2992 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration’s Langley Research

Center for publication in the August,

1967 issue of the Journal of Astronautics

and Aeronautics, the author stated:

Research indicates that grooved or treaded

tires behave like bald or smooth tires when

the groove depth is decreased by wear to

about 1⁄16 inch of tread remaining.

The same conclusion was reached in

a study entitled Vehicle-in-Use Limit

Performance and Tire Factors—The Tire

In Use, prepared in March, 1975 for

NHTSA by Paul S. Fancher and James

E. Bernard, report no. DOT HS–801 438.

The report stated in pertinent part:

Our recommendation, based on the results

of this investigation * * *, is that tires

should be replaced when they reach a groove

depth of 2⁄32 of an inch.

Those studies, among others,

confirmed a long-standing practice in

the tire industry that tires should be

replaced when the tread reached a

depth of 1⁄16 inch (the ‘‘rule of thumb’’

was to place a penny in the tire groove

and if you could see the top of Lincoln’s

head, it was time to replace or retread

the tire). NHTSA adopted the industry

practice in specifying the treadwear

indicator height in Standard Nos. 109

and 119 at 1⁄16 inch.

Herzlich cited his own forensic

experience in asserting that a tread

depth of 2⁄32 inch is inadequate to

maintain effective wet skid resistance.

However, he cited no pertinent data in

support of his forensic experience.

Further, NHTSA is unaware of any data

that would suggest that a tread depth of

2⁄32 inch is unsafe or that treadwear

indicators should be raised.

The petitioner asserted that tire

technology must now service new tire

needs such as ABS, but did not explain

the implications of ABS technology and

performance for tire technology and tire

tread depths. NHTSA has issued

extensive rulemaking in recent years on

ABS technology (see e.g., final rule on

heavy truck ABS, 60 FR 13216, March

10, 1995). Theoretically, by preventing

wheel lockup, ABS should be able to

prevent tires from ‘‘flat spotting’’ or

developing bald areas, thereby

increasing tire life. Further, based on its

experience with ABS, NHTSA does not

believe that increasing the height of the

treadwear indicators would measurably

improve any function associated with

ABS.

Petitioner also stated that tire

technology must help provide decreased

rolling resistance. Again, petitioner did

not elaborate on this, nor provide any

data to suggest that raising the

treadwear indicators would have any

effect on rolling resistance. NHTSA

knows of no such correlation. Thus,

although NHTSA agrees that tire

technology must be responsive to new

needs, the agency does not see how

raising the treadwear indicators would

contribute to the reduction of rolling

resistance.

Petitioner alluded to the potential for

improved recycling because there would

be fewer landfill junk tires and by

providing retreaders a better supply of

usable casings. The January 1995 issue

of Modern Tire Dealer magazine stated

that approximately 228,200,000

passenger car tires are shipped

nationwide per year, while only

5,850,000 retreaded passenger car tires

are shipped. Thus, if tire life were

shortened by removing tires from

vehicles before reaching a tread depth of

2⁄32 inch, there should logically be more

rather than fewer tires in landfills.

NHTSA does not know of any data

suggesting that tire casings are sounder

for retreading purposes with 3⁄32 inch

tread remaining than those with 2⁄32

inch tread remaining, or that more tires

would be retreaded if more tread

remained on the casing prior to

retreading. Even assuming that there

might be a small increase in the number

of tires retreaded if tires had more tread

remaining when they were retired, the

agency has no data, and the petitioner

provided none, on how many additional

tires could be expected to be retreaded

compared to the additional number of

tires that would be removed and

discarded upon reaching a tread depth

of 3⁄32 inch.

In summary, NHTSA knows of no

data suggesting either a safety or an

environmental need to raise the

treadwear indicators to 3⁄32 inch, and the

petitioner has presented none. Neither

has the petitioner submitted any data to

support his assertions that a tread depth

of 3⁄32 inch would improve ABS wet

skid interaction, provide retreaders a

better supply of undamaged tire casings,

result in fewer scrap tires in landfills, or

that tire safety enforcement would be

improved. There is no reasonable

probability that the requested

amendments would be issued at the end

of a rulemaking proceeding.

