are located on the coast 
of Areas 2C, 3A, or 3B. The Council and NMFS found the community of 
Cold Bay eligible, and the city of Cold Bay agreed to represent the 
community in approval of a CQE. The Council evaluated each of the three 
communities with respect to criteria 1 through 5 as described above and 
determined they would be eligible to participate as CQE communities. 
The Council recommended that the communities be added to the list of 
eligible CQE communities in Table 21 to part 679. The proposed action 
would revise Table 21 to part 679 to add the communities of Game Creek, 
Naukati Bay and Cold Bay as eligible to participate in the CQE Program.
    If this action is approved, then each of the three eligible 
communities would need to meet applicable requirements to participate 
in the CQE Program. Each of the three communities would need to form a 
new (or use an existing) qualified non-profit entity to represent the 
eligible community as a CQE, as required by regulations at Sec.  
679.41(l). Once the non-profit entity is formed, it must have written 
approval from the governing body of the community to submit an 
application to NMFS for review and approval to participate in the CQE 
Program. Upon approval by NMFS, the non-profit entity becomes a CQE and 
is permitted to purchase and hold halibut and sablefish QS on behalf of 
the community. The CQEs representing Game Creek and Naukati Bay would 
be eligible to purchase halibut catcher vessel QS in Area 2C and Area 
3A, and sablefish catcher vessel QS in the GOA (Southeast, West 
Yakutat, Central Gulf and Western Gulf). The CQE representing Cold Bay 
would be eligible to purchase halibut catcher vessel QS in Area 3A and 
Area 3B, and GOA sablefish catcher vessel QS.
    The Council also reviewed these three communities with respect to 
eligibility criteria for the other limited access programs for which 
the existing CQEs are eligible: The charter halibut limited access 
program and the LLP for GOA groundfish. The Council determined that the 
communities of Naukati Bay and Game Creek would meet the regulatory 
criteria to be eligible to participate as CQE communities in the 
charter halibut limited access program (75 FR 554, January 5, 2010). 
The Council determined the community of Cold Bay would not be eligible 
because it is located in the Alaska Peninsula regulatory area, Area 3B. 
Only CQEs representing certain communities in Southeast Alaska and 
Southcentral Alaska, Areas 2C and 3A, are allowed to request and 
receive a limited number of charter halibut permits. If Naukati Bay and 
Game Creek are approved as eligible, then each community's CQE could 
request up to four charter halibut permits endorsed for Area 2C. Four 
is the maximum number of charter halibut permits that CQE communities 
located in Area 2C may request. In its December 2010 recommendation for 
this proposed action, the Council noted that the number of additional 
permits that could potentially be issued to CQEs representing Naukati 
Bay and Game Greek does not significantly change the projected number 
of charter halibut permits to be issued in the Area 2C charter halibut 
fishery. The additional permits would not be expected to substantially 
increase fishing in the guided sport halibut fishery in Area 2C.
    The Council also determined the community of Cold Bay would be 
eligible to participate as a CQE community in the GOA Pacific cod LLP. 
Naukati Bay and Game Creek would not be eligible to participate in the 
GOA Pacific cod LLP because they are located in Southeast Alaska and 
the LLP affects the Western and Central GOA. Cold Bay could, if 
approved, have its CQE request Pacific cod endorsed non-trawl 
groundfish LLP licenses as implemented by NMFS under the GOA fixed gear 
recency action under GOA FMP Amendment 86 (76 FR 15826, March 22, 
2011). Under LLP regulations, the community of Cold Bay would be 
eligible to receive a maximum of two Western GOA LLP licenses with 
endorsements for Pacific cod and pot gear.
    The Council and NMFS considered the potential effects of adding 
three new communities to the CQE Program on existing users of the 
halibut and groundfish resources of the GOA and the residents of Cold 
Bay, Game Creek, and Naukati Bay. This section briefly summarizes the 
conclusions discussed in Section 2.9.2 of the analysis prepared for 
this action (see ADDRESSES). The primary effect of the proposed action 
to add three new communities to the CQE Program on participants in the 
halibut and sablefish IFQ fisheries would be greater competition for QS 
purchases and resulting increased prices for QS. However, CQE use caps 
in current regulations limit the total amount of halibut and sablefish 
QS that could be purchased by a CQE and by CQEs in aggregate. Those CQE 
caps (see Sec.  679.42(e)(4) through (e)(5) for sablefish and Sec.  
679.42(f)(2) for halibut) would remain unchanged under the proposed 
action. Thus, the potential for increased competition and increased 
prices would be limited. Adding new communities to the program could 
create additional competition for communities to purchase up to the 
individual CQE use caps before the aggregate CQE cap is reached. This 
potential is also considered limited. Although 30 of the currently 
eligible 42 communities have formed CQEs, only a small amount of QS has 
been purchased by CQEs under the program. The Council's 5-year review 
of the CQE Program in March 2010 showed that one of the biggest 
challenges facing CQEs appears to be financing QS purchases. The lack 
of credit history and the fact that CQEs are non-profit organizations 
increases lending risks for financial institutions. Another financial 
limitation to QS purchases is the administrative cost

[[Page 14495]]

necessary to both establish and maintain the CQE.
    NMFS does not know if proposed action 2 would result in increased 
community access to the halibut and sablefish fisheries due to the 
limited financing options and high quota prices seen in recent years. 
Council analysis indicated that CQE communities are most likely to 
participate in the charter halibut limited access program because they 
would receive a limited number of community charter halibut permits at 
no cost. Furthermore, the charter halibut permit program does not 
restrict charter halibut permit use only to CQE community residents. 
Overall, the Council concluded that adding communities to the CQE 
Program would have a limited impact on existing users of the halibut 
and groundfish resources of the GOA, but would provide additional 
opportunities to the residents of Cold Bay, Game Creek, and Naukati 
Bay.

