67608 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Section Remove Add

195.57(a)(4) ............................................................................ miles kilometers (miles)

195.106(a) .............................................................................. pounds per square

inch

kPa (p.s.i.g.)

inches (twice) millimeters (inches)

195.120(b)(6) .......................................................................... 10 inches 254 millimeters (10 inches)

195.208 ................................................................................... 100 p.s.i.g. 689 kPa (100 p.s.i.g.)

195.210(b) .............................................................................. 50 feet 15.2 meters (50 feet)

12 inches 305 millimeters (12 inches)

195.248(a) .............................................................................. inches millimeters (inches)

36 (4 times) 914 (36)

30 (twice) 762 (30)

48 (twice) 1219 (48)

18 (3 times) 457 (18)

24 (twice) 610 (24)

195.250 ................................................................................... 12 inches (3 times) 305 millimeters (12 inches)

2 inches 51 millimeters (2 inches)

195.260(e) .............................................................................. 100 feet 30.48 meters (100 feet)

195.302(c)(2)(i)(A) .................................................................. mileage length (mileage)

195.302(c)(2)(i)(B) .................................................................. mileage length (mileage)

195.302(c)(2)(ii) ...................................................................... mileage length (mileage)

195.306(b)(2) .......................................................................... 300 feet 91 meters (300 feet)

195.306(c)(2) .......................................................................... 300 feet 91 meters (300 feet)

195.310(b)(9) .......................................................................... 100 feet 30 meters (100 feet)

195.410(a)(2)(i) ....................................................................... one inch 25.4 millimeters (1 inch)

one-quarter inch 6.35 millimeters (1/4 inch)

195.413(b)(2) .......................................................................... 500 yards 457 meters (500 yards)

200 yards 183 meters (200 yards)

195.413(b)(3) .......................................................................... 36 inches 914 millimeters (36 inches)

18 inches 457 millimeters (18 inches)

195.424(b)(3)(ii) ...................................................................... 50 p.s.i.g. 345 kPa (50 p.s.i.g.)

Issued in Washington, DC, on December

22, 1997.

Richard B. Felder,

Associate for Pipeline Safety.

[FR Doc. 97–33687 Filed 12–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

49 CFR Parts 192 and 195

[Docket No. PS–94; Notice 9]

RIN 2137–AB38

Qualification of Pipeline Personnel

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: This announces the next

RSPA Negotiated Rulemaking

Committee. This committee is

conducting a negotiated rulemaking to

develop a proposed rule on qualification

of pipeline employees performing

certain safety-related functions on

pipelines subject to the pipeline safety

regulations. The advisory committee is

composed of persons who represent the

interests that would be affected by the

rule, such as gas pipeline operators,

hazardous liquid pipeline operators,

representatives of state and federal

governments, labor organizations, and

other interested parties. The Committee

hopes to conclude the development of

this NPRM by the end of this meeting.

OPS will then publish the NPRM in the

Federal Register for public evaluation

and comment.

DATES: The Committee will meet from

9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on January 27–29,

1997.

ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet at

the American Gas Association, 1515

Wilson Boulevard, 11th floor, in

Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eben M. Wyman, (202) 366–0918, or by

e-mail (eben.wyman@rspa.dot.gov)

regarding the subject matter of this

Notice; or the Dockets Unit, (202) 366–

4453, for copies of this document or

other material in the docket.

Issued in Washington, DC on December 19,

1997.

Richard B. Felder,

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

[FR Doc. 97–33659 Filed 12–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 600

[Docket No. 970708168–7168–01; I.D.

061697B]

RIN 0648–AJ58

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;

National Standard Guidelines

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS); National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA);

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

public comment period.

SUMMARY: On August 4, 1997, NMFS

published a proposed rule to amend the

national standard guidelines under the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). The public

comment period for the proposed

guidelines ended September 18, 1997.

