Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules 8921

Questions for Commenters

1. What would the benefit of

eliminating the unbelted test

requirement be compared to the

projected benefits of the agency’s

proposed options to allow depowering

of air bags? Would eliminating the

unbelted test requirement allow greater

depowering than adoption of the 80g

option? The sled test option? Would

greater depowering have benefits or

disbenefits?

2. What changes would the

manufacturers make in response to the

elimination of the unbelted test

requirement? How long would it take to

implement those changes? Would

manufacturers respond differently to

eliminating the unbelted test

requirement than they would if the

agency adopted the 80g option? The

sled test option?

3. How and to what extent could air

bags be made more effective for belted

occupants in the absence of an unbelted

test requirement? Would these changes

affect the performance of air bags in

protecting unbelted occupants?

4. Given current belt use rates, should

Federal law continue to require

automatic protection for unbelted

occupants? If so, should the required

level of protection be the same as for

belted occupants? Should the ISTEA air

bag mandate be repealed to allow

manufacturers to provide automatic

protection by automatic safety belts?

5. Is there a level of safety belt usage

at which it would be appropriate to no

longer require protection for unbelted

occupants? If so, what level?

6. If the unbelted test requirement

were eliminated, should that

elimination be coupled with

simultaneous compensatory changes to

the injury criteria or to the test

requirements, or both, to ensure the

continued protective value of air bags?

Changes might take the form of making

the existing criteria more stringent,

adding additional criteria, or both. If

compensatory changes are desirable,

what changes should be made? What

level of protectiveness should be

required for belted occupants? For

unbelted occupants?

7. Would the effects of eliminating the

unbelted test requirement be different

for driver air bags versus passenger air

bags? Have the design changes that the

vehicle manufacturers have been

making to driver air bags significantly

reduced the problem of driver deaths

caused by air bags? For unbelted

drivers? For belted drivers?

8. If the unbelted test requirement

were eliminated, should such

elimination be permanent or temporary?

If temporary, for how long should it be

suspended? Should it be reinstated after

smart air bags are required?

9. Would any potential harm from

eliminating the unbelted test fall

disproportionately on groups who tend

to have lower belt use rates and higher

crash rates, such as young drivers?

Would the belts designed to protect

belted occupants be less effective for

unbelted occupants?

10. What should the role of the

Federal government be with respect to

the design of air bags so as to minimize

air bag deaths in low speed crashes?

Should government merely point out

potential ways of avoiding such

consequences and let the marketplace

decide whether they should be

implemented, or should it mandate

features that will minimize the risk?

11. If the unbelted test were to be

deleted through legislation, should that

action be coupled with measures to

secure the enactment of stronger safety

belt use laws or other measures to

increase safety belt use?

Submission of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments. It is requested but

not required that 10 copies be

submitted.

All comments must not exceed 15

pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be

appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This

limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary

arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, three copies of the

complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street

address given above, and seven copies

from which the purportedly confidential

information has been deleted should be

submitted to the Docket Section. A

request for confidentiality should be

accompanied by a cover letter setting

forth the information specified in the

agency’s confidential business

information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above will be

considered, and will be available for

examination in the docket at the above

address both before and after that date.

To the extent possible, comments filed

after the closing date will also be

considered. Comments will be available

for inspection in the docket. The

NHTSA will continue to file relevant

information as it becomes available in

the docket after the closing date, and it

is recommended that interested persons

continue to examine the docket for new

material.

Those persons desiring to be notified

upon receipt of their comments in the

rules docket should enclose a selfaddressed, stamped postcard in the

envelope with their comments. Upon

receiving the comments, the docket

supervisor will mail the postcard back.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50)

Issued on February 24, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–4985 Filed 2–24–97; 4:51 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[I.D. 022197B]

RIN 0648–AI82

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in

the Western Pacific; Commercial and

Recreational Pacific Salmon Fishery

Amendment 12; Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery Amendment 10

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability of

amendments to fishery management

plans; request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the

Pacific Fishery Management Council

(Council) has submitted Amendment 12

to the Fishery Management Plan for

Commercial and Recreational Salmon

Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington,

Oregon, and California (Salmon FMP)

and Amendment 10 to the Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan

(Groundfish FMP) for Secretarial

review. Amendment 12 would allow

retention, but not sale, of salmon

bycatch by groundfish trawl vessels

under a monitoring program that meets

certain guidelines; would specify

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

standards as management objectives for

salmon species listed under the ESA;

and would update the Salmon FMP,
8922 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules

with no change in the FMP’s

management objectives. Amendment 10

would allow retention, but not sale, of

salmon bycatch by groundfish trawl

vessels under a monitoring program that

meets certain guidelines.

DATES: Comments on Amendments 12

and 10 must be received on or before

April 28, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on Amendments

12, 10, or supporting documents should

be sent to Mr. William Stelle,

Administrator, Northwest Region,

NMFS, Sand Point Way NE, BIN

C15700, Seattle, WA 98115–0070; or to

Ms. Hilda Diaz-Soltero, Administrator,

Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West

Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long

Beach, CA 90802–4213.

Copies of Amendments 12 and 10, the

Environmental Assessment (EA)/

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

are available from Larry Six, Executive

Director, Pacific Fishery Management

Council, 2130 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 224,

Portland, OR 97201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William L. Robinson at 206–526–6140,

Rodney McInnis at 310–980–4040, or

the Pacific Fishery Management Council

at 503–326–6352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that

each Regional Fishery Management

Council submit any fishery management

plan (FMP) or plan amendment it

prepares to NMFS for review and

approval, disapproval, or partial

approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act

also requires that NMFS, upon receiving

an FMP or amendment, immediately

publish a notice that the FMP or

amendment is available for public

review and comment. NMFS will

consider the public comments received

during the comment period in

determining whether to approve the

FMP or amendment.

Amendment 12 to the Pacific Coast

Salmon FMP and Amendment 10 to the

Groundfish FMP would authorize

rulemaking to allow retention of salmon

bycatch by groundfish trawl vessels

under an appropriate monitoring

program. Amendment 12 to the Salmon

FMP would also incorporate NMFS ESA

standards as management objectives for

salmon species listed under the ESA,

and update the Salmon FMP, without

changing the existing FMP’s

management objectives.

The portion of the amendment

regarding ESA standards is necessary to

bring the Salmon FMP into compliance

with the March 1996 Biological Opinion

issued under section 7 of the ESA

regarding the impacts of the Pacific

Coast salmon fishery on salmon stocks

listed under the ESA. The update of the

Salmon FMP merely combines into one

document the operative language of the

1984 framework FMP and its

amendments. Changes to management

objectives to comply with the ESA and

the update of the salmon FMP will

result in minor modifications to the

salmon regulations. A proposed rule to

implement those modifications will be

issued shortly.

NMFS welcomes comments on the

proposed FMP amendments through the

end of the comment period. NMFS will

consider the public comments received

during the comment period in

determining whether to approve the

proposed amendments. A proposed rule

to implement Amendment 12 to the

Salmon FMP has been submitted for

Secretarial review and approval. NMFS

expects to publish and request public

review and comment on this rule in the

near future. Public comments on the

proposed rule must be received by the

end of the comment period on the

amendments to be considered in the

approval/disapproval decision on the

amendments. All comments received by

the end of the comment period for the

amendments, whether specifically

directed to the amendments or the

proposed rule, will be considered in the

approval/disapproval decision on the

amendments.

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

Dated: February 21, 1997.

Bruce Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–4871 Filed 2–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F