50550 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1Rate Guidelines—Non-Coal Proceedings, Ex

Parte No. 347 (Sub-No. 2) (STB served Dec. 31,

1996), pet. for rehearing and reconsideration denied

(STB served Sept. 24, 1996), pet. for judicial review

pending sub nom., Association of Am. Railroad v.

Surface Transp. Bd., No. 97–1020 (D.C. Cir. filed

Jan. 10, 1997).

2Expedited Procedures for Processing Rail Rate

Reasonableness, Exemption and Revocation

Proceedings, STB Ex Parte No. 527, published in the

Federal Register on October 8, 1996, (61 FR 52710),

modified by decision served November 15, 1996.

3SAC is one of four constraints on railroad

pricing adopted in Coal Rate Guidelines—

Nationwide, 1 I.C.C.2d 520 (1985). Notwithstanding

its title, Coal Rate Guidelines procedures are not

limited to coal cases. Rather, the guidelines are the

preferred method of evaluating the reasonableness

of any rate.

4Simplified Rate Guidelines suggested that

procedural schedules should initially be set on a

case-by-case basis. Id. at 38 n.145.

5Under the 45-day schedule, the defendants

would have 15 days after the complaint is filed to

oppose use of the simplified procedures.

Complainant would have 10 days to respond to the

railroad position, and the Board would have 20

days to make its determination.

equivalent channel can be allotted to

Shelley in the event other parties

express an interest in the proposal.

Therefore, we will not accept competing

expressions of interest in the use of

Channel 292C1 at Shelley.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before November 3, 1997, and reply

comments on or before November 18,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission,

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the FCC,

interested parties should serve the

petitioner’s counsel, as follows: David

Tillotson, Esq., 4606 Charleston Terrace,

NW., Washington, DC 20007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

97–194, adopted August 27, 1997, and

released September 12, 1997. The full

text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC’s Reference Center (Room 239),

1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The complete text of this decision may

also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, See 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–25595 Filed 9–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

49 CFR Part 1111

[STB Ex Parte No. 527 (Sub–No. 1)]

Expedited Procedures for Processing

Simplified Rail Rate Reasonableness

Proceedings

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board;

DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: On February 12, 1997, the

Surface Transportation Board issued an

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking soliciting comments on

how the complaint and investigation

procedures at 49 CFR part 1111 should

be modified to reflect the Board’s

adoption of Simplified Rate Guidelines.1

Based on the comments received, the

Board proposes to amend part 1111 to

facilitate the processing of cases using

Simplified Rate Guidelines. Comments

are invited.

DATES: Comments are due November 10,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments referring to

STB Ex Parte No. 527 (Sub-No. 1) to:

Surface Transportation Board, Office of

the Secretary, Case Control Branch,

1925 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC

20423–0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Stilling, (202) 565–1567.

(TDD for the hearing impaired: (202)

565–1695.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board

is charged with expediting the

processing of rate complaint

proceedings. Under 49 U.S.C. 10704(c),

we are required to make a determination

as to the reasonableness of a challenged

rate within 9 months after the record

closes if the determination is based on

stand-alone cost (SAC) evidence, and

within 6 months if it is based upon a

simplified methodology adopted

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10701(d)(3). On

October 1, 1996,2 we adopted rules to

expedite the handling of complaints

challenging the reasonableness of

railroad rates using SAC,3 including the

generally applicable procedural

schedule of 49 CFR 1111.8 that requires

completion of the evidentiary phase of

a SAC case in 7 months. We declined

to adopt a procedural schedule to

govern the filing of evidence in cases

using the then unadopted Simplified

Rate Guidelines procedures. Rather, we

decided to consider the adoption of

regulations covering such cases

following completion of the Simplified

Rate Guidelines rulemaking.

On December 31, 1996, we adopted

simplified evidentiary guidelines in

Simplified Rate Guidelines to determine

the reasonableness of rail rates on

captive traffic where the Coal Rate

Guidelines could not be practicably

applied. Subsequently, by Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, served

February 12, 1997 (62 FR 6508), we

solicited comments on whether a

general procedural schedule applicable

to cases processed under the Simplified

Rate Guidelines could be promulgated

(and, if so, what that schedule should

be), or whether we should delay the

adoption of a general procedural

schedule and proceed on a case-by-case

basis until all concerned acquire some

experience utilizing the new

guidelines.4

Comments were filed by the

Association of American Railroads

(AAR), the National Industrial

Transportation League (NITL), Barbara

R. Kueppers, and the United

Transportation Union-Illinois

Legislative Board (UTU–ILB).

