Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 24797

(c) Raritan River from Grossman

Dock/Arsenal to New York Harbor,

Lower Bay;

(d) Arthur Kill Channel;

(e) Kill Van Kull Channel;

(f) Newark Bay;

(g) Passaic River from Point No Point

to Newark Bay;

(h) Hackensack River from the turning

basin to Newark Bay; and

(i) New York Harbor, Upper and

Lower Bay.

§ 15.1040 Massachusetts.

The following U.S. navigable waters

located within the State of

Massachusetts when the vessel is in

transit, but not bound to or departing

from a port within the following listed

operating areas:

(a) Cape Cod Bay south of latitude

41°48′54′′N;

(b) The Cape Cod Canal; and

(c) Buzzards Bay east of a line

extending from the southernmost point

of Wilbur Point (latitude 41°34′55′′N

longitude 70°51′15W) to the easternmost

point of Pasque Island (latitude

41°26′55′′N longitude 70°50′30′′W).

Dated: April 24, 1995.

G.N. Naccara,

Acting Chief, Office of Marine Safety, Security

and Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 95–11303 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–P

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74–09; Notice 40]

RIN 2127–AE61

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Child Restraint Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions

for reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This document amends the

labeling requirements of Standard 213

that were adopted in a rule facilitating

the manufacture of belt-positioning

child seats (booster seats designed to be

used with a vehicle’s lap/shoulder belt

system). Specifically, this document

amends the requirements for a type of

belt-positioning seat known as a dualpurpose booster (a booster that can be

used with either a lap or a lap/shoulder

belt when used with a shield-type

component to restrain the upper torso of

a child seated in the booster, but only

with a lap/shoulder belt when used

without the shield). In response to a

petition for reconsideration from Gerry

Baby Products, NHTSA is amending

several of the labeling requirements to

exclude dual-purpose boosters that are

designed such that the shoulder belt is

not placed in front of the child when the

booster is used with a shield and a lap/

shoulder belt. This rule also corrects

labeling requirements adopted in the

rule by excluding from those

requirements car beds and rear-facing

restraints, restraints for which the

requirements were not intended.

DATES: This rule is effective August 8,

1995.

Manufacturers may voluntarily

comply with the amendments

promulgated by this final rule on or

after June 9, 1995.

Petitions for reconsideration of the

rule must be received by June 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration

should refer to the docket and number

of this document and be submitted to:

Administrator, Room 5220, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington,

D.C., 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

George Mouchahoir, Office of Vehicle

Safety Standards (telephone 202–366–

4919), or Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of

the Chief Counsel (202–366–2992),

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W.,

Washington, D.C., 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 21, 1994 (59 FR 37167),

NHTSA published a final rule amending

Standard 213 to facilitate the

manufacture of ‘‘belt-positioning’’ child

booster seats (i.e., booster seats designed

to be used with a vehicle’s lap/shoulder

belt system). The amendment adopted

performance and labeling requirements

and test criteria for belt-positioning

booster seats. The labeling requirements

were intended to decrease the

likelihood that positioning booster seats

will be misused. The rule adopted

requirements in S5.5.2(i)(2) for ‘‘dual

purpose’’ boosters (boosters that can be

used with either a lap or a lap/shoulder

belt when used with a shield-type

component to restrain the upper torso of

the restrained child, but only with a lap/

shoulder belt when used without the

shield).

To ensure that dual purpose boosters

are used with the proper vehicle belt

system, S5.5.2(i)(2) requires dual

purpose boosters to be labeled with the

following warning:

WARNING! USE ONLY THE VEHICLE’S

LAP BELT SYSTEM, OR THE LAP BELT

PART OF A LAP/SHOULDER BELT SYSTEM

WITH THE SHOULDER BELT PLACED

BEHIND THE CHILD, WHEN RESTRAINING

THE CHILD WITH THE insert description of

the system element provided to restrain

forward movement of the child’s torso when

used with a lap belt (e.g., shield), AND ONLY

THE VEHICLE’S LAP AND SHOULDER

BELT SYSTEM WHEN USING THIS

BOOSTER WITHOUT THE insert above

description.

The agency adopted the warning

regarding the placement of the shoulder

belt portion of the belt system behind

the child in response to test data. Those

data showed that, for small shield

booster seats, ‘‘the routing of the

shoulder belt (three point belt) in front

of the dummy significantly affected the

[head injury criterion] HIC, 3 msec chest

clip [acceleration], and head excursion

values, regardless of dummy size.’’

