12146 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

E. Penalty Increases for Prior Violations

1. The baseline penalty presumes an

absence of prior violations. If prior violations

exist, generally they will serve to increase a

proposed penalty. The general standard for

increasing a baseline proposed penalty on the

basis of prior violations is as follows:

a. One prior case—25% increase over the premitigation recommended penalty

b. Two prior cases—50% increase over the

pre-mitigation recommended penalty

c. Three prior cases—75% increase over the

pre-mitigation recommended penalty

d. Four or more prior cases—100% increase

over the pre-mitigation recommended

penalty

2. A case of prior violations closed more

than five years previously normally will not

be considered in determining a proposed

penalty.

F. Penalty Increases for Use of Expired

Exemptions

Adjustments to the base line figures for use

of expired exemptions can be made

depending on how much material has been

shipped during the period between the

expiration date and the renewal date. If the

company previously has been found to have

operated under an expired exemption, the

penalty is normally doubled. If the company

has been previously cited for other

violations, the penalty generally will be

increased by about 25%.

Issued in Washington, DC on February 27,

1995 under authority delegated in 49 CFR

part 1.

Ana Sol Gutı ́errez,

Deputy Administrator, Research and Special

Programs Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–5179 Filed 3–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Part 393

[FHWA Docket No. MC–94–28]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for

Safe Operation; Glazing and Window

Construction; Petition for Waiver To

Permit Use of Automatic Vehicle

Identification Transponder

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Grant of petition for waiver.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is granting a

petition from the Commonwealth of

Kentucky, lead State for the

ADVANTAGE I–75 Program, and Heavy

Vehicle Electronic License Plate, Inc.,

(HELP) requesting a waiver from the

requirements of the Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to

allow mounting of an automatic vehicle

identification (AVI) transponder near

the upper border at the approximate

center of the windshields of commercial

motor vehicles.

The FHWA is granting the waiver to

permit the use of the transponders in

commercial motor vehicles participating

in the ADVANTAGE I–75 operational

(‘‘beta’’) test and the HELP corridor

programs, subject to the conditions

imposed in this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 5, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Deborah M. Freund, Office of Motor

Carrier Standards, (202) 366–2981, or

Mr. Charles Medalen, Office of the Chief

Counsel, (202) 366–1354, Federal

Highway Administration, Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20590. Office hours

are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 12, 1994, the FHWA

published a notice in the Federal

Register (59 FR 51540) requesting

comments on petitions received from

the Commonwealth of Kentucky

(Kentucky) and HELP. The petitioners

are the lead organizations in multi-State

partnerships of public and private sector

interests conducting a series of

operational tests that fall within the

Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO)

element of the Intelligent Transportation

System (ITS) Program (formerly known

as the Intelligent Vehicle-Highway

Systems (IVHS) program). The

ADVANTAGE I–75 and HELP programs

were created to allow commercial motor

vehicles (CMVs) that are equipped with

transponders and that comply with

safety and administrative requirements

to travel any segment of their respective

instrumented highways at mainline

speeds with minimal stopping at

weight/inspection checkpoints.

The AVI device proposed for use in

both programs is an electronic

transponder designed to send and

receive signals from a CMV to ports of

entry (POEs) and safety inspection sites.

The devices would be used to transmit

a variety of information, such as the

identity of the motor carrier, the gross

weight of the vehicle, and the status of

the vehicle’s registration and fuel tax

payments. The transponder measures 84

mm (3.3 inches) high by 112 mm (4.4

inches) wide by 38 mm (1.5 inches)

deep.

In order to function effectively, the

transponder must be able to properly

transmit and receive signals from

roadside receivers installed at States’

ports of entry. The physical location of

the transponder is a critical factor in its

operation because of the potential for

internal and external electronic

interference. In addition, the device

must be placed in a suitable location to

allow drivers to read the instruction

displayed on the transponder, i.e., to

enter or to bypass the POE. An

engineering evaluation performed by

one of the ADVANTAGE I–75 electronic

equipment contractors determined that

a location near the center of the upper

border of the windshield best allowed

the device to meet both of these

requirements.

