1402 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

amendment’s effective date to January 1,

1998 for vehicles with a GVWR between

8,500 and 10,000 pounds. In the NPRM,

NHTSA noted that, due to the

demographics of the occupants of the

affected trucks, the benefits from

applying the belt fit requirement to

those trucks would be less than the

benefits of applying it to lower GVWR

vehicles. NHTSA also noted in the

NPRM that the economic impact of

requiring Ford to go ahead and comply

with the September 1, 1997 effective

date would be much greater than the

costs anticipated by the agency for

compliance with the belt fit

requirement. In the NPRM, NHTSA

tentatively decided that since the safety

benefits for the affected trucks was

likely to be very small, and the costs

accentuated, a four-month extension of

leadtime was reasonable. Interested

persons are encouraged to read the July

29, 1996 NPRM for a detailed

explanation of the agency’s reasoning

(61 FR 39432).

NHTSA received only one comment

on the proposal to extend the

compliance date for trucks with a

GVWR of more than 8,500 pounds. In

that comment, Ford supported the

extension, citing the reasons included in

its original petition and the NPRM.

Accordingly, NHTSA has decided to

adopt the proposed rule without change.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the impact of

this rulemaking action under E.O. 12866

and the Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures. This

rulemaking document was not reviewed

under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning

and Review.’’ This action has been

determined to be not ‘‘significant’’

under the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures. As explained earlier, the

agency estimates a cost savings of $4.8

to $4.9 million.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the

impacts of this notice under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby

certify that this final rule has no

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. As

explained above, NHTSA does not

anticipate a significant economic impact

on any manufacturer from this proposal.

For consumers, granting this extension

will slightly reduce the cost of these

trucks, especially the Ford trucks,

compared to their cost if the extension

is not granted.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96–511),

there are no requirements for

information collection associated with

this final rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has also analyzed this final

rule under the National Environmental

Policy Act and determined that it will

not have a significant impact on the

human environment.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and

has determined that this final rule has

no significant federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

Civil Justice Reform

This final rule will not have any

retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.

30103, whenever a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a

State may not adopt or maintain a safety

standard applicable to the same aspect

of performance which is not identical to

the Federal standard, except to the

extent that the state requirement

imposes a higher level of performance

and applies only to vehicles procured

for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets

forth a procedure for judicial review of

final rules establishing, amending or

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety

standards. That section does not require

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR Part 571 is amended as follows:

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for Part 571

of Title 49 continues to read as follows:

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 571.208 is amended by

revising S7.1.2 and adding a new

S7.1.2.3 to read as follows:

§ 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant

crash protection.

* * * * *

S7.1.2 Except as provided in

S7.1.2.1, S7.1.2.2, and S7.1.2.3, for each

Type 2 seat belt assembly which is

required by Standard No. 208 (49 CFR

571.208), the upper anchorage, or the

lower anchorage nearest the intersection

of the torso belt and the lap belt, shall

include a movable component which

has a minimum of two adjustment

positions. The distance between the

geometric center of the movable

component at the two extreme

adjustment positions shall be not less

than five centimeters, measured

linearly. If the component required by

this paragraph must be manually moved

between adjustment positions,

information shall be provided in the

owner’s manual to explain how to

adjust the seat belt and warn that

misadjustment could reduce the

effectiveness of the safety belt in a

crash.

* * * * *

S7.1.2.3 The requirements of S7.1.2

do not apply to any truck with a gross

vehicle weight rating of more than 8,500

pounds manufactured before January 1,

1998.

* * * * *

Issued on December 16, 1996.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–388 Filed 1–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 940553–4223; I.D. 010697B]

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal

Migratory Pelagic Resources of the

Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic;

Closure

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce

ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS closes the commercial

run-around gillnet fishery for king

mackerel in the exclusive economic

zone (EEZ) in the Florida west coast

sub-zone. This closure is necessary to

protect the overfished Gulf king

mackerel resource.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The closure is effective

12:00 noon, local time, January 7, 1997,

through June 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark F. Godcharles, 813–570–5305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1403

(king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cero,

cobia, little tunny, dolphin, and, in the

Gulf of Mexico only, bluefish) is

managed under the Fishery

Management Plan for the Coastal

Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf

of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP).

The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of

Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery

Management Councils (Councils) and is

implemented by regulations at 50 CFR

part 622 under the authority of the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act.

Based on the Councils’ recommended

total allowable catch and the allocation

ratios in the FMP, NMFS implemented

a commercial quota for the Gulf of

Mexico migratory group of king

mackerel in the Florida west coast subzone of 865,000 lb (392,357 kg). That

quota was further divided into two

equal quotas of 432,500 lb (196,179 kg)

for vessels in each of two groups by gear

types—vessels fishing with run-around

gillnets and those using hook-and-line

gear (50 CFR 622.42 (c)(1)(i)(A)(2)).