Specifically, the study stated that:

The 3 year old dummy/three point belt

tests had 80% to 90% higher HIC values than

the corresponding lap only belt tests, while

for the 6 year old dummy, the three point belt

tests were 18% to 59% higher. The 3 year

old/three point belt tests were the only test

conditions that produced HIC values above

1000.

The study also showed that routing

the shoulder belt in front of the dummy

caused the chest clip acceleration to

increase for the 3-year-old dummy

tested in two shield booster seats, from

31G to 44G and from 38G to 45G,

respectively. The chest acceleration

increases for these seats were from

about 36G to 52G and 28G to 44G,

respectively, when tested using a sixyear-old dummy. NHTSA stated that it

did not know of any shield-type booster

seat that performs well when the booster

seat is used with a lap/shoulder belt

system and the restraining system

element (i.e., the shield) and the

shoulder portion of the belt system is

left in front of the child. In view of

safety concerns about the performance

of boosters when the restraining system

element (shield) is used and the

shoulder belt is in front of the child,

NHTSA required dual purpose boosters

to be labeled with an instruction to

consumers to place the shoulder belt

behind the child when the restraining

system element (shield) is used, and

required this instruction to be included

in the printed instructions for each of

these boosters (S5.6.1.9).

Petition for Reconsideration

Gerry Baby Products Company

petitioned for reconsideration of the

final rule. Gerry informed NHTSA that

the Gerry Double Guard, a dual purpose

booster, is designed to have the lap/

shoulder belt threaded through a
24798 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

pathway in the base of the booster when

the booster is used with a shield and a

lap/shoulder belt. Gerry said that, since

the shoulder belt is used to attach the

booster to the seat when the booster is

in the shield-mode, the instruction to

‘‘use only’’ the lap belt to restrain the

booster is misleading for its restraint.

Gerry also stated that since it is

impossible to place the shoulder belt

behind the child when the child is

restrained in the Double Guard (the

shoulder belt is routed under the child),

the labeling requirement about placing

the shoulder belt behind the child is

inappropriate for its booster.

Alternatively, the petitioner suggested

amending the warnings required by

S5.5.2(i)(2) and S5.6.1.9 to make them

more suitable for the Double Guard.

NHTSA has reviewed Gerry’s petition

and agrees that the petitioner’s

arguments have merit. The instruction

about using only the vehicle’s lap belt

to attach the booster does not appear

correct for a booster such as the Double

Guard, which uses both the lap and

shoulder belts for attachment. Moreover,

the instruction about placing the

shoulder belt behind the child is

inappropriate for boosters that, by

design, will cause the shoulder belt to

be located in a position other than in

front of the child when the booster is

installed. Indeed, since the Double

Guard is designed so that the shoulder

belt is actually placed under the child

(routed through a pathway in the

booster’s base) when the booster is used

with a shield and a lap/shoulder belt,

the label required by S5.5.2(i)(2) to

place the shoulder belt behind the child

could mislead and confuse consumers

about the proper attachment of the

booster seat. Moreover, Gerry’s seat,

through its design that routes the

shoulder belt under the child, avoids

the safety concerns about the increased

HIC, chest acceleration and head

excursion found in the report for shieldboosters used with the shoulder belt

routed in front of the child.

Accordingly, NHTSA is amending

S5.5.2(i)(2) and S5.6.1.9 to exclude from

those requirements dual-purpose

boosters that are designed such that,

when the restraint is used according to

the manufacturer’s instruction, the

shoulder belt cannot be placed in front

of the child when the booster is used

with a shield and a lap/shoulder belt.

However, this rule retains a requirement

that all dual purpose boosters be labeled

with a warning or contain a warning in

their instructions to use the booster with

the vehicle’s lap and shoulder belt

system when using the booster without

a shield.

Correction

The July 1994 rule required restraints

other than dual-purpose boosters to be

labeled with a warning similar to that

discussed above for dual-purpose

boosters. The rule required beltpositioning boosters to be labeled with

a warning to use only the vehicle’s lap/

shoulder belt system to restrain the

child. Shield-type boosters were

required to bear a warning label to use

only a lap belt or the lap belt part of a

lap/shoulder belt system. The intent of

the requirements was to ‘‘decrease the

likelihood that belt-positioning seats

will be misused,’’ i.e., used with an

incorrect vehicle belt system. 59 FR at

37167, 37172.