Because of remaining issues regarding

interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens

Act’s provisions relative to overfishing,

NMFS is reopening the public comment

period on national standard 1 for an

additional 30 days.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 1997 / Proposed Rules 67609

DATES: The comment period reopens

December 29, 1997; comments must be

received on or before January 28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

Dr. Gary C. Matlock, Director, Office of

Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD

20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George H. Darcy, 301–713–2341.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 4, 1997 (62 FR 41907),

NMFS published a proposed rule to

amend the guidelines interpreting the

10 national standards found in section

301(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Public comment received on the

proposed rule indicated a broad range of

views regarding interpretation of the

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act

with respect to prevention of

overfishing. Therefore, NMFS is

reopening the comment period on the

national standard 1 guidelines for an

additional 30 days to obtain additional

comment on specific issues regarding

overfishing.

The Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA),

which amended the Magnuson-Stevens

Act in 1996, contained several

provisions that affected national

standard 1, which was not itself

amended. That standard requires that

conservation and management measures

‘‘shall prevent overfishing while

achieving, on a continuing basis, the

optimum yield from each fishery for the

United States fishing industry.’’ The

SFA added a definition of ‘‘overfishing’’

and ‘‘overfished,’’ changed the

definition of ‘‘optimum,’’ required that

each fishery management plan specify

objective and measurable criteria for

identifying when a fishery is overfished

(section 303(a)(10)), and added a section

(304(e)) on identifying and rebuilding

overfished fisheries.

Issues

While NMFS received numerous

comments on the proposed guidelines,

it believes further comment on the

national standard 1 guidelines would be

useful. In particular, NMFS would like

commenters to address the following

issues:

1. Usage of ‘‘overfishing’’ and

‘‘overfished.’’ The SFA adopted the

regulatory definition of ‘‘overfishing’’ (at

§ 600.310(c)(1)), with two changes. The

existing regulatory definition states:

‘‘Overfishing is a level or rate of fishing

mortality that jeopardizes the long-term

capacity of a stock or stock complex to

produce MSY on a continuing basis.’’

The statutory definition in the SFA

deleted the modifier ‘‘long-term’’ and

substituted ‘‘fishery’’ for ‘‘stock or stock

complex.’’

NMFS believes that the removal of

‘‘long-term’’ in the statutory language

was intended to emphasize the need to

address overfishing in the near term,

and to rebuild overfished stocks to

levels that would produce MSY

(maximum sustainable yield) within a

reasonably short period of time, rather

than in some unspecified time frame.

This interpretation is consistent with

the fact that, taken as a whole, the SFA

enacted several significant measures to

address overfishing and rebuilding,

including requiring specific time frames

for action. Along with the amendment

to the definition of ‘‘optimum,’’ under

which the optimum yield cannot be set

above the MSY level, the addition of the

definition of ‘‘overfishing’’ in the SFA

(without reference to ‘‘long-term’’)

seems to raise the standard to which

conservation and management measures

are held. Because NMFS understood

deletion of the phrase ‘‘long-term’’ in

the SFA to be significant, the proposed

guidelines tie the meaning of

‘‘overfishing’’ to a rate or level of fishing

mortality (i.e., removals of fish from the

stock due to fishing) that jeopardizes the

capacity of a stock to produce MSY,

without regard to time frame.

The issue is whether NMFS has

correctly interpreted the definition of

overfishing, or whether it should adopt

a more elastic guideline with MSY as

only an eventual target.

2. ‘‘Fishery’’ versus ‘‘stock.’’ As

explained above, the statutory definition

of ‘‘overfishing’’ uses the term ‘‘fishery’’

rather than ‘‘stock or stock complex.’’

Both ‘‘fishery’’ and ‘‘stock’’ are defined

in the Magnuson-Stevens Act; both are

used in section 304(e) and elsewhere

somewhat interchangeably.

The proposed guidelines, in large

part, speak of ‘‘overfishing’’ and

‘‘overfished’’ in terms of a stock or stock

complex. NMFS scientists who worked

on the guidelines were concerned that a

‘‘fishery,’’ in its most expansive sense,

is not susceptible to being judged as

overfished or not; only for a stock of fish

can measurable, objective criteria of

overfishing be established. The same

applies to judging whether a fishery has

been rebuilt; biologically, that can be

determined only on a stock-by-stock

basis.