Action 3: Allow CQEs in Area 3A To Purchase Vessel Category D Halibut 
QS

    Currently, regulations prohibit the transfer of vessel category D 
halibut quota share to a CQE representing a community or communities in 
halibut regulatory Area 3A. Vessel category D halibut QS may only be 
fished on catcher vessels 35 ft. LOA or less. Proposed Action 3 would 
allow a CQE representing a community(ies) in Area 3A to hold QS that is 
assigned to vessel category D. The purpose of proposed action 3 is to 
allow some redistribution of vessel category D QS to CQEs, thereby 
increasing fishing opportunities for CQE communities in Area 3A and for 
the owners of the small category D boats they may use. Vessel category 
D QS is generally the least expensive category of halibut QS because 
non-CQE IFQ derived from category D QS can only be used on the smallest 
category of catcher vessel. It is often purchased and used by smaller 
operations or new entrants. Based on public testimony received from 
residents of communities located in Area 3A and its review of the CQE 
Program, the Council determined that additional CQEs in Area 3A could 
participate in the CQE Program if they were eligible to purchase vessel 
category D halibut QS.
    Currently, the CQEs representing communities in Area 3A and Area 2C 
are allowed to purchase vessel category B and C halibut QS, but unlike 
individual holders, are prohibited from purchasing vessel category D 
halibut QS. The CQEs representing communities in Area 3B can purchase 
vessel category D halibut QS. Proposed Action 3 has three provisions 
and would allow CQEs representing communities in Area 3A to hold a 
limited amount of vessel category D halibut QS in Area 3A as described 
in more detail below. No change to Area 2C was proposed by the public, 
and no change to Area 2C would be made by this proposed rule.
    The CQE Program was implemented about 10 years after implementation 
of the IFQ Program. By that time, most CQE communities had experienced 
substantial migration of locally held QS to larger communities. The CQE 
Program allowed these eligible communities to purchase limited amounts 
of vessel category B and C halibut and sablefish QS, but did not allow 
for purchase of vessel category D QS. One of the primary reasons the 
Council originally prohibited CQE purchase of vessel category D QS was 
to ensure that vessel category D QS would continue to be available to 
new IFQ Program entrants and crew members. The Council was concerned 
that an influx of CQEs in halibut regulatory Areas 2C and 3A would 
drive up demand and price for vessel category D QS and reduce the 
available vessel category D QS for individuals. To date, few CQEs hold 
any halibut QS; the small number of CQEs representing communities in 
Area 3B were not prohibited from purchasing vessel category D QS. The 
Council and NMFS found no clear evidence demonstrating a potential 
conflict between the limited number of new IFQ Program entrants and 
CQEs in Area 3B.
    At the time the CQE Program was implemented in 2004, 14 communities 
became eligible for the CQE Program in Area 3A. Residents in 11 of 
those communities held about 9 percent of the total amount of Area 3A 
vessel category D halibut QS. Since then, all 14 communities in Area 3A 
have formed CQEs approved by NMFS. However, only 2 CQEs have purchased 
a very small amount of halibut QS due to difficulties in securing 
favorable financing terms. Section 2.4.3.2 of the analysis prepared for 
this proposed action (see ADDRESSES) provides additional detail on 
halibut QS holdings by Area 3A CQE communities.
    The amount of QS designated as vessel category D QS in Area 2C, 
Area 3A, and Area 3B is relatively small compared to vessel category A, 
B, and C QS. Section 2.6.2 of the analysis notes that Area 3A CQE 
community residents currently hold less than 3 percent of the total 
catcher vessel QS, and about 30 percent of that QS is vessel category D 
QS. The vessel category D QS held by community residents is one 
potential source of QS for CQEs to acquire additional QS. The Council's 
review of the CQE Program noted that CQE community residents who are 
transferring QS are more likely to offer the CQE favorable financing 
terms to purchase their QS if they are transitioning out of the 
fishery. Allowing Area 3A CQEs to purchase vessel category D QS could 
build equity and increase the potential that CQEs acquire halibut QS in 
Area 3A. The CQEs' acquisition of halibut QS would further the goals of 
the Council by enabling CQE communities to sustain community 
participation in the fishery.
    The first provision would require that CQEs that purchase and hold 
Area 3A, vessel category D, QS, fish the annual halibut IFQ on category 
D vessels (vessels less than or equal to 35 ft. LOA). These less than 
35 ft. LOA vessels are typically used by an entry-level participant and 
by most residents in Area 3A communities.
    The second provision of this proposed action would cap the purchase 
of vessel category D QS by eligible Area 3A CQEs at 1,223,740 units 
(132,293 pounds in 2010). The new cap equals the number of vessel 
category D QS units initially issued to individual residents of Area 3A 
CQE communities. If Area 3A CQE communities purchase sufficient QS to 
reach the cap, then NMFS would notify Area 3A CQEs that no more vessel 
category D QS could be transferred, and further transfers would be 
prohibited by NMFS. The Council recommended this limit to provide 
opportunities for CQEs to hold an amount of vessel category D QS up to 
the amount historically held by CQE residents. However, the cap amount 
would not significantly expand the total holdings of vessel category D 
QS in CQE communities or significantly increase potential competition 
for vessel category D QS between non-CQE and CQE QS holders.
    As described in Section 2.6.2 of the analysis, the use cap of 
1,223,740 units of vessel category D QS represents 9.6 percent of the 
total Area 3A, vessel category D QS. This means more than 90 percent of 
Area 3A, vessel category D QS would remain accessible to non-CQE QS 
holders. Therefore, the maximum effect, as limited by this action, 
would be the redistribution of up to 1,223,740 units of Area 3A, vessel 
category D, halibut QS from non-CQE QS holders to CQEs.
    The third provision of this proposed action would remove the 
current restriction on the minimum size block that a CQE could purchase 
of Area 3A, vessel category D, halibut QS. A block is a consolidation 
of QS units that may not be divided. The IFQ Program initially issued 
QS in blocks to address

