        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28103]
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for School Bus Passenger Protection

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice of public meeting, request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NHTSA is having a public meeting to bring together a roundtable of State and local government policymakers, school bus and seat manufacturers, pupil transportation associations, and public interest groups to discuss the issue of seat belts on large school buses. The discussion on how best to provide safety during a crash, by compartmentalization or through the use of seat belts, has been ongoing for many years. This public meeting is an opportunity for an exchange among interested parties, as well as the public, on the safety, policy and economic issues related to the use of seat belts on school buses. The date, time, location, and framework for this public meeting are announced in this notice.

          DATES:

            Public Meeting: The public meeting will be held on July 11, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC.

            Comments: Written comments may be submitted to the agency and must be received no later than September 10, 2007.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ms. Harriett Fitzgerald, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NHTSA, telephone 202-366-3269, e-mail Harriett.Fitzgerald@dot.gov, or Mr. John Hinch, Director, Office of Human Vehicle Performance Research, NHTSA, telephone 202-366-5195, e-mail John.Hinch@dot.gov. Both officials may also be reached at 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590.

          ADDRESSES:

            Public meeting: The public meeting will be held at L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024, telephone: 202-484-1000.

            Written comments: Written comments on this meeting and topic must refer to the docket number of this notice and be submitted by any of the following methods:
          • Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. DOT, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., West Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9317 and visit the Docket from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.

          Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion under the heading “How do I prepare and submit comments?” at the end of this notice. Please see also the discussion there of confidential business information.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        In the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress indicated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety, since such transportation involves the Nation's most precious resource—children who represent our future.
        During the mid 1970's, to address the safety of school bus passengers in a crash, NHTSA established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) to increase the strength of school buses and to improve occupant protection. Three standards addressing rollover protection, body joint strength, and passenger seating and crash protection are unique to school buses. Another six standards have additional requirements that specifically provide for the protection of school bus passengers. Still other standards, such as brakes, tires, fuel system integrity and other safety related systems, ensure that school buses meet rigorous requirements for safety when it comes to avoiding a crash in the first place, or enhancing survivability in the event of a crash.
        Under existing regulation, the primary means of occupant protection for large school buses is a safety concept known as compartmentalization. Compartmentalization protects occupants by using strong, closely spaced seats equipped with high, absorbing seat backs. Compartmentalization provides passive protection, meaning that the protection is there when needed without the need for passengers to take any action such as buckling a seat belt. This system has proven very effective at preventing serious injuries and fatalities for school aged passengers.
        Current data collected by NHTSA show that every year, approximately 482,000 public school buses transporting 25.5 million students to and from school and school-related activities 1
           travel an estimated 4.3 billion miles.2
           The school bus occupant fatality rate of 0.2 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is much lower than the overall rate for motor vehicles, which is 1.5 per 100 million VMT. An average of 21 school age passengers die in school transportation-related crashes each year: 6 school bus passengers and 15 pedestrians. NHTSA estimates that there are approximately 8,000 crash related injuries in the school buses each year. Approximately half of both the crashes and fatalities occur in frontal collisions.3

            1 School Transportation News, Buyers Guide 2005.

            2 School Bus Fleet 2005 Fact Book.

            3 DOT HS 810 626 Traffic Safety Facts 2005, School Transportation-Related Crashes. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

        Seat Belts on School Buses
        NHTSA published the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 222, “School bus seating and crash protection,” on January 28, 1976 (41 FR 4016). This regulation became effective for all newly manufactured school buses on and after April 1, 1977. In the rulemaking leading to the 1976 final rule, four notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) were published.4
           Throughout the course of that rulemaking, the issue of requiring seat belts and/or belt anchorages on large school buses was considered. Although the agency ultimately decided not to require safety belts or anchorage systems because compartmentalization provided very effective safety protection for school children, the final rule did not prohibit State and local jurisdictions from installing seat belts. Providing seat belts on buses will not, by itself, improve safety for school bus passengers. If seat belt systems are to be effective, States and local jurisdictions would need to ensure that they are worn properly by all passengers.

            4 February 22, 1973 (38 FR 4776), July 30, 1974 (39 FR 27586), April 23, 1975 (40 FR 17855) and October 8, 1975 (40 FR 47141).

