47416 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

road surface measured from the center

of the headlamp on the motorcycle at

curb weight.

S7.9.6.2 (a) If the system consists of a

single headlamp, it shall be mounted on

the vertical centerline of the motorcycle.

If the headlamp contains more than one

light source, each light source shall be

mounted on the vertical centerline or

horizontally disposed about the vertical

centerline and mounted at the same

height. If the light sources are

horizontally disposed about the vertical

centerline, the distance between the

closest edges of the effective projected

luminous lens area in front of the light

sources shall not be greater than 200

mm (8 in.).

(b) If the system consists of two

headlamps, each of which provides both

an upper and lower beam, the

headlamps shall be mounted at the same

height and symmetrically disposed

about the vertical centerline.

(c) If the system consists of two

headlamps, one of which provides an

upper beam and one of which provides

the lower beam, the headlamps shall be

located on the vertical centerline, or

horizontally disposed about the vertical

centerline and mounted at the same

height. If the headlamps are horizontally

disposed about the vertical centerline,

the distance between the closest edges

of the effective projected luminous lens

area of the headlamps shall not be

greater than 200 mm (8 in.).

* * * * *

TABLE IV—LOCATION OF REQUIRED EQUIPMENT

[All Passenger Cars and Motorcycles, and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Trailers, and Buses of Less than 80 (2032) Inches (MM)

Overall Width]

Location on—

Item Passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,

truck, trailers, and busses Motorcycles Height above road surface measured from center ofitem on vehicle at curb weight

Head-lamps .. On the front, each headlamp providing the upper

beam, at the same height, 1 on each side of the vertical centerline, each headlamp providing the lowe

beam, at the same height, 1 on each side of the vertical centerline, as far apart as practicable. See also

S7..

See S7.9 ...... Not less than 22 inches (55.9 cm) nor more than 54

inches (137.2 cm).

* * * * *

Issued on: August 28, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–23512 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 630

[Docket No. 970829218–7218–01; I.D.

080597E]

RIN 0648–AK39

Options for Banning the Sale of

Undersized Atlantic Swordfish

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPR); request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS is requesting

comments on the necessity of and

options for rulemaking to impose a ban

on the sale of all undersized swordfish,

regardless of origin, in order to

implement an International Convention

for the Conservation of Atlantic

Tunas(ICCAT) recommendation to ban

the sale of Atlantic swordfish less than

the adopted minimum size (73 cm

measured cleithrum to keel (CK) or 33

lb dressed weight (dw)).

DATES: Written comments on this ANPR

must be received on or before October

6, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Rebecca Lent, Chief,

Highly Migratory Species Management

Division (F/SF1), National Marine

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill

Stevenson, 301-713-2347 or Buck Sutter

(813) 570–5447.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The fishable biomass of the north

Atlantic swordfish stock is estimated to

have declined 68 percent between 1963

and 1996. Prior to the early 1960s, the

stock’s biomass is estimated to have

been nearly two times the level needed

to produce MSY. By the beginning of

1996, its biomass was estimated to be 58

percent of the level needed to produce

maximum sustainable yield (MSY).

Similarly, the South Atlantic swordfish

stock has been under increased fishing

pressure.

ICCAT has adopted measures to

reduce fishing mortality in the entire

Atlantic Ocean. A 1991 ICCAT

recommendation had established a

minimum size for Atlantic swordfish of

79 cm CK (125 cm lower jaw fork

length) with a discretionary 15–percentper-trip (by number) tolerance. Even

with the provision for tolerance,

however, U.S. fishermen have

continued to catch and discard many

undersized fish.

In 1995, in order to protect small

Atlantic swordfish, ICCAT adopted an

alternative minimum size measure,

recommending that each contracting

party take necessary steps to prohibit

the taking of swordfish in the Atlantic

Ocean, as well as the landing and sale

in each party’s jurisdiction, of swordfish

and swordfish parts less than 119 cm

lower jaw fork length (73 cm or 29

inches CK)or the equivalent in weight

(33 lb dw), provided that no tolerance

of Atlantic swordfish smaller than this

alternative minimum size was allowed.

According to the Standing Committee

on Research and Statistics of ICCAT, the

fishing mortality associated with the

lower minimum size and zero tolerance

is roughly equivalent to that with the

higher minimum size and 15–percent

tolerance. This same ICCAT alternative

minimum size recommendation

provided for a ban on the sale of fish

less than the absolute minimum size.