Positions of the Parties

AAR acknowledges that the choice of

guidelines (Coal Rate Guidelines or

Simplified Rate Guidelines) must be

made at the outset of a case. However,

AAR sees no need to adopt a set

timeframe, such as the 45-day schedule

suggested in Simplified Rate Guidelines

(at 38) for deciding whether a case

should proceed under the Coal Rate

Guidelines or the simplified procedures.

AAR claims that a 45-day schedule

would be unfair because it would give

a shipper unlimited time to prepare its

initial case while giving the defendant

only two weeks to analyze

complainant’s case and prepare

opposing evidence.5 AAR also notes that
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50551

6Under 49 CFR 1111.9(b), in stand-alone cost

complaints, the parties are to discuss procedural

matters within 7 days after a complaint is filed.

Under 49 CFR 1111.9(a), in all other complaint

proceedings, the parties shall discuss procedural

issues within 7 days after an answer is filed.

7NITL suggests that a conference of the parties

could be held within 7 days of the filing of the

answer as specified in 49 CFR 1111.9(a).

8Simplified Rate Guidelines (at 37–38) requires

that a complaint seeking to invoke the simplified

procedures should contain:

(1) A general history of the traffic at issue,

including how the traffic has moved in the past,

how it currently moves, and how it can and will

be moved in the future. This information should

address not only the physical movement of the

traffic, but the type and level of rates actually used.

It should include all carriers (rail and nonrail) that

have participated in the transportation of this traffic

or could do so.

(2) The specific commodity description(s) for the

traffic at issue, the shipping characteristics and

requirements of the traffic, and the type of railroad

cars required or used for the traffic.

(3) All origins, destinations, and O–D [origindestination] pairs involved in the complaint, by

commodity type.

(4) The amount of traffic involved (by commodity

type), including total annual carloadings, average

tons per car, number of carloads per shipment, and

number of carloads per week or month.

(5) Total or average revenue per carload paid to

the defendant railroad(s), by commodity type.

(6) The feasibility and anticipated cost of

preparing a SAC presentation in the case.

(7) An estimate of the other costs to be incurred

in pursuing the rate complaint, including preparing

necessary jurisdictional threshold and market

dominance evidence.

(8) The relief sought, including all reparations as

well as the level and duration of any rate

prescription.

(9) The present value of the relief sought.

AAR notes that factor 7 includes costs associated

with ‘‘preparing necessary jurisdictional threshold

and market dominance evidence.’’ It asserts that

these costs are common to both simplified

procedure and CMP cases and are therefore not

relevant to determining which procedure to follow.

We note that while the costs are common to both

types of cases, the purpose of including them is to

determine and weigh the costs of presenting a rate

case under either CMP or the simplified procedures.

9She requests that parties enter into a

confidentiality agreement within 7 days after a

complaint is filed. If they are unable to concur on

an agreement, they can request that the Board

impose a confidentiality agreement. Within 10 days

of a confidentiality agreement being in place, the

parties are to disclose the information required in

Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and

the carrier shall provide to complainant its waybill

tapes.

10No special showing is needed to use Coal Rate

Guidelines because, where available, those

guidelines must be used.

11Currently, 49 CFR 1111.1(a) states in relevant

part:

In a complaint challenging the reasonableness of

a rail rate, the complainant should indicate whether

* * * the reasonableness of the rate should be

examined using constrained market pricing or

simplified standards to be adopted pursuant to 49

U.S.C. 10701(d)(3). The complainant should specify

the basis for this assertion.

the 45-day schedule appears to conflict

with the requirement for a conference of

the parties required by 49 CFR 1111.9.6

AAR prefers convening a conference of

the parties shortly after a complaint is

filed to allow the parties to develop a

schedule, subject to Board approval, for

determining whether the Simplified

Rate Guidelines can be used. In

addition, because no case has yet been

processed using Simplified Rate

Guidelines, AAR suggests that we set

procedural schedules for the filing of

evidence on a case-by-case basis until

sufficient experience is gained and the

need for a general schedule becomes

apparent.