        Since the implementation of their respective State laws, New York (1987), New Jersey (1994) and Florida (2001) have required lap belts, and California (2005) has required lap and shoulder belts, on all newly purchased school buses. NHTSA does not maintain a record of local school districts that also may require seat belts on buses. However, a 1994 University of South Florida (USF) study 5
           found that many districts might require such systems even though it was not mandatory in their State at the time of the study. At the time of the USF study, only New York required seat belts in all school buses.

            5 “To Belt or Not To Belt, Experiences of School Districts that Operate Large School Buses Equipped with Seat Belts,” Final Report, August 1994, Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.

        In 1987, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reported on a study of forty-three post-standard school bus crashes investigated by the Safety Board.6
           NTSB concluded that most fatalities and injuries in school bus crashes occurred because the occupant seating positions were directly in line with the crash forces, and that seat belts would not have prevented those injuries and fatalities. In 1999, NTSB reported on six school bus accidents it investigated in which passenger fatalities or serious injuries occurred away from the area of vehicle impact.7
           NTSB again found compartmentalization to be an effective means of protecting passengers in school bus crashes. However, because many of those passengers injured in the six crashes were believed to have been thrown from their compartments, NTSB believed other means of occupant protection should be examined. A 1989 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study 8
           concluded that the overall potential benefits of requiring seat belts on large school buses were insufficient to justify a Federal mandate for installation. The NAS also stated that funds used to purchase and maintain seat belts might be better spent on other school bus safety programs with the potential to save more lives and reduce more injuries.

            6 Safety Study—Crashworthiness of Large Post standard School Buses; National Transportation.  Safety Board Report No. NTSB/SS-86/03, Washington, DC, 1987.

            7 Highway Special Investigation Report—Bus Crashworthiness Issues; National Transportation. Safety Board Report No. NTSB/SIR-99/04, Washington, DC, 1999.

            8 Special Report 222: Improving School Bus Safety, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1989.

        In laboratory simulations of a severe frontal impact crash, NHTSA determined that adding lap belts on large school buses would have little, if any, benefit in reducing serious-to-fatal injuries in severe frontal crashes, and could raise the potential risk for head injury.9
           But at the same time, lap belts have been on large school buses for over 30 years without any documented serious injuries resulting from the use of the seat belt restraint systems. NHTSA's laboratory simulations also showed that the use of combination lap/shoulder belts, if properly worn, could provide some safety benefit to both large and small school bus occupants regardless of their size. However, incorporation of lap/shoulder belts can significantly reduce the seating capacity of school buses.

            9 School Bus Safety: Crashworthiness Research, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 2002.

        Upon completion of the laboratory simulations, NHTSA issued a press release stating that as a result of research findings, the agency was considering the following changes to the existing Federal safety standards:
        • Increasing the seat back height from 508 mm (20 inches) to 610 mm (24 inches) to reduce the potential for passenger override 10
           in the event of a crash.

            10 Override means an occupants head or torso translates forward beyond the forward seat back providing compartmentalization.

        • Requiring school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less to have lap/shoulder restraints. (Currently, seats on these buses must be equipped with lap belts only.)
        • Developing standardized test procedures for voluntarily installed lap/shoulder belts.
        Subsequently, the agency has developed performance requirements to support a notice of proposed rulemaking that would upgrade the school buses Federal safety standards accordingly.
        School Transportation Safety Risks
        In July 2002, NAS published Special Report 269, “The Relative Risks of School Travel: A National Perspective and Guidance for Local Community Risk Assessment, National Research Council.” 11
           The study analyzed the safety of various transportation modes used by school children to get to and from school and school-related activities. The report concluded that each year there are approximately 800 school-aged children killed in motor vehicle crashes during normal school drive time hours in the various modes of transportation.12
           About 2 percent were school bus-related, and 11 percent were children walking or bicycling; the majority of the fatalities were children in passenger cars, especially those with teen drivers. The report stated that the risk factors associated with these modes are complex and highly interrelated. Changes in any one characteristic of school travel can lead to dramatic changes in the overall risk to the student population. For example, anything that would reduce the number of school bus riders (including reduced seating capacity) could lead to more students seeking a less safe alternative form of transportation for getting to and from school. Thus, it is important for school transportation decisions to take into account all potential aspects of changes to requirements to school transportation.