The rule adopting the labeling

requirements intended those

requirements to apply only to booster

seats, and not to every type of child

restraint system. However, as drafted,

the rule applies those requirements to

car beds and rear-facing child restraint

systems (a child restraint that positions

a child to face in the direction opposite

to the normal direction of travel of the

motor vehicle). Because the application

of the labeling requirement to car beds

and rear-facing restraints was

inadvertent, NHTSA is correcting the

error by revising the introductory

paragraph of S5.5.2(i)(1) to exclude

those restraint systems from the

requirement. NHTSA is also making a

conforming change to S5.6.1.9(a) of the

standard, which requires the warning

about proper belt use to be included in

the manufacturer’s instructions for the

restraint. NHTSA is amending that

section to exclude from that

requirement instructions for car seats

and rear-facing child restraints. (This

rule also redesignates S5.6.1.9 (a)

through (c) as S5.6.1.10 (a) through (c),

since they relate to a subject matter that

is unrelated to that of the introductory

paragraph of S5.6.1.9.)

Request for Interpretation

In the July 1994 rule, NHTSA adopted

a requirement prohibiting beltpositioning boosters from being certified

for use on aircraft. In its petition for

reconsideration, Gerry asked how this

requirement applies to the Double

Guard, given that the booster is both a

belt-positioning booster and a shield

booster.

As a result of the July 1994 rule,

Standard 213’s certification

requirements for the two types of

boosters are different. The rule requires

that manufacturers of belt-positioning

boosters label them with the following

statement: ‘‘This Restraint is Not

Certified for Use in Aircraft.’’ Shieldtype boosters are treated differently

because they can be certified for aircraft

use. Manufacturers of shield boosters

wishing to so certify their boosters must

label them with the following statement:

‘‘This Restraint is Certified for Use in

Motor Vehicles and Aircraft.’’

Gerry said the Double Guard is

presently labeled with the aircraft

certification, in accordance with the

above requirement. Gerry asks whether

it could certify its Double Guard, when

used with its shield, for aircraft use. To

make clear the limitation of that

certification, as well as to comply with

the new rule, Gerry would state that

‘‘THIS RESTRAINT IS NOT CERTIFIED

FOR USE IN AIRCRAFT,’’ but insert the

following language, ‘‘When used

without the shield as a belt positioning

seat,’’ in front of the required statement.

NHTSA has reviewed the labeling

requirement in question and has

determined that it can be interpreted as

permitting Gerry to label its booster as

it desires. Given the dual nature of

Gerry’s Double Guard, it appears to be

subject to the labeling requirements for

both shield and belt-positioning

boosters. It further appears that the

booster complies with the requirements

for both types. The only variation from

the required labeling is Gerry’s added

clarification, ‘‘When used without the

shield as a belt-positioning seat * * * ’’

This addition is appropriate, and

necessary, to clarify the required text.

The agency’s longstanding position with

regard to the labeling required by

Standard 213 is that voluntarily added

wording which clarifies required text is

permitted, as long as the added language

does not confuse or obscure the required

labeling. Gerry’s added text does not

confuse or obscure the required label.

Indeed, it clarifies the labeling.

Therefore, it would be permitted.

However, Gerry’s ability to certify its

Double Guard booster for aircraft could

be affected in the future by possible

rulemaking on the certification of child

restraints for aircraft. The Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) is

concerned about the effectiveness of

booster seats on aircraft, as a result of

a testing program performed at FAA’s

Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI). The

CAMI research is discussed in a report

entitled, ‘‘The Performance of Child

Restraint Devices in Transport Airplane

Passenger Seats,’’ which was published

in September 1994. A copy of the report

has been placed in the NHTSA

rulemaking docket for this notice.

Effective Date

This amendment is effective June 9,

1995. An effective date earlier than 180

days after the date of issuance of this
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 24799

rule is in the public interest because this

rule relieves manufacturers of child

restraints of certain designs from a

labeling requirement that is

inappropriate for those restraints. Yet,

this rule specifies a warning

requirement for those restraints in place

of the removed requirement, to help

ensure the restraints are properly used

with the vehicle’s lap/shoulder belt

system. A 90-day effective date provides

manufacturers sufficient leadtime to

print revised warning labels.