NITL argues that, with minor

modifications, complaints seeking to

invoke Simplified Rate Guidelines can

be handled under the procedures

established at 49 CFR part 1111.7 NITL

supports deciding within 45 days a

request for invocation of the simplified

procedures. It proposes that the factors

that must be included in a complaint

seeking to invoke the Simplified Rate

Guidelines be specifically listed in 49

CFR 1111.1(a) so that potential

complainants are given appropriate

notice of both the availability of, and

requirements for, the use of the

simplified procedures.8

Finally, NITL recommends that the

Rules of Practice should include a

reference to the procedures established

in 49 CFR 1244.8 regarding access to the

Waybill Sample data. It suggests that

complainants request access to the

Waybill Sample simultaneously with

the filing of the complaint so that

complainant can complete discovery

and prepare its opening statement

within 120 days of the filing of the

complaint as specified at 49 CFR 1111.8.

Ms. Kueppers argues that the Board

should provide for a cost-efficient

means of accessing data through

discovery.9 In particular, she proposes

that discovery be completed in 6

months where rate reasonableness is the

sole issue in a proceeding. When rate

reasonableness is combined with other

issues, she proposes that the procedural

schedule be determined on a case-bycase basis, allowing for discovery

related to other issues. Ms. Kueppers

also argues that, because individuals in

small shipping organizations have a

variety of duties, it is difficult to

determine a universally appropriate

schedule (such as 120 days in standalone cases) for small shippers to

prepare and present a case. She

contends that small shippers should be

afforded flexibility in scheduling.

The UTU–ILB offers no comments on

procedural matters but states that it

continues to support traditional rate

comparisons as the best test of rate

reasonableness for the small shipper,

port, or community. It adds that it will

await the issuance of a notice of

proposed rulemaking before making any

other recommendations.

Discussion

We appreciate the comments of the

parties and have attempted to

incorporate as many of their suggestions

as practical in our proposal. We propose

to include in our regulations the

information that a complainant should

supply when seeking to test the

reasonableness of a rate using the

Simplified Rate Guidelines. We also

propose to establish a schedule for

determining whether the Simplified

Rate Guidelines can be used in a

particular case. Additional, minor

changes are being proposed. We are not

proposing to adopt at this time a general

procedural schedule for processing rate

complaints under the Simplified Rate

Guidelines, but rather intend to proceed

on a case-by-case basis until we gain

more experience using the new

guidelines.

Simplified Rate Guidelines (at 37)

recognized that a determination as to

which guidelines should be used in a

particular case must be decided at the

outset of the case.10 If the simplified

procedures are sought, the complainant

‘‘must present sufficient information to

show that [use of the Coal Rate

Guidelines] is not available * * * .

[T]his information should be included

in the initial complaint, so as not to

delay the case.’’ Id. Simplified Rate

Guidelines enumerated 9 evidentiary

factors (listed in note 8, supra), which

should be included in a complaint. We

propose to modify section 1111.1(a), as

suggested by NITL, to specifically list

the 9 evidentiary factors that a

complaint seeking to use the Simplified

Rate Guidelines should address.11 This

will ensure that anyone contemplating

filing a complaint is fully aware of the

factors that must be addressed in its

initial pleading. We also propose to

make certain technical changes to that

section.

As noted, AAR and NITL differ on

whether we should prescribe a 45-day

period for deciding whether the

simplified procedure should be used in

deciding rate reasonableness. To comply

with the Congressional directive to

expedite rate cases, the determination of

whether to apply the simplified

procedures must be made quickly at the

outset of a case. Based on the comments

of the parties, however, we propose to

modify slightly the 45-day schedule

suggested in Simplified Rate Guidelines.

Instead of 15 days, the railroad would

have 20 days to file opposition to the
50552 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules

12We propose to renumber current section 1111.9

as section 1111.10.

13 Within 14 days after an answer to a complaint

is filed, the parties, either jointly or separately, shall

file a report with the Board setting forth a proposed

procedural schedule to govern future activities and

deadlines in the case.

14 Because we propose to redesignate § 1111.9 as

§ 1111.10, these modifications are in proposed

section 1111.10(a).

15 See 49 CFR 1111.8.

16 Ms. Kueppers requests that the carrier provide

its waybill tapes to the complainant. Our rules at

section 1244.8, however, provide for a party to

request from the Board the Waybill Sample, which

is a statistically valid sample. We believe that this

process is a more efficient method of obtaining

information. We also believe, at least for the

present, that Ms. Kueppers’ request for discovery

and confidentiality rules is unnecessary and can be

handled on a case-by-case basis.

17 In Simplified Rate Guidelines (at 41) we denied

access to the Waybill Sample prior to the filing of

the complaint. However, parties can request access

to such data simultaneously with the filing of a

complaint. The Board will act promptly on these

requests.

use of the simplified procedures, the

same due date for filing an answer to a

complaint. 49 CFR 1111.4 (a) and (b).