            11 Special Report 269: The Relative Risks of School Travel: A National Perspective and Guidance for Local Community Risk Assessment, National Research Council, Washington, DC, September 2002.

            12 These 800 fatalities were not necessarily transportation to and from school as the destination of the trip was not recorded.

        Public Meeting
        There is continuing public interest and discussion of on whether seat belts should be required on large school buses. NHTSA is having this public meeting to discuss the safety, policy and economic issues associated with the use of seat belts in large school buses. The meeting will bring together State and local government policy makers, industry associations, school bus and equipment manufacturers, consumer advocates, and school transportation providers.
        The meeting will be open to the public, but participation in the panels will be by invitation only. Time will be designated for open floor discussion by the general audience. Meeting participants and the public are also invited to submit comments on this issue to the docket.

        The sections below describe the panels for the roundtable meeting. State and Local Policy: State and local policy perspectives regarding seat belts on school buses will be discussed. Panelists will address the requirements for providing school transportation, their considerations in determining whether or not to require seat belts, and the challenges faced in implementing the use of belts on school buses. Panelists will discuss studies or surveys that contributed to their decisions regarding whether or not to require belts on large school buses. Also, the type of seat belt system (lap or lap shoulder) selected for use, if applicable, how that selection was made, the effects of reduced seating capacity in lap/shoulder belt-equipped school buses and any adverse effects resulting from the need to provide transportation for the same number of students after the installation of belt systems will be discussed.

          Seat Belt Systems for Buses: Information related to the type of seat belt system designs that are currently being offered in large school buses, and technologies with seats or seat belts will be presented in this panel. Discussion during this panel will also focus on costs of buses with and without belts, sales, the performance specification for seat belts used on buses, experience with manufacturing of belts for buses, and lessons learned from installation of belts on buses. Manufacturers' perspective regarding retrofitting existing school buses with new seat belts will also be discussed.

          Economics of Belts on Buses: This panel will focus on the economic impact that implementation of seat belt requirements for school buses have on States and local school districts. Discussion will include the purchase and maintenance costs associated with the seat belts in large school buses, consequences or implications of increased costs for belt-equipped buses, and how school districts handle the effects caused by the increased cost. Discussion will also include the service life cycle of school buses, any changes resulting from incorporating seat belts, and whether there are State laws/regulations that mandate a maximum life cycle for either the belts or buses.

          Seat Belt Usage—Experience, Education and Enforcement: For schools and States that use seat belts on school buses, the final panel will discuss their experiences in training and educating children, parents, and drivers, including the impact on emergency evacuation training and procedures. Experience in actual belt usage and enforcement will also be included. Finally, it has often been argued that not requiring seat belt use on school buses sends a mixed message about the importance of using seat belts and establishing a habit of buckling up. Studies or other data to support this will be discussed.
        Procedural Matters
        The meeting will be open to the public with advanced registration for seating on a space-available basis. Individuals wishing to register to assure a seat in the public seating area should provide their name, affiliation, phone number and e-mail address to Ms. Fitzgerald using the contact information at the beginning of this notice. Should it be necessary to cancel the meeting due to an emergency or some other reason, NHTSA will take all available means to notify registered participants by e-mail or telephone.
        The meeting will be held at a site accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations such as sign language interpreters should contact Ms. Fitzgerald by June 30, 2007.
        A transcript of the meeting and other information received by NHTSA at the meeting will be placed in the docket for this notice at a later date.
        Tentative Agenda
        8:30-9:15 a.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks
        9:15-9:45 a.m. Safety of School Buses ~ NHTSA overview
        9:45-10 a.m. Break
        10-11:15 a.m. Panel I. State and Local Policy
        11:15-12 p.m. Panel II. Seat Belt Systems for Buses
        12-12:30 p.m. Roundtable discussion and questions from floor
        12:30-1:30 p.m. Lunch on your own
        1:30-2 p.m. Panel III. Economics of Belts on Buses
        2-2:15 p.m. Roundtable discussion
        2:15-2:30 p.m. Break
        2:30-3:30 p.m. Panel IV. Seat Belt Usage—Experience, Education and Enforcement
        3:30-3:45 p.m. Roundtable discussion
        3:45-4:15 p.m. Open discussion and questions from the floor
        4:15-4:30 p.m. Closing Remarks—Administrator Nason
        How can I submit comments on this subject?
        It is not necessary to attend or to speak at the public meeting to be able to comment on the issues. NHTSA invites readers to submit written comments which the agency will consider in its deliberations on seat belts on school buses.
        How do I prepare and submit comments?
        Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
        Your primary comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). However, you may attach additional documents to your primary comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

        Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

        How can I be sure that my comments were received?
        If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
        How do I submit confidential business information?
        If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
        In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to Docket Management, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., West Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, or submit them electronically, in the manner described at the beginning of this notice.
        Will the agency consider late comments?

        We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
        Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material.
        How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
        You may read the comments by visiting Docket Management in person at 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., West Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
        You may also see the comments on the Internet by taking the following steps:

        Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov). On that page, click on “Simple Search.” On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm/) type in the five-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on “Search.” On the next page, which contains docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may also download the comments.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 30111, 30168; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

          Nicole R. Nason,
          Administrator.

       [FR Doc. E7-10568 Filed 6-1-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 120710231-2473-01]
        RIN 0648-BC33
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, withdrawal.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS withdraws a proposed rule considering an emergency action that would have partially exempted the scallop fishery from fishing year 2012-related Georges Bank yellowtail flounder accountability measures. Because annual catch limit thresholds were not exceeded, there are no accountability measures from which to exempt the scallop fishery. As a result, the proposed rule is no longer necessary.

          DATES:
          The proposed rule published on October 1, 2012 (77 FR 59883) is withdrawn as of March 24, 2014.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          William Whitmore, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone (978) 281-9182, fax (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On October 1, 2012, NMFS published a proposed rule considering emergency action to partially exempt the scallop fishery from fishing year 2012 Georges Bank (GB) yellowtail flounder accountability measures (77 FR 59883). Under the proposed rule, an accountability measure would have been triggered if either: (1) The scallop fishery exceeded its GB yellowtail flounder sub-annual catch limit (ACL) by more than 50 percent; or (2) the initial scallop GB yellowtail flounder sub-ACL was exceeded and the total GB yellowtail flounder fishery ACL was exceeded.
        NMFS previously revised both the groundfish and scallop GB yellowtail flounder sub-ACLs for the 2012 fishing year (77 FR 41704; July 16, 2012). The revisions were based on updated projections of GB yellowtail flounder catch by the scallop fleet. As a result, the scallop fishery GB yellowtail flounder sub-ACL was substantially reduced from 307.5 mt to 156.9 mt, while the groundfish fishery's sub-ACL was increased from 217.7 mt to 368.3 mt.
        As a result of this mid-year change, accountability measures for the scallop fleet could have been triggered at a much lower level of catch than originally anticipated at the start of the 2012 scallop fishing year. Recognizing this, the New England Fishery Management Council requested that NMFS utilize emergency rulemaking authority to exempt the scallop fishery from any accountability measure for catch below the initial scallop sub-ACL of 307.5 mt. The rationale for the proposed rule was that uncertainties remained about the projected yellowtail flounder catch, there was concern that the scallop fishery should not be subjected to accountability measures based on a significant decrease of the sub-ACL midway through the fishing year, and a backstop accountability measure would still take effect, should the entire ACL be exceeded.
        Neither of the thresholds that would have resulted in the need to exempt the scallop fishery from accountability measures were met. In fishing year 2012, the scallop fishery harvested 164 mt of its 156.9 mt GB yellowtail flounder sub-ACL (or 104 percent of its allocation), but it did not exceed its initial GB yellowtail flounder sub-ACL of 307.5 mt by more than 50 percent as was the trigger. Further, only 70.3 percent of the entire GB yellowtail flounder ACL was harvested. Because neither of the accountability measure triggers were met, there is no need to partially exempt the scallop fishery from fishing year 2012 accountability measures, and we are withdrawing the proposed rule.

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

          Dated: March 18, 2014.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2014-06421 Filed 3-21-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Chapters II, III, IV, V, and VI
        RIN 0648-XF326
        Plan for Periodic Review of Regulations

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces the existing rules that it is reviewing, as required, under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which had, or will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, such as small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The intended effect of this document is to inform the public of the rules under review, to outline NMFS' review process, and to provide an opportunity to comment. In addition, information compiled through this routine action will be relevant to the regulatory reviews required under Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” and Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.”