Nevertheless, this rule provides an

optional early effective date for

manufacturers that can meet the new

requirements sooner than 90 days. They

may comply with the amendments in

this rule any time after June 9, 1995, but

not later than August 8, 1995.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This rulemaking document was not

reviewed under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory

Planning and Review.’’ The agency has

considered the impact of this

rulemaking action under the

Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures, and

has determined that it is not

‘‘significant’’ under them. NHTSA has

further determined that the effects of

this rulemaking are minimal and that

preparation of a full final regulatory

evaluation is not warranted.

Manufacturers will be minimally

affected by this action because it only

makes slight changes to the July 1994

final rule which only minimally affected

manufacturers since the rule simply

permitted new designs in booster seats

and did not require any design change

or impose additional costs on any party.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has considered the effects of

this rulemaking action under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby

certify that it will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Of the 11

current child restraint manufacturers

known to the agency (not counting

vehicle manufacturers that produce and

install built-in restraints), there are three

that qualify as small businesses. This is

not a substantial number of small

entities.

Regardless of the number of small

entities, NHTSA believes the economic

impact on them is not significant since

today’s rule only makes minor changes

to the existing labeling requirements for

some dual-purpose restraints. The

agency believes this rule has no impact

on the cost of child restraint systems,

and that small organizations and

governmental jurisdictions that

purchase the systems will therefore not

be significantly affected by the rule. In

view of the above, the agency has not

prepared a final regulatory flexibility

analysis.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This rulemaking action has been

analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612. The agency has

determined that this rule does not have

sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking

action for the purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act. The agency

has determined that implementation of

this action will not have any significant

impact on the quality of the human

environment.

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice

Reform)

This rule does 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.

PART 571—[AMENDED]

In consideration of the foregoing,

NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 571 as set

forth below.

1. The authority citation for part 571

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 571.213 is amended by

revising the introductory text of

S5.5.2(i)(1), revising S5.5.2(i)(2),

republishing the introductory paragraph

of S5.6.1.9, redesignating S5.6.1.9 (a)

through (c) as S5.6.1.10(a) through (c)

and revising (a) and (b) and

republishing (c) to read as follows:

§ 571.213 Standard No. 213, Child restraint

systems.

* * * * *

S5.5.2 * * *

(i)(1) For a booster seat that is

recommended for use with either a

vehicle’s Type I or Type II seat belt

assembly, one of the following

statements, as appropriate:

* * * * *

(2)(i) Except as provided in paragraph

(i)(2)(ii) of this section, for a booster seat

which is recommended for use with

both a vehicle’s Type I and Type II seat

belt assemblies, the following statement:

WARNING! USE ONLY THE VEHICLE’S

LAP BELT SYSTEM, OR THE LAP BELT

PART OF A LAP/SHOULDER BELT SYSTEM

WITH THE SHOULDER BELT PLACED

BEHIND THE CHILD, WHEN RESTRAINING

THE CHILD WITH THE insert description of

the system element provided to restrain

forward movement of the child’s torso when

used with a lap belt (e.g., shield), AND ONLY

THE VEHICLE’S LAP AND SHOULDER

BELT SYSTEM WHEN USING THIS

BOOSTER WITHOUT THE insert above

description.

(ii) A booster seat which is

recommended for use with both a

vehicle’s Type I and Type II seat belt

assemblies is not subject to

S5.5.2(i)(2)(i) if, when the booster is

used with the shield or similar

component, the booster will cause the

shoulder belt to be located in a position

other than in front of the child when the

booster is installed. However, such a

booster shall be labeled with a warning

to use the booster with the vehicle’s lap

and shoulder belt system when using

the booster without a shield.

* * * * *

S5.6.1.9 In the case of each rearfacing child restraint system that has a

means for repositioning the seating

surface of the system that allows the

system’s occupant to move from a

reclined position to an upright position

during testing, the instructions shall

include a warning against impeding the

ability of the restraint to change

adjustment position.

S5.6.1.10(a) For instructions for a

booster seat that is recommended for

use with either a vehicle’s Type I or

Type II seat belt assembly, one of the

following statements, as appropriate,

and the reasons for the statement:

(i) WARNING! USE ONLY THE VEHICLE’S

LAP AND SHOULDER BELT SYSTEM

WHEN RESTRAINING THE CHILD IN THIS

BOOSTER SEAT; or,

(ii) WARNING! USE ONLY THE

VEHICLE’S LAP BELT SYSTEM, OR THE
24800 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

LAP BELT PART OF A LAP/SHOULDER

BELT SYSTEM WITH THE SHOULDER

BELT PLACED BEHIND THE CHILD, WHEN

RESTRAINING THE CHILD IN THIS SEAT.