Some commenters believe the

requirement to prevent overfishing

should apply only to fisheries in a

broader sense, in order to provide the

greatest benefit to the Nation. They

believe that fishers may have to forego

substantial economic value from a

mixed-stock fishery if it must be

managed to restore the most depleted

stock component (species) in the fishery

to the level that would produce MSY.

(See issue 4 below.)

The issue is whether NMFS should

change its focus in the national standard

1 guidelines to a ‘‘fishery,’’ which may

be comprised of dozens of stocks, or

retain the requirements to prevent

overfishing of stocks and rebuild

overfished stocks.

3. Rebuilding schedules. The

proposed guidelines repeated the

statutory requirement that overfished

stocks must be rebuilt in a time period

that is as short as possible, taking into

account the status and biology of the

stock, the needs of fishing communities,

recommendations by international

organizations, and the interaction of the

overfished stock within the marine

ecosystem. However, in no case may the

rebuilding time exceed 10 years, except

where the biology of the stock, other

environmental conditions, or

management measures under an

international agreement dictate

otherwise.

NMFS received comments requesting

clarification of the statutory language.

One interpretation is that ‘‘as short as

possible’’ means the length of time in

which a stock could be rebuilt in the

absence of fishing mortality on that

stock. If that period is less than 10 years,

then the factors listed in section

304(e)(4)(A)(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens

Act (i.e., the status and biology of any

overfished stocks of fish, the needs of

fishing communities, recommendations

by international organizations in which

the United States participates, and the

interaction of the overfished stock of

fish within the marine ecosystem) could

be used to lengthen the rebuilding

period to as much as 10 years. If the

stock cannot be rebuilt within 10 years

in the absence of fishing mortality on

that stock, the rebuilding period based

on the absence of fishing mortality

would automatically become the

maximum time for rebuilding, unless

management measures under an

international agreement dictate

otherwise. Under this interpretation, the

biology of the stock and other

environmental conditions are taken into

account in determining the rebuilding

period that would be required, based on

the absence of fishing mortality, and

those factors would not be used to

further extend the rebuilding period.

Therefore, under this scenario, for a

rebuilding period that exceeds 10 years,

the only exception to allow extension of

the rebuilding period beyond that based

on an absence of fishing mortality

would be for those instances that are

dictated by measures under an
67610 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 1997 / Proposed Rules

international agreement to which the

United States is a party. Another possible interpretation for

those situations in which the rebuilding

period would exceed 10 years in the

absence of fishing is to treat the 10-year

limit as a guide in determining the

length of a rebuilding program. In these

cases, the question that immediately

arises is, how long can the rebuilding

program be? Must it be constrained, as

in the scenario above, or can it be

longer? If so, how much longer? NMFS

believes that it is not desirable to have

an unspecified time period for

rebuilding and that such an

indeterminate rebuilding period would

be inconsistent with the other

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens

Act. The guidelines could potentially

use the factors in section 304(e)(4)(A)(i)

to interpret ‘‘as short as possible’’ to

limit the time period beyond 10 years,

but NMFS believes that any rebuilding

program that exceeded the period based

on no fishing mortality would need to

be justified and constrained by the life

history characteristics of the stock. The issue is the interpretation of the

statutory language and how much

flexibility the statutory language allows.

NMFS is specifically seeking comment

on whether or not it is correct in its

interpretation that the duration of

rebuilding programs should not be

unspecified and, if so, what factors

should be considered in determining

that duration.