However, 49 CFR 393.60(c) requires

that no motor vehicle be operated with

any label, sticker, decalcomania, or

other vision-reducing matter covering

any portion of its windshield or

windows at either side of the driver’s

compartment, except that stickers

required by law may be affixed to the

bottom of the windshield, provided that

no portion of any label, sticker,

decalcomania, or other vision-reducing

matter may extend upward more than

114 mm (4.5 inches) from the bottom of

the windshield. The requirements of

§ 393.60, particularly the 114 mm (4.5

inch) limit specified in § 393.60(c), are

independent of the physical dimensions

of windshields.

Section 206(f) of the Motor Carrier

Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C. 31136(e),

formerly 49 U.S.C. app. 2505(f))

authorizes waivers of any regulation

issued under the authority of that Act

upon a determination that the waiver is

consistent with the public interest and

the safe operation of commercial motor

vehicles.

The FHWA proposed to grant the

waiver on October 12, 1994. The notice

described the agency’s review of

automotive engineering recommended

practices, the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration’s Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standards, and recent

research concerning drivers’ field of

view. It also examined current CMV cab

designs related to placement of interior

mirrors and sunvisors which occupy

approximately the same space proposed

for the AVI transponder. Based on the

information obtained from this review,

the FHWA concluded that a transponder

mounted at the approximate center of

the top of the windshield would be

extremely unlikely to create a situation

inconsistent with the safe operation of

a CMV. This location is well outside the

area recommended for windshield

wiper sweep under the Society of

Automotive Engineers (SAE)

Recommended Practice J198

(Windshield Wiper Systems—Trucks,

Buses, and Multipurpose Vehicles) and

the area recommended for windshield

defrosting under Recommended Practice

J342 (Windshield Defrosting Systems

Performance Guidelines—Trucks,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 12147

Buses, and Multi-Purpose Vehicles).

The findings of four recent research

reports on the subject also suggested

that the location of an object, such as a

transponder device, near the upper

margin of a CMV’s windshield is

unlikely to have any effect on a driver’s

ability to observe nearby objects, such as

pedestrians.

In addition, the FHWA believes that

the public interest would be furthered

by granting this waiver. Drivers whose

CMVs are in compliance with

registration, safety inspection, and

operating requirements and permits may

receive a signal from inspection officials

to bypass ports of entry or inspection

sites. This would have the effect of

greatly improving inspection efficiency

and effectiveness by enabling officials to

focus their resources on vehicles with

safety and size and weight infractions.

Discussion of Comments to the Docket

The FHWA received five comments to

the notice of petition. Advocates for

Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS)

opposed the windshield mounting

location for the transponder and

criticized the prior field activity under

the ADVANTAGE I–75 ‘‘alpha’’ test.

The Department of California Highway

Patrol (CHP) supported the general

concept of the waiver, but expressed

concern with the windshield mounting

location due to a potential conflict with

its State regulations. The Illinois

Department of Transportation, Heavy

Vehicle Electronic License Plate (HELP),

Inc., and the Commonwealth of

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

commented in favor of the waiver.

The AHAS stated its opposition to

‘‘any action or item of equipment that

might obstruct [the] view of CMV

drivers,’’ and added that ‘‘[a]ny waiver

that might pose an impediment to driver

vision must be carefully scrutinized to

assure that it is consistent with safety.’’

‘‘It is axiomatic,’’ it noted, ‘‘that vision

plays a central role in the driving task

* * *.’’ The AHAS believes the design

of the transponder is inappropriate, and

that the transponder hardware should

be separated from the visual indicator

provided for the driver.

The AHAS stated that it ‘‘might

support the FHWA’s proposal because

of the small size of the transponder, and

the fact that it will be placed at the top

of the windshield and outside the

general field of view of the driver.’’

However, ‘‘Advocates cannot support

the transponder proposal at this time

since there are unresolved issues

regarding the necessity of placing the

device on the windshield.’’ The AHAS

also asserted that the FHWA provided

insufficient technical justification for

the windshield mounting location. It

dismissed the agency’s reasoning as

merely rationalizing the ‘‘convenience’’

of that location.