Accordingly, the petition of Herzlich

Consulting, Inc. is denied.

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

30162; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on January 24, 1996.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 96–1654 Filed 1–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 301

[Docket No. 960111003–6008–02; I.D.

122095C]

RIN 0648–AI48

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch

Sharing Plan

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed catch sharing plan;

request for comment.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to approve

and implement a catch sharing plan

(CSP) in accordance with the Northern

Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut

Act). The CSP would apportion the

catch limit specified by the

International Pacific Halibut

Commission (IPHC) for Regulatory Area

4 among subareas 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and

4E in and off the State of Alaska. The

proposed CSP is based on the

recommendations of the North Pacific

Fishery Management Council (Council).

This action is necessary to provide a

basis for allocating the Pacific halibut

resources of the Bering Sea and Aleutian

Islands area among U.S. fishers who

harvest these resources in accordance

with the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ)

Program and Community Development

Quota (CDQ) Program. The action is

intended to carry out the fishery

management objectives of the Council

under the provisions of the Halibut Act

and is consistent with the resource

management objectives of the IPHC.

DATES: Comments on the CSP must be

received before the close of business on

February 1, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Ronald J.

Berg, Chief, Fishery Management

Division, NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O.

Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668,

Attention: Lori Gravel. A copy of the

Environmental Assessment, Regulatory

Impact Review, and Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) may be

obtained from the North Pacific Fishery

Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave.,

Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501–2252.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay

J. C. Ginter, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Secretary of Commerce

(Secretary) is responsible for

implementing the Halibut Convention
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 2993

between the United States and Canada

as provided by the Halibut Act, at 16

U.S.C. 773c. Section 773c(c) also

authorizes the regional fishery

management council for the

geographical area concerned to develop

regulations governing the allocation of

Pacific halibut among U.S. fishers. Such

regulations may be in addition to, but

must not conflict with, regulations

developed by the IPHC for primarily

biological conservation purposes and

must be approved by the Secretary

before being implemented. Accordingly,

the Council developed a halibut fishery

management regime for IPHC Areas 2C

through 4E establishing an IFQ limited

access system and, for IPHC Areas 4B

through 4E, a CDQ program for certain

western Alaska communities. The IFQ

and CDQ programs were designed to

allocate specific harvesting privileges

among U.S. fishers to resolve

conservation and management problems

that stem from ‘‘open access’’

management and to promote the

development of the seafood industry in

western Alaska. Both programs were

approved by the Secretary on January

29, 1993, and were initially

implemented by rules published in the

Federal Register on November 9, 1993

(58 FR 59375). Fishing for halibut under

the IFQ and CDQ programs began on

March 15, 1995.

In February 1995, the IPHC informed

the Council that there was no basis

other than allocation for the historical

distribution of the catch limits among

Regulatory Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E.

Further, the IPHC informed the Council

of IPHC policy to distribute harvest in

proportion to estimated biomass in each

subarea because IPHC staff scientists

perceived no stock separation among

the subareas. Therefore, the IPHC staff

recommended a harvest distribution for

Area 4 based on estimated habitat and

catch per unit of effort (CPUE) data.

Alternatively, the IPHC suggested

combining subareas 4C, 4D, and 4E.

IPHC staff scientists recommended an

equal exploitation rate strategy for the

halibut resource in subareas 4A and 4B

in which they perceive considerable

stock separation. The IPHC staff

presented this information to the

Council because both alternatives would

substantially affect the halibut catch

limit allocations prescribed by the IFQ

and CDQ programs.

The Council initially discussed the

IPHC recommendations at the

September 1995 meeting of the Council.

The IPHC staff indicated at that meeting

that it was reviewing its methods of

calculating biomass based on habitat

and CPUE estimates and that it was 1 to

2 years from making final

recommendations for a biological basis

for apportioning the Area 4 catch limit

among the subareas. The IPHC staff also

acknowledged no evidence of harm to

the Area 4 halibut resource due to the

traditional method of apportioning the

catch limit among subareas.

Apportionment of the Area 4 catch limit

in 1995, prescribed at 50 CFR 301.10,

has been approximately the same since

1984.