4. Mixed-stock exception. The

proposed guidelines, at § 600.310(6),

relied on the statute’s use of the term

‘‘fishery’’ to justify retention of a limited

exception to the requirement to prevent

overfishing on all stocks. The exception

would allow overfishing of one species

in a mixed-stock complex, but only if

certain stringent conditions are met (i.e.,

analysis demonstrates that it will result

in long-term net benefits to the Nation

and that a similar level of benefits

cannot be achieved through other

means; and the resulting rate of fishing

mortality will not cause any species or

ecologically significant unit thereof to

require protection under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) or any

stock or stock complex to fall below its

minimum stock size threshold).

This proposed provision has been

criticized by those who believe the

Magnuson-Stevens Act allows no

exceptions to the requirement to prevent

overfishing, even in mixed-stock

fisheries. Others have criticized the

provision as too stringent and believe

the Magnuson-Stevens Act allows

overfishing on one or more stocks in

mixed-stock fisheries, even if the result

is to maintain, or reduce stocks to, an

overfished status.

The issue is whether to delete or

liberalize the limited exceptions, and

whether to add other exceptions. One

suggestion is that the recovery of stocks

listed under the ESA should be handled

under that statute, not under the

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Another is that

stocks whose rebuilding would not be

assisted by cessation of fishing mortality

in the exclusive economic zone should

be exempt from the provisions of

section 304(e)(4) of the MagnusonStevens Act.

NMFS will respond to comments

received on national standard 1 during

this 30-day comment period, and to all

comments received on the proposed

national standard guidelines during the

comment period for the proposed rule,

in the preamble to the final rule.

Dated: December 19, 1997.

Gary C. Matlock,

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–33643 Filed 12–22–97; 2:13 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 971208294–7294–01; I.D.

103097B]

RIN 0648–AJ20

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in

the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery; Restrictions on

Frequency of Limited Entry Permit

Transfers; Sorting Catch by Species;

Retention of Fish Tickets

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed

rule to implement management

measures recommended by the Pacific

Fishery Management Council (Council)

that restrict the frequency of limited

entry permit transfers to once every 12

months, with transfers taking effect on

the first day of a cumulative landings

limit period. This rule would also

require the sorting of all groundfish

species with trip limits, size limits,

quotas, or harvest guidelines at the

point of landing, and the retention of

landings receipts on board the vessel

that has made those landings. This

proposed rule is intended to constrain

the introduction of new fishing effort

into the Pacific Coast groundfish

fisheries, and to improve the

enforceability of Federal and state

fisheries regulations. This action would

be taken under the authority of the

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery

Management Plan (FMP), and the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act).

DATES: Comments must be submitted in

writing by February 12, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

William Stelle, Jr., Administrator,

Northwest Region, (Regional

Administrator) NMFS, 7600 Sand Point

Way NE, BIN C15700, Seattle, WA

98115–0070; or to William Hogarth,

Acting Administrator, Southwest

Region, NMFS, 501 W. Ocean Blvd.,

Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802–

4213. Information relevant to this

proposed rule is available for public

review during business hours at the

Office of the Administrator, Northwest

Region, NMFS, and at the Office of the

Administrator, Southwest Region,

NMFS. Copies of the Environmental

Assessments/Regulatory Impact

Reviews (EA/RIRs) for these issues are

available from Lawrence D. Six,

Executive Director, Pacific Fishery

Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth

Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William L. Robinson at 206–526–6140,

or Svein Fougner at 562–980–4034, or

the Pacific Fishery Management Council

at 503–326–6352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS is

proposing three separate regulatory

changes: (1) Restricting the frequency of

limited entry permit transfers to once

every 12 months, with transfers taking

effect only on the first day of a

cumulative landings limit period; (2)

providing Federal regulatory support for

existing state requirements that require

the sorting of all groundfish species

with trip limits, size limits, quotas, or

harvest guidelines; and (3) providing

consistent regulatory requirements on

the retention of landings receipts

throughout the management area. These

regulatory changes were recommended

by the Council at its October 1996 and

June 1995 meetings, respectively. The

background and rationale for this

proposed rule are summarized below.

More details appear in the EA/RIRs for

these actions.

Restrictions on Permit Transfer

Frequency

Background. A license limitation

program for the Pacific Coast groundfish