The FHWA disagrees with the AHAS’

assertions. The FHWA is required to

evaluate the safety, not to regulate the

design, of equipment for which a waiver

is requested. The design is a product of

the petitioners’ engineering judgment.

ADVANTAGE I–75 and HELP requested

a waiver for tests of a device whose

design had already been selected. The

only issue was whether the placement

of the AVI device would reduce motor

carrier safety. The FHWA has fully

considered that question.

The FHWA requested, and has

received, a copy of engineering notes

from Delco Electronics documenting its

assessment of alternate transponder

mounting locations. A copy of the test

report has been placed in the docket.

Delco Electronics performed two tests

of antenna pattern characterization to

compare the strength of the signal

received at the roadside reader. The first

compared mounting locations at the

lower-right, upper-right, upper-left, and

lower-left corners of the driver’s side of

the windshield. The second compared

two alternate locations with the

transponder attached to the windshield

(upper-right and lower-left corners of

driver’s side) with a third location

utilizing a mounting bracket (upperright corner of driver’s side) that held

the transponder just off the windshield.

In both tests, the location at the upperright corner of the driver’s side of the

windshield delivered a superior signal,

as measured by relative attenuation in

dBm [decibel-milliwatts, a measurement

of signal power on a logarithmic scale].

The signal from the upper-right driver’s

side windshield mounting location was

as much as 10 dBm stronger compared

to other locations and to the bracketmounted alternative.

For radio frequency (RF) devices to

successfully perform their functions,

their transmitted signals must be strong

enough to reach their targets. The

upper-right driver’s side windshield

mounting location appears to be the best

among the several alternatives that

Delco Electronics evaluated. The 10

dBm difference in the signal strength

can be a key factor in facilitating the

transponder’s successful field

implementation.

As ITS matures, it is likely that

technical advancements and

competition among manufacturers will

improve the packaging and reduce the

size of transponders and other ITS

devices. It is conceivable that future

clearance transponders could be

mounted in locations other than a

CMV’s windshield, and indicator lamps

added to dashboard instrumentation, as

the AHAS recommends in its

comments.

The FHWA believes that the AHAS’

comments reflect a misinterpretation of

the visibility issue. For example, the

AHAS argued that the visible indicator

was not necessary because the

transponder would be hidden by a

sunvisor. There is nothing in the notice

that warrants that conclusion. Sunvisors

are not always extended. The FHWA

made the comparison between the

vertical dimension of the transponder

and that of sunvisors and sunshades in

reference to a driver’s useful field of

view. The AHAS also questioned other

technical issues regarding the

transponder’s placement without

presenting research results comparable

to those cited by the FHWA in support

of the proposed waiver.

In addition, the AHAS contended that

the FHWA should have followed formal

waiver procedures for the ADVANTAGE

I–75 Alpha Test, rather than issuing an

enforcement moratorium that had the

same effect. The FHWA disagrees. The

Alpha Test was merely a technical

shakedown of AVI transponders on a

small number of vehicles (up to 200) to

ensure that the equipment would work

properly during the operational Beta

Test. This kind of fine-tuning could not

be done with stationary vehicles. The

Alpha Test was closely controlled and

monitored by the FHWA’s State

partners, since the participating States

and motor carriers needed to be aware

of problems before starting the Beta

Test. The FHWA simply allowed

ADVANTAGE I–75 to complete this

preparatory evaluation. As the agency

and the ADVANTAGE I–75 States

expected, no visibility problems caused

by the transponders were reported.

The Department of California

Highway Patrol (CHP) did not object to

the use of the transponder. It did,

however, express a concern about the

proposed mounting location: ‘‘California

law prohibits any object from being

installed or affixed on any portion of the

windshield except for * * * a 7-inch

square in the lower corner of the

windshield opposite the driver or in a

5-inch square in the lower corner of the

windshield near the driver.’’ The CHP

provided a copy of the relevant

regulation, California Vehicle Code

Section 26708.