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by July 7, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0054, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0054, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Kelly Denit, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (mark outside of envelope “Comments on 610 Review”).

            Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Tara Scott, (301) 427-8579 or Heather Sagar, (301) 427-8019.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires that Federal agencies including NMFS take into account how their regulations affect “small entities,” including small businesses, small Governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations. Under the RFA, we must either prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or certify that the regulation, if put in place, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for any regulation proposed after January 1, 1981. Section 602 of the RFA requires that NMFS issue an Agenda of Regulations identifying rules under development that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        Section 610 of the RFA requires Federal agencies to review existing regulations. It requires that NMFS publish a plan in the Federal Register explaining how it will review its existing regulations which have or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Regulations that became effective after January 1, 1981, must be reviewed within 10 years of the publication date of the final rule. Section 610(c) requires that we annually publish a list of final rules we will review during the succeeding 12 months in the Federal Register. The list must describe, explain the need for, and provide the legal basis for the rules being reviewed, as well as invite public comment on the rule.
        In addition, information compiled through this routine action under Section 610 of the RFA will be relevant to the regulatory reviews required under Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” and Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.”
        Criteria for Review of Existing Regulations
        The purpose of the review is to determine whether existing rules should be left unchanged, or whether they should be revised or rescinded to minimize significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities, consistent with the objectives of other applicable statutes. In deciding whether change is necessary, the RFA establishes five factors that NMFS must consider:
        (1) Whether the rule is still needed;
        (2) What type of complaints or comments were received concerning the rule from the public;
        (3) The complexity of the rule;
        (4) How much the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules; and

        (5) How long it has been since the rule has been evaluated or how much the technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.
        Plan for Periodic Review of Rules
        Below is the list of rules and their summaries issued in 2010 that we will review by December 31, 2017, consistent with RFA Section 610. This list includes rules issues in 2010 for which initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses were completed.
        1. Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Limited Access for Guided Sport Charter. RIN 0648-AW92 (75 FR 553; January 5, 2010). NMFS issued regulations creating a limited access system for charter vessels in the guided sport fishery for Pacific halibut in waters of International Pacific Halibut Commission Regulatory Areas 2C (Southeast Alaska) and 3A (Central Gulf of Alaska). This limited access system limited the number of charter vessels that may participate in the guided sport fishery for halibut in these areas. NMFS issued a charter halibut permit to a licensed charter fishing business owner based on his or her past participation in the charter halibut fishery and to a Community Quota Entity representing specific rural communities. All charter halibut permit holders were subject to limits on the number of permits they may hold and on the number of charter vessel anglers who may catch and retain halibut on permitted charter vessels. This action was necessary to achieve the approved halibut fishery management goals of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. The intended effect was to curtail growth of fishing capacity in the guided sport fishery for halibut. This action was conducted by NMFS under authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982.
        2. International Fisheries; Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Initial Implementation of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention. RIN 0648-AV63 (75 FR 3335; January 21, 2010). NMFS issued regulations under authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act, which authorized the Secretary of Commerce to promulgate regulations needed to carry out the obligations of the U.S. under the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, including implementing the decisions of the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. The regulations included requirements related to permitting, vessel monitoring systems, vessel observers, vessel markings, reporting and recordkeeping, at-sea transshipment, and boarding and inspection on the high seas, among others. NMFS has determined that this action was necessary for the United States to satisfy its international obligations under the Convention, to which it is a Contracting Party. It has the effect of requiring that all relevant U.S. fishing vessels were operated in conformance with the provisions of the Convention.