The current subareas and historical

apportionment of catch limits among

them is important to achieve the

socioeconomic objectives of the IFQ and

CDQ programs. The Halibut Act

authorizes the Council to develop

regulations that have allocation of

harvesting privileges as the primary

objective. Hence, the Council began to

develop the CSP during its meeting of

September 27 through October 2, 1995,

by directing its staff to draft the analysis

of CSP alternatives. The alternatives

included (1) the status quo or ‘‘do

nothing’’ alternative, and (2) an

alternative that would establish the

same subarea proportions as were

established in 1995. These proportions

of the total Area 4 catch limit were 33

percent for subarea 4A, 39 percent for

subarea 4B, 13 percent for subarea 4C,

13 percent of subarea 4D, and 2 percent

for subarea 4E. The Council also

included an option under Alternative 2

that would assign the first 80,000 lb

(36.3 metric tons (mt)) of catch limit

greater than the total Area 4 catch limit

to Area 4E, and distribute any

additional catch limit among all Area 4

subareas in proportion to the 1995

apportionments. The total catch limit of

halibut in Area 4 in 1995 was 5,920,000

lb (2,685.3 mt). The purpose of the

option was to provide CDQ fishermen in

subarea 4E with additional harvesting

opportunity. The entire subarea 4E

catch limit is assigned to the CDQ

reserve and subsequently allocated to

qualifying CDQ groups. The Council

agreed with representatives from some

of these CDQ groups that the subarea 4E

catch limit has been unreasonably

constrained in recent years.

The analysis of CSP alternatives was

made available by the Council staff for

public review on November 9, 1995. At

its meeting December 6 through 10,

1995, the Council decided to

recommend Alternative 2, including the

option, to NMFS for implementation.

The Proposed CSP

Introduction: This CSP would

constitute a framework that would be

applied to the annual Area 4 catch limit

established by the IPHC. The purpose of

the CSP is to establish subareas within

Area 4, and to provide for the

apportionment of the Area 4 catch limit

among the subareas as necessary to

carry out the objectives of the IFQ and

CDQ programs that allocate halibut

among U.S. fishers. The IPHC,

consistent with its responsibilities, is

scheduled to implement the measures

specified in this CSP at its annual

meeting in January 1996, based on an

assumption that the CSP will be

approved by NMFS. If the CSP is not

approved, then the IPHC will reconsider

alternative ways to manage the Area 4

catch limit. If approved, this CSP would

continue in effect until amended by the

Council or superseded by action of the

IPHC.

Area 4 subareas: Regulatory Areas 4A,

4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E would be established

as they are defined currently at

paragraphs (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j),

respectively, at 50 CFR 301.6. For the

convenience of the reader, definitions of

these subareas are set out as follows:

Area 4A includes all waters in the

Gulf of Alaska west of Area 3B defined

in § 301.6(e) and in the Bering Sea west

of the closed area, defined in § 301.9,

that are east of 172°00′00′′ W. long. and

south of 56°20′00′′ N. lat.

Area 4B includes all waters in the

Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska west

of Area 4A and south of 56°20′00′′ N.

lat.

Area 4C includes all waters in the

Bering Sea north of Area 4A and north

of the closed area defined in § 301.9,

that are east of 171°00′00′′ W. long.,

south of 58°00′00′′ N. lat., and west of

168°00′00′′ W. long.

Area 4D includes all waters in the

Bering Sea north of Areas 4A and 4B,

north and west of Area 4C, and west of

168°00′00′′ W. long.

Area 4E includes all waters in the

Bering Sea north and east of the closed

area defined in § 301.9, east of

168°00′00′′ W. long., and south of

65°34′00′′ N. lat.

Catch limit apportionments:

Apportionment of the Area 4 catch limit

specified annually by the IPHC would

be as follows:

subarea 4A—33 percent

subarea 4B—39 percent

subarea 4C—13 percent

subarea 4D—13 percent

subarea 4E—2 percent

An exception to this CSP

apportionment schedule is provided

when the Area 4 catch limit is greater

than 5,920,000 lb (2,685.3 mt) and less

than or equal to 6,000,000 lb (2,721.6

mt). In this event, the amount of the

Area 4 catch limit that is greater than

5,920,000 lb (2,685.3 mt) but less than

or equal to 6,000,000 lb (2, 721.6 mt)

would be assigned to subarea 4E. The
2994 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

amount of the Area 4 catch limit that is

greater than 6,000,000 lb (2,721.6 mt)

would be distributed among all Area 4

subareas according to the CSP

apportionment schedule.