California’s regulation differs from

§ 393.60(c). In the fall of 1994, the

FHWA notified the CHP, as the State’s

Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program

(MCSAP) grant recipient, that the

regulation must be brought into

conformance with the FMCSRs. The
12148 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

FHWA is working with California to

address this issue, and recommends that

the CHP accept the terms of this waiver

while efforts are ongoing by the State to

seek a legislative change.

The Illinois Department of

Transportation (IDOT) strongly supports

the waiver. The IDOT noted that

windshield-mounted transponders are

also being actively considered for

automated toll collection and

commercial vehicle [electronic] preclearance systems planned by Illinois

and other States. The IDOT believes the

waiver would not sacrifice truck safety,

but would allow the transponders used

in the programs to be positioned in

vehicles so as to work more effectively.

HELP, Inc. stated that it is working

with Intelligent Transportation Systems

technology to provide benefits to both

motor carriers and weigh station

controllers. HELP emphasizes the

importance of the location of the AVI

transponder to insure that transmitted

signals are received properly. It noted

that the proposed ‘‘right center

quadrant’’ windshield location is

similar to the standard location of an

inside rear-view mirror, reducing the

impact of reduced or obstructed driver

views. HELP is also working with the

CHP to implement a weigh station

bypass service called PRE-PASSTM

which requires placement of the AVI

transponder in that optimal location.

Citing the CHP’s comment to this

docket, HELP notes that it is working

with the CHP to draft legislation which

will modify current California law to

allow the AVI transponder to be

mounted in this location. HELP strongly

supports the proposed waiver and

requests the FHWA’s approval so that

State governments and the motor carrier

industry can proceed with

implementing PRE-PASSTM and gain

improvements in transportation

productivity and efficiency.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky

Transportation Cabinet (Kentucky), as

lead State in the ADVANTAGE I–75

partnership, strongly supports the

proposed waiver. Kentucky stated that

over 200 trucks operated with the

transponders for over a year. Staff from

the Transportation Cabinet and the

Kentucky Transportation Center rode in

the trucks during testing, and also

talked with drivers, dispatchers,

maintenance personnel, and fleet

managers. Kentucky became ‘‘convinced

that, when properly mounted, the

transponder does not in any way

obstruct the driver’s view of the

roadway. We have not had a single

report of an incident or a concern

relating to a transponder obstructing a

driver’s view.’’ Kentucky goes on to

state that

Safety is a vital element of the

ADVANTAGE I–75 project. The project is

supported by Motor Carrier Enforcement

Personnel in each of the participating states

and province. We would not support any

practice that we believed would compromise

the safety of travelers on our nation’s

highways. Our support of the proposed

waiver is based upon our conviction that the

transponder does not obstruct the driver’s

vision or in any other way create a safety

hazard. We invite those with strong concerns

to visit one of our ADVANTAGE I–75 sites

and to climb into the cab of a transponderequipped truck.

Conditions of the Waiver

The conditions of the waiver

proposed in the October 12, 1994, notice

have been modified somewhat for the

reasons set forth below.

As an alternative to complying with

the wiring requirements of 49 CFR

393.27 and 393.33, the petitioners may,

if they choose, comply with SAE

Recommended Practice (RP) J1292,

Automobile, Truck, Truck-Tractor,

Trailer, and Motor Coach Wiring. The

guidelines contained in RP J1292

provide more comprehensive guidance

and are equivalent to, and slightly more

stringent than, §§ 393.27 and 393.33 of

the FMCSRs. The RP covers 3 areas. It

cross-references the same RPs

incorporated by reference in § 393.27

(Wiring Specifications) for battery cable

(SAE RP J1127) and for low-tension

primary cable (SAE RP J1128). It crossreferences SAE RP J163, Low-tension

wiring and cable terminals and splice

clips, which is indirectly referenced in

§ 393.33, Wiring [and] installation. The

RP also requires wiring overload

protective devices, fuses, or circuit

breakers in this type of low-current

application. While this last item is a

slight change, the agency notes that the

transponder’s installation manual

requires the power wire to be connected

to the fused side of battery power, and

states that a one-amp in-line fuse may

be added for additional protection.