[[Page 14496]]

various problems. Most initially issued QS that resulted in less than 
the equivalent of 20,000 pounds (9 mt) of IFQ (in 1994 pound 
equivalents) was ``blocked,'' that is, issued as an inseparable unit. 
Subsequent amendments to the IFQ Program created a variety of block 
sizes that were available for transfer. One of the primary purposes of 
QS blocks and the amendments to the block provisions was to conserve 
small blocks of QS that could be purchased at a relatively low cost by 
crew members and new entrants to the IFQ fisheries. As the experience 
of these fishermen increased and the size of their fishing operations 
grew, larger amounts of QS were needed to accommodate this growth. The 
method of a ``sweep-up'' was introduced to allow very small blocks of 
QS to be permanently consolidated so as to be practical to fish without 
exceeding block use caps. Over time, the Council and NMFS made moderate 
increases in the sweep-up levels to allow greater amounts of QS to be 
swept-up into larger amounts that could be fished more economically. 
Section 2.6.2 of the analysis prepared for this action provides 
additional detail on the development and regulation of QS blocks and is 
not repeated here.
    CQEs are currently prohibited from purchasing a halibut QS block in 
Area 3A that consists of less than 46,520 QS units. The majority of 
vessel category D halibut QS available in Area 3A is in small blocks 
less than or equal to the current sweep-up limit of 46,520 QS units. At 
the time of analysis (2010), 10 percent of the Area 3A, vessel category 
D, halibut QS was unblocked, 28 percent was blocked at levels greater 
than the sweep-up limit (large blocks), and 62 percent was blocked at 
levels less than or equal to the sweep-up limit (small blocks). The 
Council reviewed these data and determined that current regulations 
requiring CQEs to use unblocked QS and large blocks of QS limit the 
opportunity for CQEs in Area 3A to purchase vessel category D QS. CQEs 
have few opportunities to purchase vessel category D QS from residents 
of CQE communities who are either retiring out of the fishery or 
transitioning to a different category of QS. Therefore, the Council 
added the provision allowing CQEs to purchase any size block of vessel 
category D halibut QS in Area 3A.
    The primary effect of the three provisions of this proposed action 
on existing IFQ and CQE Program participants would be the potential for 
greater competition in the market for purchasing vessel category D 
halibut QS, which could result in a higher price. While this potential 
for competition would affect all current and potential QS holders, 
including resident fishermen of CQE communities, the impacts of the 
proposed action on all IFQ Program participants would be limited by the 
total amount of vessel category D halibut QS available for sale and the 
extent that CQEs are capable of purchasing vessel category D QS in Area 
3A. Given current financing options to secure funding for a QS purchase 
and the trend of reduced rates of halibut QS transfers, the Council and 
NMFS could not determine through the analysis of this action whether 
allowing CQEs to access vessel category D QS in Area 3A would have an 
impact on the amount of vessel category D QS transfers or the overall 
market price for the purchase of vessel category D QS. While CQEs would 
likely continue to have difficulty in funding the purchase of QS, this 
action would potentially provide more opportunity for communities to 
participate in the halibut QS market.

Action 4: Technical Revisions to Recordkeeping and Reporting

    Action 4 would amend CQE recordkeeping and reporting requirements, 
clarify CQE Program eligibility for individual communities, and correct 
minor errors in current program regulations.

Annual Reporting

    When the Council developed the CQE Program, it recommended that 
CQEs prepare and submit an annual report to NMFS that described the 
prior year's business and fishing operations. The annual report 
requirements capture three performance standards that the Council 
established for CQEs. The performance standards are (1) equitable 
distribution of IFQ leases within a community, (2) the use of IFQ by 
local crew members, and (3) the percentage of IFQ resulting from 
community-held QS that is fished on an annual basis. A CQE's annual 
report is used by the Council to measure the CQE's prior year's 
performance against these standards. These annual reports are used to 
track the progress of the CQEs and assess whether the CQE issuance of 
the fishing privileges is meeting the overall goal of the CQE Program.
    The current CQE annual report requirements for CQE leases of IFQ 
halibut and sablefish in the IFQ Program are found in the recordkeeping 
and reporting regulations in Sec.  679.5(l)(8). The CQE annual 
reporting requirements for CQE assignment of Pacific cod endorsed non-
trawl groundfish LLP licenses are in Sec.  679.4(k)(10)(G) of the 
regulations. The remaining annual reporting requirements for the CQE 
assignment of LLP licenses are in regulations at Sec.  679.5(l)(8) 
(i.e., CQE lease of IFQ).
    Currently, there are no requirements for CQEs to submit an annual 
report on their use of community charter halibut permits in the charter 
halibut limited access program. Following implementation of the charter 
halibut limited access program, NMFS reviewed the Council's 
recommendation for the issuance of charter halibut permits to CQEs. 
NMFS determined that the Council intended that CQEs include information 
on the distribution and use of charter halibut permits in their annual 
report, following the same requirements for the IFQ and LLP program 
annual reports. Therefore, NMFS proposes specific CQE annual reporting 
requirements for use of community charter halibut permits in the 
charter halibut limited access program.
    This action proposes the consolidation of CQE annual reporting 
requirements for all CQE participation in Federal fishery management 
programs in Sec.  679.5(t), the recordkeeping and reporting 
regulations. Proposed paragraph (t) would describe both general 
reporting requirements for CQE annual reports and specific reporting 
requirements for any CQE participating in the IFQ, charter halibut 
limited access, and LLP programs. The action would also revise Sec.  
679.4(k), Permits, and Sec.  679.5(l), Recordkeeping and Reporting, to 
reference the single location for annual reporting regulations at Sec.  
679.5(t). Finally, the action would add the CQE annual reporting 
requirement to the charter halibut limited access program at Sec.  
300.67(k)(7). These proposed changes would streamline regulatory text 
and provide CQEs with a single reference to determine their annual 
reporting requirements.