This proposal gives a railroad more time

to respond and necessitates only one

filing, rather than two, in response to a

complaint. The complainant would

have 10 days to respond, and the Board

would have 20 days in which to

determine whether the Simplified Rate

Guidelines should be used. See

proposed new section 1111.9 (providing

for a 50-day schedule).12

We believe that such an approach

balances the needs of the parties. While

the time frame is relatively short, we

note that we are not deciding the case

on the merits but simply determining

whether to use the Simplified Rate

Guidelines. This short schedule is

necessary if we are to proceed with the

expeditious handling of the complaint.

Both the AAR and the NITL see a

scheduling conflict between holding the

procedural conference (49 CFR 1111.9)

and determining whether to apply the

simplified procedures. AAR, while not

wanting a schedule for determining

whether to apply the Simplified Rate

Guidelines, wants a conference of the

parties to be held ‘‘shortly after the

complaint is filed.’’ NITL also favors a

conference and supports proceeding

under 49 CFR 1111.9(a), under which

the parties are required to meet, or

discuss by telephone, discovery and

procedural matters within 7 days after

an answer to a complaint is filed.13 To

avoid convening a conference during

the time that parties are preparing

pleadings addressing the

appropriateness of using the Simplified

Rate Guidelines, we propose to modify

49 CFR 1111.9(a) so that the conference

will be held 12 (instead of 7) days after

the answer is filed (day 32) and the

report to the Board will be due 19

(instead of 14) days after the answer is

filed.14

The parties disagree about whether

we should prescribe a general

procedural schedule to govern the

submission of evidence for cases

processed under the Simplified Rate

Guidelines. AAR and, to some extent,

Ms. Kueppers favor a case-by-case

approach. NITL supports the use of the

procedural schedule applicable to

stand-alone cost cases with certain

modifications.15

We agree with AAR and Ms. Kueppers

that it seems best to proceed initially on

a case-by-case basis. Without any

experience processing cases using the

Simplified Rate Guidelines, it is difficult

to develop a generally applicable

procedural schedule. Nevertheless, the

goal of section 10704 is to expedite the

processing of rate cases. As a general

matter, we believe that the evidentiary

phase of a non-coal case should take

less than the 7-month time frame for

large coal cases. Therefore, we will

generally require that discovery be

expedited.

Finally, NITL requests that the Rules

of Practice cross reference the regulation

at 49 CFR 1244.8 concerning access to

the Waybill Sample.16 We believe,

however, that such redundance is

unnecessary.17

The Board certifies that the rules, if

adopted, would not have a significant

economic effect on a substantial number

of small entities. The proposed rules

should result in the quicker processing

of rail complaints using the simplified

procedures. The Board, however, seeks

comments on whether there would be

effects on small entities that should be

considered.

This action will not significantly

affect either the quality of the human

environment or the conservation of

energy resources.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1111

Administrative practice and

procedure, Investigations.

Decided: September 18, 1997.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice

Chairman Owen.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, title 49 chapter X, part 1111

of the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 1111—COMPLAINT AND

INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES

1. The authority citation for part 1111

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 559; 49 U.S.C. 721,

10704, and 11701.

2. Section 1111.1 is proposed to be

amended by revising the last two

sentences of paragraph (a) and adding

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) to read

as follows:

§ 1111.1 Content of formal complaints;

joinder.

(a) * * * In a complaint challenging

the reasonableness of a rail rate, the

complainant should indicate whether,

in its view, the reasonableness of the

rate be examined using constrained

market pricing or simplified standards

adopted pursuant to 49 U.S.C.

10701(d)(3). If the complainant seeks to

use the simplified standards, it should

support this request by submitting, at a

minimum, the following information:

(1) A general history of the traffic at

issue, including how the traffic has

moved in the past, how it currently

moves, and how it can and will be

moved in the future. This information

should address not only the physical

movement of the traffic, but the type

and level of rates actually used. It

should include all carriers (rail and

nonrail) that have participated in the

transportation of this traffic or could do

so.

(2) The specific commodity

description(s) for the traffic at issue, the

shipping characteristics and

requirements of the traffic, and the type

of railroad cars required or used for the

traffic.

(3) All origins, destinations, and

origin-destination (O–D) pairs involved

in the complaint, by commodity type.

(4) The amount of traffic involved (by

commodity type), including total annual

carloadings, average tons per car,

number of carloads per shipment, and

number of carloads per week or month.