        3. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan Regulations. RIN 0648-AW51 (75 FR 7383; February 19, 2010). NMFS issued this final rule to amend the regulations implementing the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan to address the increased incidental mortality and serious injury of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in gillnet fisheries throughout the stock's U.S. range. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
        4. Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Amendment 10. RIN 0648-AY00 (75 FR 11441; March 11, 2010). NMFS implemented approved measures in Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Amendment 10 was developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to bring the FMP into compliance with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements by establishing a rebuilding program that allows the butterfish stock to rebuild and protects the long-term health and stability of the stock; and by minimizing bycatch and the fishing mortality of unavoidable bycatch, to the extent practicable, in the MSB fisheries. Amendment 10 increased the minimum codend mesh size requirement for the long fin squid fishery; established a butterfish rebuilding program with a butterfish mortality cap for the long fin squid fishery; established a 72-hr trip notification requirement for the long fin squid fishery; and required an annual assessment of the butterfish rebuilding program by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee. This rule also made minor, technical corrections to the existing regulations. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        5. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery; Amendment 16; Final Rule. RIN 0648-AW72 (75 FR 18261; April 9, 2010). NMFS issued the final rule to implement measures approved under Amendment 16 to the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. Amendment 16 was developed by the New England Fishery Management Council as part of the biennial adjustment process in the FMP to update status determination criteria for all regulated NE multispecies and ocean pout stocks; to adopt rebuilding programs for NE multispecies stocks newly classified as being overfished and subject to overfishing; and to revise management measures, including significant revisions to the sector management measures, necessary to end overfishing, rebuild overfished regulated NE multispecies and ocean pout stocks, and mitigate the adverse economic impacts of increased effort controls. This final rule also implemented new requirements under Amendment 16 for establishing acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limits (ACLs), and accountability measures (AMs) for each stock managed under the FMP, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Finally, this action added Atlantic wolffish to the list of species managed by the FMP. This action was necessary to address the results of the most recent stock assessment, which indicate that several additional regulated species are overfished and subject to overfishing, and that stocks currently classified as overfished require additional reductions in fishing mortality to rebuild by the end of their rebuilding periods. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act

        6. Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 31. RIN 0648-AX67. (75 FR 21512; April 26, 2010). NMFS issued this final rule to implement Amendment 31 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. This final rule implemented restrictions applicable to the bottom longline component of the reef fish fishery in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The restrictions included a bottom longline endorsement requirement, a seasonal closed area, and a limitation on the number of hooks that can be possessed and fished. The intent of this rule was to balance the continued operation of the bottom longline component of the reef fish fishery in the eastern Gulf while maintaining adequate protective measures for sea turtles. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        7. Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Shark Management Measures; Amendment 3; Final Rule. RIN 0648-AW65 (75 FR 30483; June 1, 2010). NMFS published this final rule to implement the Final Amendment 3 to the Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). As it developed Amendment 3, NMFS examined a full range of management alternatives available to rebuild blacknose sharks and end overfishing of blacknose and shortfin mako sharks, consistent with recent stock assessments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, and evaluated options for managing smooth dogfish as a highly migratory species under the HMS FMP. This final rule implemented the final conservation and management measures in Amendment 3 for blacknose sharks, shortfin mako sharks, and smooth dogfish. In order to reduce confusion with spiny dogfish regulations, this final rule places both smooth dogfish and Florida smoothhound into the “smoothhound shark complex.” This final rule also announced the opening date and 2010 annual quotas for small coastal sharks. These changes could have affected all fishermen, commercial and recreational, who fish for sharks in the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