In accordance with 50 CFR

622.43(a)(3), NMFS is required to close

any segment of the king mackerel

commercial fishery when its allocation

or quota is reached, or is projected to be

reached, by publishing a notification in

the Federal Register. NMFS has

determined that the commercial quota

of 432,500 lb (196,179 kg) for Gulf group

king mackerel for vessels using runaround gillnets in the Florida west coast

sub-zone was reached on January 7.

Hence, the commercial fishery for king

mackerel for such vessels in the Florida

west coast sub-zone is closed effective

12:01 noon, local time, January 7, 1997,

through June 30, 1997, the end of the

fishing year.

The Florida west coast sub-zone

extends from 87°31’06’’ W. long. (due

south of the Alabama/Florida boundary)

to: (1) 25°20.4’ N. lat. (due east of the

Dade/Monroe County, FL, boundary)

through March 31, 1997; and (2) 25°48’

N. lat. (due west the Monroe/Collier

County, FL, boundary) from April 1,

1997, through October 31, 1997.

Classification

This action is taken under 50 CFR

622.43(a)(3) and is exempt from review

under E.O. 12866.

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

Dated: January 6, 1997.

Gary C. Matlock,

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–610 Filed 1–7–97; 3:07 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

50 CFR Parts 648 and 649

[Docket No. 9609262275–6372–02; I.D.

091196A]

RIN 0648–AI83

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Amendments to the Northeast

Multispecies, Atlantic Sea Scallop, and

American Lobster Fishery

Management Plans

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to

implement Amendment 8 to the

Northeast Multispecies, Amendment 6

to the Atlantic Sea Scallop, and

Amendment 6 to the American Lobster

Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) to

provide a framework abbreviated

rulemaking process to address gear

conflicts in the New England and MidAtlantic regions. These amendments:

Add an objective to the Atlantic Sea

Scallop and Northeast Multispecies

FMPs to allow management of gear

conflicts in these fisheries (the

American Lobster FMP currently has an

objective sufficiently broad in scope to

allow management of gear conflicts),

adapt the framework process currently

in place for the Northeast multispecies

and Atlantic sea scallop conservation

management programs to allow

implementation of a gear conflict

management program for all three

FMPs, and add a list of management

measures to each FMP from which the

Council could select future solutions to

gear conflicts through the framework

adjustment process. The intent of this

action is to provide mechanisms to

reduce the economic loss caused by gear

conflicts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the amendments,

their regulatory impact review and the

environmental assessment are available

from Christopher Kellogg, Acting

Executive Director, New England

Fishery Management Council, Suntaug

Office Park, 5 Broadway, Saugus, MA

01906–1097.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

H. Jones, Fishery Policy Analyst, 508–

281–9273.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Amendment 8 to the Northeast

Multispecies, Amendment 6 to the

Atlantic Sea Scallop, and Amendment 6

to the American Lobster FMPs were

prepared by the New England Fishery

Management Council (Council) in

consultation with the Mid-Atlantic

Fishery Management Council. A notice

of availability for the proposed

amendment was published on

September 20, 1996 (61 FR 49430), and

a proposed rule was published on

October 9, 1996 (61 FR 52903). Details

of this action are described in the

proposed rule and will not be repeated

here.

Approved Management Measures

These amendments add an objective

to the Atlantic Sea Scallop and

Northeast Multispecies FMPs to allow

management of gear conflicts in these

fisheries. This final rule amends the

fisheries’ framework process to allow

implementation of a gear conflict

management program for the FMPs and

adds the following list of management

measures to each FMP from which the

Council could select future solutions to

gear conflicts through the framework

adjustment process: (1) Designation of

restricted areas in one degree square

increments (2700 nm), (2) mandatory

monitoring of a radio channel by fishers,

(3) fixed gear location reporting and

plotting requirements, (4) standards of

operation when gear conflicts occur, (5)

fixed gear marking and setting practices,

(6) gear restrictions for specific areas

(including time and area closures), (7)

vessel monitoring systems, (8)

restrictions on the number of fishing

vessels or amount of gear, and (9)

special permit conditions.

Each framework adopted and

submitted by the Council under this

process would be an individual action

to be reviewed under the requirements

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) and other

applicable law. Approval of these

amendments implements a process and

provides a list of measures as potential

options that may be used to resolve gear

conflicts. This final rule does not

implement any of the measures listed

above. To implement one or more of the

measures listed, an individual

framework action would require

documentation and analyses sufficient

to determine consistency with all

applicable laws.

A framework action would only be

used to address gear conflicts occurring

in Federal waters. The Council

determined, and NMFS agrees, that the

gear conflict framework procedure is

principally designed to address true

gear conflicts and not as a proxy for

addressing what may be an allocation

issue between users.

For the purpose of these amendments,

the definition of gear conflict (at 50 CFR

600.10) is any incident at sea involving