In 1996, the United States

implemented this lower minimum size

limit in order to facilitate enforcement

and reduce discards of juvenile fish,

since most of the small swordfish

brought in under the 15–percent

tolerance were greater than the

alternative minimum size. Having

adopted the alternative, U.S. vessels

operating in the North Atlantic, Gulf of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 47417

Mexico, and Caribbean Sea were no

longer permitted to land any swordfish

less than the minimum size.

However, given the considerable

volume of domestic swordfish of Pacific

Ocean origin and imported swordfish

from all ocean areas that is entered into

commerce, NMFS is considering

whether it is necessary to prohibit the

sale in the United States of all

undersized swordfish, regardless of

origin, in order to enforce the ICCAT

recommendation regarding Atlantic

swordfish.

Complicating Factors

Since the implementation of the

alternative minimum size (61 FR 27304,

May 31, 1996), NMFS has been

researching the necessity of and options

for implementing a ban on the sale of

undersized swordfish. Many

complicating factors make this ban a

particular challenge.

The United States imports as much

swordfish as it produces from both its

Atlantic and Pacific fisheries. From

1975–1996, U.S. businesses imported an

annual average of 3,167,093 kg

(6,967,605 lb) of swordfish from 83

different countries. In the last 5 years

(1992–1996), an annual average of

5,384,143 kg (11,845,114 lb) of

swordfish has been imported into the

United States from 51 countries with

imports from Brazil, Canada, and Chile

comprising 61 percent of the 1992–1996

imports. It is not known what

proportion of these landings is

comprised of undersized fish. Further, it

is not currently known how many

businesses import swordfish or process

imported swordfish.

The ICCAT recommendation

considers only Atlantic swordfish,

however, domestic landings and

imports of Pacific swordfish complicate

monitoring and enforcement activities

since genetic testing to distinguish the

two stocks is complex and costly. NMFS

intends to work with the Fishery

Management Councils in the Pacific to

assess the feasibility of applying the

minimum size for Atlantic swordfish to

Pacific and imported swordfish. Finally,

it is not known what impact regulations

that ban the possession of small

swordfish or swordfish parts would

have on foreign exporters and

processors.

Alternatives

Should it be determined that

rulemaking is necessary, NMFS is

considering several alternatives to

implement a ban on the sale of

undersized swordfish, regardless of

origin:

(1) A requirement that all swordfish

importers obtain a valid dealer permit

and that permitted dealers be prohibited

from possessing swordfish or swordfish

parts less than the minimum size.

This strategy may have a significant

impact on those importers who also

process swordfish, as well as countries

that export processed swordfish (steaks,

fillets). Furthermore, NMFS would need

assistance on estimating the

approximate number of businesses

affected, both domestic and foreign.

(2) A ban on the possession of small

swordfish by dealers unless the

imported shipment were accompanied

by a validated document from the

country of origin that states that the

swordfish or swordfish parts were

obtained in a manner consistent with

ICCAT recommendations.

While this is a very thorough strategy

in tracking swordfish shipments, this

documentation framework could be

extremely cumbersome, costly, and a

significant reporting burden to a large

number of businesses. It would,

however, identify the size of the whole

fish, regardless of the product form(e.g.,

steaks, fillets) as well as its origin (flag

country, ocean area of catch).

(3) A designation restricted ports of

entry for Atlantic swordfish in order to

effect inspection of shipments.

While this would facilitate

enforcement of regulations, it would

still require restrictions on imports

(whole swordfish or pieces thereof

weighing greater than 33 lb) and could

be costly and burdensome to

implement.

Request for Comments

NMFS solicits comments on possible

implementation strategies of a ban on

sale of swordfish less than the minimum

size, regardless of origin, including any

information that would enable NMFS to

analyze the economic impacts (e.g.,

number of businesses), as well as to

estimate any applicable reporting

burden. Comments received on this

ANPR will assist NMFS in determining

the necessity of and options for

rulemaking to impose a ban on the sale

of undersized swordfish, regardless of

origin.

Classification

This advanced notice of proposed

rulemaking has been determined to be

not significant for purposes of E.O.

12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.

Dated: September 3, 1997.

David L. Evans,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–23775 Filed 9-4-97; 2:28 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F