(5) Total or average revenue per

carload paid to the defendant

railroad(s), by commodity type.

(6) The feasibility and anticipated cost

of preparing a SAC presentation in the

case.

(7) An estimate of the other costs to

be incurred in pursuing the rate

complaint, including preparing

necessary jurisdictional threshold and

market dominance evidence.

(8) The relief sought, including all

reparations as well as the level and

duration of any rate prescription.

(9) The present value of the relief

sought.

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50553

§ 1111.8 [Amended]

3. In § 1111.8 remove the phrase

‘‘section 1111.9(b)’’ and add

‘‘§ 1111.10(b)’’ in its place.

4. Redesignate § 1111.9 as § 1111.10

and add new § 1111.9 to read as follows:

§ 1111.9 Procedural schedule to determine

whether to use simplified procedures.

Absent a specific order by the Board,

the following procedural schedule will

apply in determining whether to grant a

request under § 1111.1(a) to use the

simplified procedures (the remainder of

the procedural schedule will be

determined on a case-by-case basis):

Day 0 Complaint filed, discovery

period begins.

Day 20 Defendant’s answer to

complaint and opposition to use of

simplified procedures due.

Day 30 Complainant’s response to

use of simplified procedures due.

Day 50 Board’s determination of

whether simplified procedures should

be used.

5. In newly designated § 1111.10

paragraph (a) is revised to read as

follows:

§ 1111.10 Meetings to discuss procedural

matters.

(a) Generally. In all complaint

proceedings, other than those

challenging the reasonableness of a rail

rate based on stand-alone cost, the

parties shall meet, or discuss by

telephone, discovery and procedural

matters within 12 days after an answer

to a complaint is filed. Within 19 days

after an answer to a complaint is filed,

the parties, either jointly or separately,

shall file a report with the Board setting

forth a proposed procedural schedule to

govern future activities and deadlines in

the case.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–25642 Filed 9–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[I.D. 091997B]

RIN 0648–AJ17

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico;

Amendment 15

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability of an

amendment to a fishery management

plan; request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council (Council) has submitted

Amendment 15 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Reef Fish

Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP)

for review, approval, and

implementation by NMFS. Written

comments are requested from the

public.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before November 25,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be mailed

to the Southeast Regional Office, NMFS,

9721 Executive Center Drive N., St.

Petersburg, FL 33702.

Requests for copies of Amendment 15,

which includes an environmental

assessment, a regulatory impact review,

and an initial regulatory flexibility

analysis, and for copies of a minority

report submitted by two members of the

Council, should be sent to the Gulf of

Mexico Fishery Management Council,

3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite

1000, Tampa, FL 33619–2266, Phone:

813–228–2815; Fax: 813-225-7015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Sadler, 813-570-5305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each

regional fishery management council to

submit any fishery management plan or

amendment to the Secretary of

Commerce for review and approval,

disapproval, or partial approval. The

Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires

that NMFS, upon receiving an

amendment, immediately publish a

document in the Federal Register

stating that the amendment is available

for public review and comment.

Amendment 15 would: Replace the

current system of commercial red

snapper permit endorsements and trip

limits with a system of two classes of

transferrable commercial red snapper

licenses and associated trip limits;

starting in 1998, split the red snapper

commercial fishing season into two time

periods, the first commencing February

1 with two-thirds of the annual quota

available and the second commencing

on September 1 with the remainder of

the annual quota available; open the red

snapper commercial fishery at noon on

the first of each month and close it at

noon on the 15th of each month during

the commercial season; prohibit the

possession of reef fish in excess of the

bag limit on a vessel that has on board,

or is tending, a trap other than a fish,

stone crab, or spiny lobster trap;

increase the minimum size limit for

vermilion snapper; close the

commercial fishery for greater

amberjack each year during the period

March through May; remove sea bass,

grunts, and porgies from management

under the FMP; and remove certain

species from the aggregate bag limit for

reef fish.

A proposed rule to implement

Amendment 15 has been received from

the Council. In accordance with the

Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is

evaluating the proposed rule and may

publish it in the Federal Register for

public review and comment.

Comments received by November 25,

1997, whether specifically directed to

the amendment or the proposed rule,

will be considered in the approval/

disapproval decision on Amendment

15. Comments received after that date

will not be considered in the approval/

disapproval decision. All comments

received on Amendment 15 or on the

proposed rule during their respective

comment periods will be addressed in

the final rule.

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

Dated: September 22, 1997.

Bruce C. Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–25556 Filed 9–23–97; 1:25 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F