CQE Floating Processor Landing Report Requirements

    This action would revise the recordkeeping and reporting 
regulations at Sec.  679.5(e) for CQE floating processors. Under 
Amendment 83 to the GOA FMP, NMFS implemented regulations that allow 
vessels to receive and process catch harvested by other vessels within 
the municipal boundaries of CQEs located in the Central and Western GOA 
(76 FR 74670, December 1, 2011). This proposed action would not modify 
provisions applicable to the general use of CQE floating processors 
that were established and described in the final rule implementing 
Amendment 83, but would clarify specific reporting

[[Page 14497]]

requirements that must be met. The current regulations at Sec.  
679.5(e)(6) state that CQE floating processors that receive groundfish 
from catcher vessels must submit a daily mothership landing report in 
the eLandings electronic reporting system that they were taking 
deliveries within the municipal boundary of a CQE community. However, 
NMFS proposes this reporting should occur on the shoreside processor 
landing report for two reasons: first, a shoreside landing report 
provides a more accurate report of CQE floating processing activity, 
and second, it will improve the timely collection and assessment of 
landing data. As such, this action proposes to move the reporting 
requirement from Sec.  679.5(e)(6) to Sec.  679.5(e)(5). In addition, 
the definition of a mothership at Sec.  679.2(3), which is specific to 
CQE floating processors, would no longer be needed and would therefore 
be removed.

Modify Table 21 to Part 679

    This action would make three modifications to Table 21 to part 679 
by adding column headings to describe the management areas where CQE 
Program communities may use halibut and sablefish. The preambles to the 
proposed and final rules for GOA Amendment 66 describe the specific 
communities that may use halibut and sablefish IFQ (proposed rule: 68 
FR 59564, October 16, 2003; final rule: 69 FR 23681, April 30, 2004). 
Under GOA Amendment 66, the Council allowed a distinct set of 42 remote 
coastal communities with historic participation in the halibut and 
sablefish fisheries to purchase and hold halibut QS in halibut 
regulatory Areas 2C, 3A, and 3B of the GOA and sablefish QS in the 
Southeast and Southcentral Alaska.
    Currently, Table 21 to part 679 that lists these communities does 
not clearly delineate which communities may lease halibut IFQ in Areas 
3A and 3B. The first modification NMFS proposes is to correct this 
error in Table 21. This correction is needed to accurately describe 
community eligibility to lease halibut QS by halibut IFQ regulatory 
area. This proposed correction to Table 21 would eliminate potential 
confusion by the regulated public. Since implementation of the CQE 
Program, any halibut QS issued to a CQE included the corresponding IFQ 
regulatory area on the permit. This permit is the primary document used 
by authorized enforcement officers to determine in what regulatory area 
a fisherman is allowed to fish IFQ derived from the QS. Despite the 
absence of the information in Table 21 in current regulations, NMFS 
would not issue a halibut QS permit to a CQE with the incorrect IFQ 
regulatory areas.
    Currently, Table 21 does not indicate the CQE Program communities 
in the GOA that are eligible to use sablefish QS. NMFS proposes a 
second modification to Table 21 that would add a column to specify the 
CQE communities in the GOA that may lease sablefish IFQ.
    NMFS proposes a third modification to add columns to Table 21 to 
list the maximum number and the halibut IFQ regulatory area of charter 
halibut limited access permits that may be granted to CQEs representing 
specific communities. The halibut charter moratorium program (75 FR 
554, January 5, 2010) issued a limited number of charter halibut 
permits to each CQE representing a community in Area 2C and Area 3A 
that meets specific criteria denoting underdeveloped charter halibut 
ports. Currently, the regulations lack a single listing of the number 
of permits each community is eligible to receive. NMFS proposes to list 
in Table 21 the maximum number of charter halibut limited access 
permits that may be issued in halibut IFQ regulatory Area 2C and Area 
3A by eligible community.
    The three proposed modifications to Table 21 would assist CQEs and 
other stakeholders in referencing fishing program eligibility by CQE 
community. If approved, these modifications to Table 21 would be made 
in conjunction with the proposed actions in this rule to add three new 
communities to the CQE Program and to remove Table 50 to part 679.

Remove Table 50 to Part 679

    NMFS determined from a review of Table 21 to part 679 that the 
information in Table 50 to part 679 would be best incorporated into 
Table 21. Table 50 originated as part of Amendment 86 to the FMP to 
modify the License Limitation Program (LLP) for groundfish fisheries 
(76 FR 15826, March 22, 2011). As previously explained, Amendment 86 
authorized CQEs representing certain communities in the Central and 
Western GOA to request and receive a limited number of Pacific cod 
endorsed non-trawl groundfish LLP licenses and assign those LLP 
licenses to specified users and vessels operating in those CQE 
communities. Table 50 lists the maximum number and the regulatory area 
specification of those groundfish LLP licenses that may be granted to 
CQEs representing the specific GOA communities. Currently, all 
communities listed in Table 50 are also included in Table 21. Combining 
Table 21 and Table 50 would consolidate regulations describing each CQE 
community's eligibility to participate in Federal fishery management 
programs in the GOA. The revised Table 21 would clearly define each CQE 
community's opportunities and remove duplicate information currently 
contained in Table 50. As proposed, CQEs and other stakeholders would 
be able to reference Table 21 and efficiently locate all the fishing 
programs for which a specific CQE community is eligible.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is 
consistent with Amendment 94, the Halibut Act, the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after 
public comment.

Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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. 
Community quota entities are the only entities that will be directly 
impacted by this proposed rule. Under the terms of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, CQEs are always considered small entities.
    If the proposed actions are implemented, each action would have a 
positive impact on the affected small entities because they would 
increase CQE fishing opportunities over the status quo. The action to 
relieve the vessel use cap restriction when individual, non-CQE IFQ is 
fished on board the vessel removes an overly restrictive management 
provision. By removing this provision, CQE communities will have more 
opportunities to fish than they are currently allowed. The addition of 
three new communities to the list of communities eligible to form a CQE 
correctly identifies all of the communities eligible to participate in 
the CQE Program, thus ensuring that eligible communities are not being 
left out of the program. The action to allow Area 3A communities to 
purchase D category halibut QS would not have adverse economic impacts 
on directly regulated small entities and would preserve fishing 
opportunities in small rural communities.

[[Page 14498]]

    Because of the voluntary nature of the CQE Program, and the fact 
that the proposed actions would increase CQE fishing opportunities, 
this rule would not impose significant adverse economic impacts on a 
substantial number of small entities. As a result, an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and none has been 
prepared.

Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

    The proposed rule would require additional reporting, 
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements by CQEs. Specifically, 
the proposed rule would require CQEs to add a description of the 
previous year's business and fishing operations for the charter halibut 
limited access program to its annual report submitted to NMFS. The 
reports are currently, and would continue to be, reviewed by NMFS. 
Information would be released to the Council, if requested, in a manner 
that is consistent with section 402(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
applicable agency regulations and policies.

Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    No Federal rules that might duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 
these proposed actions have been identified.

Collection-of-Information

    This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements 
subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA). These requirements have been submitted to OMB for approval and 
are listed below by OMB control number. To improve efficiency and 
clarity, the CQE activities are being brought together with other CQE 
forms under one collection.

OMB Control No. 0648-0272

    Two forms (Application for a Non-profit Corporation to be 
Designated as a Community Quota Entity (CQE) and Application for 
Transfer of QS/IFQ to or from a CQE) are removed from this IFQ Program 
collection and are placed in the new ACQE collection (see below). No 
changes are made to the forms.

OMB Control No. 0648-0334

    Three elements (Application for a CQE to Receive a Non-trawl 
Groundfish LLP License; Letter of Authorization for Persons Using LLP 
Licenses Assigned to a CQE; and CQE Annual Report) are removed from 
this License Limitation Program (LLP) and are placed in the new ACQE 
collection (see below). No changes are made to the elements.

OMB Control No. 0648-ACQE

    Public reporting burden is estimated to average 200 hours per 
response for Application to become a Community Quota Entity (CQE); two 
hours per response for Application for Transfer of QS/IFQ to or from a 
CQE; 20 hours for Application for a CQE to Receive a Non-trawl 
Groundfish LLP License; 40 hours for CQE Annual Report; and one hour 
for a CQE Letter of Authorization. The estimated reporting burden 
includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data 
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 
reviewing the collection of information.
    NMFS seeks public comment 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 
regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data 
collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see 
ADDRESSES) and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or by 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 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.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 300

    Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 28, 2013.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and 
duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 
CFR parts 300 and 679 as follows:

PART 300--INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773-773k.

0
2. In Sec.  300.67, revise paragraph (k)(2)(i) and add paragraph (k)(7) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  300.67  Charter halibut limited access program.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) For Area 2C: Angoon, Coffman Cove, Edna Bay, Game Creek, 
Hollis, Hoonah, Hydaburg, Kake, Kasaan, Klawock, Metlakatla, Meyers 
Chuck, Naukati Bay, Pelican, Point Baker, Port Alexander, Port 
Protection, Tenakee, Thorne Bay, Whale Pass.
* * * * *
    (7) An annual report on the use of charter halibut permits must be 
submitted by the CQE as required at Sec.  679.5(t) of this title.

PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

0
3. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; 
Pub. L. 108-447.


Sec.  679.2  [Amended]

0
4. In Sec.  679.2, remove paragraph (3) of the definition for 
``Mothership.''
0
5. In Sec.  679.4, revise paragraphs (k)(10)(vi)(A), (k)(10)(vi)(C) 
introductory text, (k)(10)(vi)(C)(2), (k)(10)(vi)(F)(1), 
(k)(10)(vi)(F)(2), and (k)(10)(vi)(G) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.4  Permits.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (10) * * *
    (vi) * * *
    (A) Each CQE that has been approved by the Regional Administrator 
under the requirements of Sec.  679.41(l)(3) to represent a community 
listed in Table 21 to part 679 that is eligible for Pacific cod 
endorsed non-trawl groundfish licenses, may apply to receive the 
maximum number of groundfish licenses listed in Table 21 to part 679 on 
behalf of the eligible communities listed in Table 21 to part 679 that 
CQE is designated to represent. In order to receive a groundfish 
license, a CQE must submit a complete application for a groundfish 
license to the Regional Administer, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 
99802. A CQE may not apply for, and may not receive more

[[Page 14499]]

than the maximum number of groundfish licenses designated in the 
regulatory area specified for a community as listed in Table 21 to part 
679.
* * * * *
    (C) A groundfish license approved for issuance to a CQE by the 
Regional Administrator for a community listed in Table 21 to part 679:
* * * * *
    (2) Will have only the regional designation specified for that 
community as listed in Table 21 to part 679;
* * * * *
    (F) * * *
    (1) NMFS will issue only pot gear Pacific cod endorsements for 
groundfish licenses with a Western Gulf of Alaska designation to CQEs 
on behalf of a community listed in Table 21 to part 679.
    (2) NMFS will issue either a pot gear or a hook-and-line gear 
Pacific cod endorsement for a groundfish license with a Central Gulf of 
Alaska designation to CQEs on behalf of a community listed in Table 21 
to part 679 based on the application for a groundfish license as 
described in paragraph (k)(10)(vi)(B) of this section provided that 
application is received by NMFS not later than six months after April 
21, 2011. If an application to receive a groundfish license with a 
Central Gulf of Alaska designation on behalf of a community listed in 
Table 21 to part 679 is received later than six months after April 21, 
2011, NMFS will issue an equal number of pot gear and hook-and-line 
gear Pacific cod endorsements for a groundfish license issued to the 
CQE on behalf of a community listed in Table 21 to part 679. In cases 
where the total number of groundfish licenses issued on behalf of a 
community listed in Table 21 to part 679 is not even, NMFS will issue 
one more groundfish license with a pot gear Pacific cod endorsement 
than the number of groundfish licenses with a hook-and-line gear 
Pacific cod endorsement.
    (G) An annual report on the use of Pacific cod endorsed non-trawl 
groundfish licenses shall be submitted by the CQE as required at Sec.  
679.5(t).
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec.  679.5,
0
a. Remove paragraph (e)(6)(i)(A)(12) and redesignate paragraph 
(e)(6)(i)(A)(13) as paragraph (e)(6)(i)(A)(12);
0
b. Revise paragraphs (e)(3)(iv)(A), (e)(3)(iv)(B), (e)(5) introductory 
text, (e)(5)(i), (e)(6) introductory text, and (l)(8); and
0
c. Add paragraphs (e)(5)(i)(A)(12) and (t) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.5  Recordkeeping and reporting (R&R).