(b)(i) Except as provided in

S5.6.1.10(b)(ii), the instructions for a

booster seat that is recommended for

use with both a vehicle’s Type I and

Type II seat belt assemblies shall

include the following statement and the

reasons therefor:

WARNING! USE ONLY THE VEHICLE’S

LAP BELT SYSTEM, OR THE LAP BELT

PART OF A LAP/SHOULDER BELT SYSTEM

WITH THE SHOULDER BELT PLACED

BEHIND THE CHILD, WHEN RESTRAINING

THE CHILD WITH THE insert description of

the system element provided to restrain

forward movement of the child’s torso when

used with a lap belt (e.g., shield), AND ONLY

THE VEHICLE’S LAP AND SHOULDER

BELT SYSTEM WHEN USING THIS

BOOSTER WITHOUT THE insert above

description.

(b)(ii) A booster seat which is

recommended for use with both a

vehicle’s Type I and Type II seat belt

assemblies is not subject to

S5.6.1.10(b)(i) if, when the booster is

used with the shield or similar

component, the booster will cause the

shoulder belt to be located in a position

other than in front of the child when the

booster is installed. However, the

instructions for such a booster shall

include a warning to use the booster

with the vehicle’s lap and shoulder belt

system when using the booster without

a shield.

(c) The instructions for beltpositioning seats shall include the

statement, ‘‘This restraint is not certified

for aircraft use,’’ and the reasons for this

statement.

* * * * *

Issued on May 4, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–11392 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 672

[Docket No. 95020641–5041–01; I.D.

050495B]

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska;

Pacific Cod in the Western Regulatory

Area

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting retention

of Pacific cod by vessels catching Pacific

cod in the Western Regulatory Area of

the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) for processing

by the offshore component. NMFS is

requiring that catches of Pacific cod by

these vessels in the Western Regulatory

Area be treated in the same manner as

prohibited species and discarded at sea

with a minimum of injury. This action

is necessary because the allocation of

Pacific cod specified for the offshore

component in this area has been

reached.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local

time (A.l.t.), May 5, 1995, until 12

midnight, A.l.t., December 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew N. Smoker, 907–586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive

economic zone is managed by NMFS

according to the Fishery Management

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North

Pacific Fishery Management Council

under authority of the Magnuson

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed

by regulations implementing the FMP at

50 CFR parts 620 and 672.

In accordance with § 672.20(c)(1)(ii),

the allocation of Pacific cod total

allowable catch (TAC) for the offshore

component in the Western Regulatory

Area, GOA, was established by the final

1995 groundfish specifications (60 FR

8470, February 14, 1995), as 2,010

metric tons (mt).

The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS,

has determined, in accordance with

§ 672.20(c)(3), that the allocation of

Pacific cod TAC specified for the

offshore component in the Western

Regulatory Area, GOA, has been

reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring

that further catches of Pacific cod by

operators of vessels catching Pacific cod

for processing by the offshore

component in the Western Regulatory

Area in the GOA, be treated as

prohibited species in accordance with

§ 672.20(e)(4).

Classification

This action is taken under 50 CFR

672.20 and is exempt from review under

E.O. 12866.

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

Dated: May 5, 1995.

Richard W. Surdi,

Acting Director, Office of Fisheries

Conservation and Management, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 95–11542 Filed 5–5–95; 3:14 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

50 CFR Parts 672 and 675

[Docket No. 95031062–5121–02; I.D.

021695C]

RIN 0648–AH40

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska;

Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea

and Aleutian Islands Area; Revised

Product Recovery Rate

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces approval of

a regulatory amendment to revise the

standard product recovery rate for

pollock, deep skin fillets, and product

code 24. The revision is necessary to

respond to new information on the

current recovery rate achieved by the

groundfish processing industry for this

product type. This action is intended to

further the objectives of the fishery

management plans (FMPs) for the

groundfish fisheries off Alaska.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the environmental

assessment/regulatory impact review

(EA/RIR) may be obtained from the

Alaska Region, National Marine

Fisheries Service, P.O. Box 21668,

Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori Gravel.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ronald J. Berg, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Fishing for groundfish by U.S. vessels

in the exclusive economic zone of the

Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea and

Aleutian Islands management area is

managed by NMFS according to the

FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of

Alaska and the FMP for the Groundfish

Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian

Islands Area. The FMPs were prepared