The duration and termination of the

waiver discussed in Conditions III and

VI have been changed so that the waiver

shall remain in effect unless revoked by

the FHWA. The grantees will be

required to report the number of

participating motor carriers and the

number of transponder-equipped CMVs.

Removing the time limit on the waiver

will enable the grantees to continue

operating their programs, provided the

reports submitted indicate that the

transponders are not affecting the safe

operation of CMVs.

Condition VII now requires that the

project reports be submitted within two

years of the effective date of the waiver.

A review after two years will enable the

petitioners and the FHWA to assess a

significant amount of data.

Condition IV has been modified to

recognize the potential for the existence

of nonconforming State or local laws or

regulations that may not have been

brought to the FHWA’s attention.

Condition V of the October proposal

would have limited the number of

CMVs eligible for the waiver to 30,000.

This restriction has been eliminated.

Although that figure was a reasonable

estimate of the number of participating

vehicles, it would have required the

petitioners to request adjustments to the

ceiling, possibly more than once, if

additional motor carriers wished to join

the test program. Because the agency’s

review of the engineering standards and

research on field of view discussed

above indicated that use of the

transponder would be very unlikely to

create an unsafe operating situation, the

FHWA has decided not to impose a

numerical limit on the number of

vehicles included in the program.

However, both ADVANTAGE I–75 and

HELP will be required to submit

information on accidents involving the

vehicles equipped with transponders, in

accordance with Condition III.

I. Location of the Transponder

The transponder shall be mounted at

or near the top center of the windshield,

outside the area swept by the CMV’s

windshield wipers, or, at a minimum,

outside the driver’s sight lines to the

road and highway signs or signals.

II. Compliance With Wiring

Requirements of the FMCSRs

The installation of the transponder

shall be required to comply with either

(a) 49 CFR 393.27, Wiring specification,

and 49 CFR 393.33, Wiring [and]

installation, or (b) with SAE

Recommended Practice J1292,

Automobile, Truck, Truck-Tractor,

Trailer, and Motor Coach Wiring.

III. Duration of Waiver; Accident and

Incident Monitoring

The waiver for HELP and

ADVANTAGE I–75 is effective

beginning April 5, 1995. The waiver

shall remain in effect indefinitely,

unless revoked by the FHWA.

Motor carriers participating in

ADVANTAGE I–75 and HELP shall

provide the FHWA with information on

accidents (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5)

involving the vehicles equipped with

the transponders. Accident reports shall

be submitted every 6 months, and shall

contain the information listed below:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 12149

1. A copy of all accident reports

prepared and required by State or other

governmental entities or insurers.

2. Interview information with the

driver and occupants of the CMV

involved. The information shall

specifically indicate whether the driver

of the transponder-equipped vehicle

believed that the presence of the

transponder was a factor in the accident.

The interview shall be conducted by a

motor carrier employee responsible for

supervising the driver of the

transponder-equipped vehicle.

IV. State and Local Laws

This waiver applies to all

participating vehicles operating in

interstate commerce. Although

incompatible State laws or regulations

perhaps cannot be changed to coincide

with the start of the waiver period, the

FHWA strongly encourages State and

local authorities with safety regulations

that would prohibit the use of the

proposed transponders to accept the

terms and conditions of this waiver.

V. Vehicles To Be Equipped With

Transponders

The names and USDOT numbers of

the motor carriers participating in the

ADVANTAGE I–75 and HELP programs,

as well as the number of transponderequipped CMVs operated by each

carrier, shall be provided to the FHWA.

Motor carriers not participating in these

programs may not equip straight trucks,

tractors, or motor coaches with the

transponders discussed in this waiver.

VI. Termination of Waiver

The FHWA may terminate this waiver

at any time without prior warning if it

determines that continued use of the

transponders decreases the operational

safety of the vehicles on which they are

installed. Upon receipt of a notice of

termination, motor carriers participating

in the ADVANTAGE I–75 and HELP

projects must immediately remove the

transponders from their vehicles.