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (A) Groundfish shoreside processor, SFP, or CQE floating processor. 
If a groundfish shoreside processor, SFP, or CQE floating processor, 
enter the FPP number.
    (B) Groundfish catcher/processor or mothership. If a groundfish 
catcher/processor or mothership, enter the FFP number.
* * * * *
    (5) Shoreside processor, SFP, or CQE floating processor landing 
report. The manager of a shoreside processor, SFP, or CQE floating 
processor that receives groundfish from a catcher vessel issued an FFP 
under Sec.  679.4 and that is required to have an FPP under Sec.  
679.4(f) must use eLandings or other NMFS-approved software to submit a 
daily landing report during the fishing year to report processor 
identification information and the following information under 
paragraphs (e)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section:
    (i) Information entered for each groundfish delivery to a shoreside 
processor, SFP, or CQE floating processor. The User for a shoreside 
processor, SFP, or CQE floating processor must enter the following 
information (see paragraphs (e)(5)(i)(A) through (C) of this section) 
for each groundfish delivery (other than IFQ sablefish) provided by the 
operator of a catcher vessel, the operator or manager of an associated 
buying station, and from processors for reprocessing or rehandling 
product into eLandings or other NMFS-approved software:
    (A) * * *
    (12) If receiving deliveries of groundfish in the marine municipal 
boundaries of a CQE community listed in Table 21 to this part.
* * * * *
    (6) Mothership landing report. The operator of a mothership that is 
issued an FFP under Sec.  679.4(b) that receives groundfish from a 
catcher vessel required to have an FFP under Sec.  679.4 is required to 
use eLandings or other NMFS-approved software to submit a daily landing 
report during the fishing year to report processor identification 
information and the following information under paragraphs (e)(6)(i) 
through (iii) of this section:
* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (8) An annual report on the halibut and sablefish IFQ activity must 
be submitted by the CQE as required at Sec.  679.5(t).
* * * * *
    (t) Community Entity Quota Program Annual Report--(1) 
Applicability. A CQE must submit an annual report on the CQE's 
administrative activities, business operation, and community fishing 
activities for each calendar year it holds any of the following: 
Community charter halibut permits as described at Sec.  300.67(k), 
halibut and sablefish individual fishing quota (IFQ) and quota shares 
(QS) as described at Sec.  679.41(l)(3), and community Pacific cod 
endorsed non-trawl groundfish license limitation program (LLP) licenses 
as described at Sec.  679.4(k)(10)(vi)(F)(2). The CQE may combine 
annual reports about its holdings of community charter halibut permits, 
IFQ, and LLPs in one report. A CQE must submit annual report data for 
the community charter halibut permit, IFQ, and LLP permits it held 
during the calendar year. A CQE is not required to submit an annual 
report for any calendar year in which it did not hold any community 
charter halibut permits, IFQ, or LLPs.
    (2) Time limits and submittal. By January 31, the CQE must submit a 
complete annual report for the prior calendar year to the Regional 
Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, P.O. Box 21668, 
Juneau, AK 99802, and to the governing body of each community 
represented by the CQE as identified in Table 21 to this part.
    (3) Complete annual report. A complete annual report contains all 
general report requirements listed in paragraphs (t)(4)(i) through 
(t)(4)(iii) and all program specific report requirements applicable to 
the CQE as described in paragraphs (t)(5)(i) through (t)(5)(iii).
    (4) General report requirements. Each CQE must report the following 
information:
    (i) The eligible community or communities, represented by the CQE, 
any new communities, and any withdrawn communities;
    (ii) Any changes in the bylaws of the CQE, board of directors, or 
other key management personnel; and
    (iii) Copies of minutes and other relevant decision making 
documents from all CQE board meetings held during the prior calendar 
year.
    (5) Program specific report requirements. Each CQE must report 
business operations and fishing activity for the charter halibut 
permit, IFQ, and LLP programs for each eligible community represented 
by the CQE.

[[Page 14500]]