Example 1: If the IPHC specifies the Area

4 catch limit to be 5,980,000 lb (2,712.5 mt),

then 5,920,000 lb (2,685.3 mt) would be

distributed among the Area 4 subareas

according to the CSP apportionment

schedule, and 60,000 lb (27.2 mt) would be

added to subarea 4E as follows:

Subarea lb Mt

4A ............................................................................................................................... .33 × 5,920,000 = 1,953,600 886.1

4B ............................................................................................................................... .39 × 5,920,000 = 2,308,800 1,047.3

4C .............................................................................................................................. .13 × 5,920,000 = 769,600 349.1

4D .............................................................................................................................. .13 × 5,920,000 = 769,600 349.1

4E ............................................................................................................................... .02 × 5,920,000 + 60,000 = 178,400 80.9

Totals .............................................................................................................. 1.00 5,980,000 2,712.5

Example 2: If the IPHC specifies the

Area 4 catch limit to be 6,100,000 lb

(2,766.9 mt), then 5,920,000 lb (2,685.3

mt) plus the amount that is greater than

6,000,000 lb (2,721.6 mt) (i.e. 100,000 lb

(45.4 mt)) would be distributed among

the Area 4 subareas according to the

CSP apportionment schedule, and the

80,000 lb (36.3 mt) remainder would be

added to subarea 4E as follows:

Subarea lb Mt

4A ............................................................................................................................... .33 × 6,020,000 = 1,986,600 901.1

4B ............................................................................................................................... .39 × 6,020,000 = 2,347,800 1,064.9

4C .............................................................................................................................. .13 × 6,020,000 = 782,600 355.0

4D .............................................................................................................................. .13 × 6,020,000 = 782,600 355.0

4E ............................................................................................................................... .02 × 6,020,000 + 80,000 = 200,400 90.9

Totals .............................................................................................................. 1.00 6,100,000 2,766.9

Classification

The IRFA prepared by the Council for

this proposed CSP indicates that, if

approved, the CSP could cause IFQ and

CDQ halibut fishers in subareas 4A

through 4D to forego up to an average

of $143 each due to the potential 80,000

lb (36.3 mt) that would be redistributed

from these areas to subarea 4E. About 88

CDQ halibut fishermen in subarea 4E

would gain an average of $1,559 each

from landing up to 80,000 lb (36.3 mt)

more than otherwise would be possible

if Area 4 apportionments did not change

from 1995. The analysis indicated that

the potentially foregone amounts of

halibut from subareas 4A through 4D

would amount to less than 5 percent of

the annual gross revenues for fishers in

these subareas. The proposed CSP

would not increase compliance costs for

any IFQ or CDQ fisher. Therefore, the

Assistant General Counsel for

Legislation and Regulation certified to

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration that this

proposed CSP would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities and

does not require a regulatory flexibility

analysis under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. Copies of the IRFA are

available (see ADDRESSES).

This CSP would have been published

in December 1995, but the government

shutdown delayed publication until

now. Consequently, the public comment

period is reduced for this action to

assure that the NMFS decision on

whether to approve the CSP is made,

and, if approved, a final CSP is effective

before the Area 4 halibut fishery that is

likely to begin in March 1996. Further,

the affected public was notified and had

opportunity to comment on the

proposed CSP alternatives at the

December 1995 meeting of the Council.

The proposed CSP allocation scheme for

the Area 4 catch limit is scheduled for

discussion at the public IPHC meeting

in January 1996. Furthermore, the

timely issuance of IFQ shares

necessitates a shortened comment

period. Additional time for public

comment would be redundant and

potentially counterproductive.

This action has been determined to be

not significant for purposes of E.O.

12866.

Dated: January 24, 1996.

Gary Matlock,

Program Management Officer, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 96–1659 Filed 1–25–96; 11:52 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P