VII. Report

ADVANTAGE I–75 and HELP shall

provide separate reports describing the

transponder’s installation and use

within two years after the effective date

of the waiver. The reports shall include

information obtained from the drivers

on the device’s effect on visibility

through the windshield.

The FHWA has fully considered the

information presented in the request for

waiver, engineering and other technical

material reviewed concerning

requirements for visibility from

vehicles, and the comments received.

The FHWA hereby concludes that the

waiver is consistent with the public

interest and the safe operation of

commercial motor vehicles.

Accordingly, the FHWA hereby grants

the Commonwealth of Kentucky and

Heavy Vehicle Electronic License Plate,

Inc., their petition for a waiver from the

requirements of 49 CFR 393.60(c).

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31502; 49 CFR

1.48.

Issued on: February 21, 1995.

Rodney E. Slater,

Federal Highway Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–5323 Filed 3–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 672 and 675

[Docket No. 95022357–5057–01; I.D.

120594A]

RIN 0648–AG95

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska;

Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea

and Aleutian Islands Area; Pacific

Halibut Bycatch

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; final 1995

specification of Pacific halibut bycatch

allowances.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to

revise the management of seasonal

Pacific halibut bycatch allowances

annually specified for nontrawl fisheries

in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

management area (BSAI). This final rule

also provides NMFS the authority to

determine annually whether to

apportion a halibut bycatch allowance

to the BSAI jig gear fishery or the BSAI

or Gulf of Alaska (GOA) hook-and-line

gear fisheries for sablefish or to exempt

these fisheries from halibut bycatch

restrictions. Final 1995 halibut bycatch

allowances for the GOA hook-and-line

gear fisheries and the BSAI nontrawl

fisheries, seasonal apportionments

thereof, and the manner in which these

seasonal apportionments will be

managed under the final rule are

specified. This action is necessary to

manage halibut bycatch allowances

consistent with seasonal

apportionments of groundfish total

allowable catch (TAC) amounts, prevent

preemption of the BSAI jig gear fisheries

by the attainment of halibut bycatch

allowances apportioned to other

nontrawl fisheries, and support the

implementation of the sablefish/halibut

individual fishing quota (IFQ) program.

This action is intended to promote

management and conservation of

groundfish and other fish resources and

to further the objectives contained in the

fishery management plans for Alaska

groundfish fisheries.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 3, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the environmental

assessment/regulatory impact review

prepared for this action may be obtained

from the Fisheries Management

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O.

Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668,

Attn: Lori J. Gravel.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Salveson, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Fishing for groundfish by vessels in

the exclusive economic zone of the GOA

and BSAI is managed by NMFS

according to the Fishery Management

Plan (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 by the North Pacific

Fishery Management Council (Council)

under the Magnuson Fishery

Conservation and Management Act and

are implemented by regulations

governing the U.S. groundfish fisheries

at 50 CFR parts 620, 672, 675, and 676.

Regulations for the management of

halibut bycatch limits established for

the GOA groundfish fisheries are set out

at § 672.20(f). Regulations for the

management of prohibited species

bycatch limits established for the BSAI

groundfish fisheries are set out at

§ 675.21. A proposed rule was

published in the Federal Register on

December 29, 1994 (59 FR 67268), that

would revise the management of the

halibut bycatch limits established for

the GOA hook-and-line gear groundfish

fisheries and the BSAI nontrawl

groundfish fisheries. The proposed

action would (1) address concerns about

the potential closure of the BSAI jig gear

fishery due to halibut bycatch in other

nontrawl fisheries, (2) allow for the

management of the seasonal

apportionment of the halibut bycatch

allowances annually specified for the

BSAI Pacific cod hook-and-line gear

fishery consistent with the management

of the amount of Pacific cod TAC

allocated to this fishery, and (3)

authorize the exemption of the GOA and

BSAI hook-and-line gear sablefish

fishery from halibut bycatch restrictions

to support the new sablefish/halibut IFQ

program. Comments on the proposed