    (i) If a community in Table 21 to part 679 was issued one or more 
charter halibut permits held on behalf of the community by a CQE, then 
the CQE must complete paragraphs (t)(5)(iv)(A) through (I) of this 
section;
    (ii) If a community in Table 21 to part 679 leased halibut and 
sablefish IFQ derived from the QS held on behalf of the community by a 
CQE, then the CQE must complete paragraphs (t)(5)(v)(A) through (J) of 
this section; and
    (iii) If a community in Table 21 to part 679 was assigned one or 
more Pacific cod endorsed non-trawl groundfish licenses held on behalf 
of the community by a CQE, then the CQE must complete paragraphs 
(t)(5)(vi)(A) through (J) of this section.
    (iv) Charter Halibut Limited Access Program. For each community 
represented by the CQE, the program specific report for charter halibut 
permits held by a CQE, must include:
    (A) The total number of charter halibut permits held by the CQE at 
the start of the calendar year, at the end of the calendar year, and 
projected to be held in the next calendar year;
    (B) A description of the process used by the CQE to solicit 
applications from persons to use charter halibut permits that the CQE 
is holding on behalf of the eligible community;
    (C) The total number of persons who applied to use one or more 
charter halibut permits;
    (D) Name, business address, city and state, and number of charter 
halibut permits requested by each person who applied to use a charter 
halibut permit held by the CQE;
    (E) A detailed description of the criteria used by the CQE to 
distribute charter halibut permits among persons who applied to use one 
or more charter halibut permits that the CQE is holding on behalf of 
the eligible community;
    (F) For each person issued one or more charter halibut permits held 
by a CQE, provide their name, business address, city and state, ADF&G 
logbook number(s), and the number(s) of each charter halibut permits 
they were authorized to use with the corresponding regulatory area 
endorsement and angler endorsement;
    (G) For each vessel authorized to participate in the charter 
halibut fishery using one or more charter halibut permits held by the 
CQE, provide the vessel name, ADF&G vessel registration number, USCG 
documentation number, length overall, home port and each charter 
halibut permits number held by the CQE and used onboard the vessel;
    (H) For each vessel authorized to participate in the charter 
halibut fishery using one or more charter halibut permits held by the 
CQE, provide each set of ports from which the vessel departed and to 
which it returned, and the total number of trips that occurred to and 
from each set of ports when one or more charter halibut permits held by 
the CQE was used onboard the vessel; and
    (I) For each community represented by the CQE, provide any payments 
made to the CQE for use of the charter halibut permits.
    (v) Individual Fishing Quota Program. For each community 
represented by the CQE, the program specific report for halibut IFQ or 
sablefish IFQ that were derived from QS held by the CQE must include:
    (A) The total amount of halibut QS and total amount of sablefish QS 
held by the CQE at the start of the calendar year, at the end of the 
calendar year, and projected to be held in the next calendar year;
    (B) A description of the process used by the CQE to solicit 
applications from eligible community residents to use IFQ that is 
derived from QS that the CQE is holding on behalf of the eligible 
community;
    (C) The total number of community residents who applied to use IFQ 
derived from QS held by the CQE;
    (D) Name, business address, city and state, and amount of IFQ 
requested by each person who applied to use IFQ derived from QS held by 
the CQE;
    (E) A detailed description of the criteria used by the CQE to 
distribute IFQ among eligible community residents who applied to use 
IFQ held by the CQE;
    (F) For each person who leased IFQ derived from QS held by the CQE, 
provide their name, business address, city and state, each IFQ permit 
number, and the total pounds of halibut IFQ and total pounds of 
sablefish IFQ they were authorized to use through each IFQ permit 
number;
    (G) For each vessel used to harvest IFQ derived from QS held by the 
CQE, provide the vessel name, ADF&G vessel registration number, USCG 
documentation number, length overall, home port, and each IFQ permit 
number(s) used onboard;
    (H) A description of the efforts made by the CQE to ensure crew 
members onboard the vessels used to harvest the IFQ derived from QS 
held by the CQE are residents of the CQE eligible community;
    (I) Name, resident city and state, and business address, city and 
state of each person employed as a crew member on each vessel used to 
harvest IFQ derived from QS held by the CQE; and
    (J) For each community whose residents landed IFQ derived from QS 
held by the CQE, provide any payments made to the CQE for use of the 
IFQ.
    (vi) License Limitation Program. For each community represented by 
the CQE, the program specific report for GOA Pacific cod endorsed non-
trawl groundfish licenses held by a CQE must include:
    (A) The total number of LLP groundfish licenses by gear type 
endorsement held by the CQE at the start of the calendar year, at the 
end of the calendar year, and projected to be held in the next calendar 
year;
    (B) A description of the process used by the CQE to solicit 
applications from residents of the eligible community to use LLP 
groundfish license(s) that the CQE is holding on behalf of the eligible 
community;
    (C) The total number of community residents who applied to use an 
LLP groundfish license held by the CQE;
    (D) Name, business address, city and state, and number of LLP 
groundfish licenses requested by each person who applied to use a LLP 
groundfish license held by the CQE;
    (E) A detailed description of the criteria used by the CQE to 
distribute LLP groundfish licenses among eligible community residents 
who applied to use LLP groundfish licenses held by the CQE;
    (F) For each person assigned one or more LLP groundfish licenses 
held by the CQE, provide their name, business address, city and state, 
and LLP groundfish license numbers for permits of each gear endorsement 
type they were authorized to use;
    (G) For each vessel authorized to harvest LLP groundfish using one 
or more LLP groundfish licenses held by the CQE, provide the vessel 
name, ADF&G vessel registration number, USCG documentation number, 
length overall, home port, and each LLP groundfish license number used 
onboard;
    (H) A description of the efforts by the CQE to ensure crew members 
onboard the vessels authorized to harvest LLP groundfish using one or 
more LLP groundfish licenses held by the CQE are residents of the 
eligible community;
    (I) Name, resident city and state, and business address, city and 
state, of each person employed as a crew member on each vessel 
authorized to harvest LLP groundfish using one or more LLP groundfish 
licenses held by the CQE; and
    (J) For each community whose residents made landings using one or 
more LLP groundfish licenses held by the CQE, provide any payments made 
to

[[Page 14501]]

the CQE for use of the LLP groundfish licenses.
0
7. In Sec.  679.41, revise paragraphs (c)(10)(ii) and (g)(5) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  679.41  Transfer of quota shares and IFQ.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (10) * * *
    (ii) The CQE applying to receive or transfer QS, has submitted a 
complete annual report required by Sec.  679.5(t);
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (5) A CQE may not hold QS in halibut IFQ regulatory area 2C that is 
assigned to vessel category D.
    (i) A CQE may not hold QS in halibut IFQ regulatory area 3A that is 
assigned to vessel category D on behalf of a community that is located 
in halibut IFQ regulatory areas 2C or 3B as listed in Table 21 to part 
679.
    (ii) In aggregate, CQEs may not hold an amount of QS in halibut IFQ 
regulatory area 3A that is assigned to vessel category D in excess of 
1,233,740 QS units.
* * * * *
0
8. In Sec.  679.42, revise paragraphs (a)(2)(iii), (h)(1)(ii), and 
(h)(2)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.42  Limitations on use of QS and IFQ.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) IFQ derived from QS held by a CQE may be used to harvest IFQ 
species from a vessel of any length, with the exception of IFQ derived 
from QS in IFQ regulatory area 3A that is assigned to vessel category 
D.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) No vessel may be used, during any fishing year, to harvest 
more than 50,000 lb (22.7 mt) of IFQ halibut derived from QS held by a 
CQE, and no vessel used to harvest IFQ halibut derived from QS held by 
a CQE may be used to harvest more IFQ halibut than the vessel use caps 
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(1)(i).
    (2) * * *
    (ii) No vessel may be used, during any fishing year, to harvest 
more than 50,000 lb (22.7 mt) of IFQ sablefish derived from QS held by 
a CQE, and no vessel used to harvest IFQ sablefish derived from QS and 
held by a CQE may be used to harvest more IFQ sablefish than the vessel 
use caps specified in paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(2)(i).
* * * * *
0
9. Revise Table 21 to part 679 to read as follows:

  Table 21 to Part 679--Eligible Communities, Halibut IFQ Regulatory Area Location, Community Governing Body That Recommends the CQE, and the Fishing Programs and Associated Areas Where a CQE
                                                               Representing an Eligible Community May Be Permitted To Participate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       May lease halibut QS in      May lease       Maximum number of       Maximum number of
                                                                                                       halibut IFQ  regulatory     sablefish QS     CHPs that may be    Pacific cod endorsed non-
                                                                                                     ---------------------------   in sablefish     issued in halibut       trawl groundfish
                                            Halibut IFQ regulatory area                                                           IFQ regulatory     IFQ regulatory       licenses that may be
          Eligible GOA community            in which the  community  is   Community  governing body                                   areas      ----------------------   assigned in the  GOA
                                                      located              that recommends  the CQE                             -----------------                        groundfish  regulatory
                                                                                                      Area 2C  Area 3A  Area 3B                                                   area
                                                                                                                                 CG, SE, WG, and   Area 2C    Area 3A  -------------------------
                                                                                                                                   WY (All GOA)                         Central GOA  Western GOA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akhiok...................................  3A                            City of Akhiok.............  .......       X        X                X   .........         7            2
Angoon...................................  2C                            City of Angoon.............       X        X   .......               X          4
Chenega Bay..............................  3A                            Chenega IRA Village........  .......       X        X                X   .........         7            2
Chignik..................................  3B                            City of Chignik............  .......       X        X                X   .........  .........           3
Chignik Lagoon...........................  3B                            Chignik Lagoon Village       .......       X        X                X   .........  .........           4
                                                                          Council.
Chignik Lake.............................  3B                            Chignik Lake Traditional     .......       X        X                X   .........  .........           2
                                                                          Council.
Coffman Cove.............................  2C                            City of Coffman Cove.......       X        X   .......               X          4
Cold Bay.................................  3B                            City of Cold Bay...........  .......       X        X                X   .........  .........  ...........           2
Craig....................................  2C                            City of Craig..............       X        X   .......               X
Edna Bay.................................  2C                            Edna Bay Community                X        X   .......               X          4
                                                                          Association.
Elfin Cove...............................  2C                            Community of Elfin Cove....       X        X   .......               X
Game Creek...............................  2C                            N/A........................       X        X   .......               X          4
Gustavus.................................  2C                            Gustavus Community                X        X   .......               X
                                                                          Association.
Halibut Cove.............................  3A                            N/A........................  .......       X        X                X   .........         7            2
Hollis...................................  2C                            Hollis Community Council...       X        X   .......               X          4
Hoonah...................................  2C                            City of Hoonah.............       X        X   .......               X          4
Hydaburg.................................  2C                            City of Hydaburg...........       X        X   .......               X          4
Ivanof Bay...............................  3B                            Ivanof Bay Village Council.  .......       X        X                X   .........  .........  ...........           2
Kake.....................................  2C                            City of Kake...............       X        X   .......               X          4
Karluk...................................  3A                            Native Village of Karluk...  .......       X        X                X   .........         7            2
Kasaan...................................  2C                            City of Kasaan.............       X        X   .......               X          4
King Cove................................  3B                            City of King Cove..........  .......       X        X                X   .........  .........  ...........           9

[[Page 14502]]

 
Klawock..................................  2C                            City of Klawock............       X        X   .......               X          4
Larsen Bay...............................  3A                            City of Larsen Bay.........  .......       X        X                X   .........         7            2
Metlakatla...............................  2C                            Metlakatla Indian Village..       X        X   .......               X          4
Meyers Chuck.............................  2C                            N/A........................       X        X   .......               X          4
Nanwalek.................................  3A                            Nanwalek IRA Council.......  .......       X        X                X   .........         7            2
Naukati Bay..............................  2C                            Naukati Bay, Inc...........       X        X   .......               X          4
Old Harbor...............................  3A                            City of Old Harbor.........  .......       X        X                X   .........         7            5
Ouzinkie.................................  3A                            City of Ouzinkie...........  .......       X        X                X   .........         7            9
Pelican..................................  2C                            City of Pelican............       X        X   .......               X          4
Perryville...............................  3B                            Native Village of            .......       X        X                X   .........  .........  ...........           2
                                                                          Perryville.
Point Baker..............................  2C                            Point Baker Community......       X        X   .......               X          4
Port Alexander...........................  2C                            City of Port Alexander.....       X        X   .......               X          4
Port Graham..............................  3A                            Port Graham Village Council  .......       X        X                X   .........         7            2
Port Lions...............................  3A                            City of Port Lions.........  .......       X        X                X   .........         7            6
Port Protection..........................  2C                            Port Protection Community         X        X   .......               X          4
                                                                          Association.
Sand Point...............................  3B                            City of Sand Point.........  .......       X        X                X   .........  .........  ...........          14
Seldovia.................................  3A                            City of Seldovia...........  .......       X        X                X   .........         7            8
Tatitlek.................................  3A                            Native Village of Tatitlek.  .......       X        X                X   .........         7            2
Tenakee Springs..........................  2C                            City of Tenakee Springs....       X        X   .......               X          4
Thorne Bay...............................  2C                            City of Thorne Bay.........       X        X   .......               X          4
Tyonek...................................  3A                            Native Village of Tyonek...  .......       X        X                X   .........         7            2
Whale Pass...............................  2C                            Whale Pass Community              X        X   .......               X          4
                                                                          Association.
Yakutat..................................  3A                            City of Yakutat............  .......       X        X                X   .........         7            3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A means there is not a governing body recognized in the community at this time.
CHPs are Charter halibut permits.


[[Page 14503]]

0
10. Remove and reserve Table 50 to part 679.
[FR Doc. 2013-05077 Filed 3-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P