        8. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Rulemaking to Establish Take Prohibitions for the Threatened Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American Green Sturgeon. RIN 0648-AV94 (75 FR 30714; June 2, 2010). This final Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 4(d) rule represented the regulations that we, NMFS, believe necessary and advisable to conserve the threatened Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris; hereafter Southern DPS). We applied the prohibitions listed under ESA section 9 for the Southern DPS, and we highlighted specific categories of activities that were likely to result in take of Southern DPS fish. We did not find it necessary and advisable to apply the take prohibitions to certain categories of activities that contribute to conserving the Southern DPS. We also provided a variety of methods by which take of the Southern DPS may have been authorized. This document also announces the availability of a final environmental assessment that analyzed the environmental impacts of promulgating the 4(d) regulations for the Southern DPS. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the ESA.
        9. Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Limited Access for Guided Sport Charter Vessels in Alaska. RIN 0648-AY85 (75 FR 56903; September 17, 2010). NMFS issued regulations amending the limited access program for charter vessels in the guided sport fishery for Pacific halibut in the waters of International Pacific Halibut Commission Regulatory Area 2C (Southeast Alaska) and Area 3A (Central Gulf of Alaska). These regulations revised the method of assigning angler endorsements to charter halibut permits to more closely align each endorsement with the greatest number of charter vessel anglers reported for each vessel that a charter business used to qualify for a charter halibut permit. This action was necessary to achieve the halibut fishery management goals of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. This action was conducted by NMFS under authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982.
        10. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Modified Nonpelagic Trawl Gear and Habitat Conservation in the Bering Sea Subarea. RIN 0648-AY34 (75 FR 61642; October 6, 2010). NMFS issued a final rule that implemented Amendment 94 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area. Amendment 94 required participants using nonpelagic trawl gear in the directed fishery for flatfish in the Bering Sea subarea to modify the trawl gear to raise portions of the gear off the ocean bottom. Amendment 94 also changed the boundaries of the Northern Bering Sea Research Area to establish the Modified Gear Trawl Zone (MGTZ) and to expand the Saint Matthew Island Habitat Conservation Area. Nonpelagic trawl gear also was required to be modified to raise portions of the gear off the ocean bottom if used in any directed fishery for groundfish in the MGTZ. This action was necessary to reduce potential adverse effects of nonpelagic trawl gear on bottom habitat, to protect additional blue king crab habitat near St. Matthew Island, and to allow for efficient flatfish harvest as the distribution of flatfish in the Bering Sea changes. This action was intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        11. Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Regulatory Amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. RIN 0648-AY05 (75 FR 67247; November 2, 2010). NMFS issued this final rule that implemented a regulatory amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands prepared by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council. This rule modified the Bajo de Sico seasonal closure from a 3-month closure to a 6-month closure, and prohibits fishing for and possession of Caribbean reef fish in or from the EEZ portion of Bajo de Sico during the closure. The final rule also prohibited anchoring in the EEZ portion of Bajo de Sico year-round. In addition to the measures contained in the regulatory amendment, this final rule also added spear to the list of allowable gears in the commercial sector of the Caribbean reef fish fishery and revises the title of the FMP in the list of authorized fisheries and gear. The intended effect of this rule was to provide further protection for red hind spawning aggregations and large snappers and groupers, and better protect the essential fish habitat where these species reside. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        12. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish Observer Program. RIN 0648-AW24 (75 FR 69016; November 10, 2010). NMFS issued a final rule to amend regulations implementing the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (Observer Program). This action was necessary to improve the operational efficiency of the Observer Program, as well as to improve the catch, bycatch, and biological data collected by observers for conservation and management of the North Pacific groundfish fisheries, including those data collected through scientific research activities. The final rule was intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

        13. Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Grouper Management Measures. RIN 0648-BA04 (75 FR74656; December 1, 2010). NMFS issued this final rule to implement actions identified in a regulatory amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. This final rule reduced the commercial quota for red grouper and, thus, the combined commercial quota for shallow water grouper species, and requires vessels with valid commercial Gulf of Mexico reef fish permits to mark their buoy gear with the official vessel number. This rule also implemented minor revisions to codified text, including a revised definition of buoy gear, re-codification of the commercial and recreational quotas for greater amberjack, revision of the recreational accountability measure for greater amberjack, and removal of outdated language for the red snapper individual fishing quota program. The intended effect of this final rule was to help prevent overfishing of red grouper while achieving optimum yield by reducing red grouper harvest, consistent with the findings of the recent stock assessment for this species, and to implement technical corrections to the regulations. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        14. Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2011 Commercial Fishing Season and Adaptive Management Measures for the Atlantic Shark Fishery. RIN 0648-AY98 (75 FR 76302; December 8, 2010). This final rule established opening dates and adjusted quotas for the 2011 fishing season for sandbar sharks, non-sandbar large coastal sharks (LCS), blacknose shark, non-blacknose small coastal shark (SCS), blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) based on any over- and/or underharvests experienced during the 2009 and 2010 Atlantic commercial shark fishing seasons. NMFS was taking this action to establish the 2011 adjusted fishing quotas and to open the commercial fishing seasons for the Atlantic sandbar shark, non-sandbar LCS, blacknose shark, non-blacknose SCS, and pelagic shark fisheries based on over- and underharvests from the 2009 and 2010 fishing season. This action was expected to affect commercial shark fishermen in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. In addition to establishing opening dates and adjusting annual quotas, this final rule implemented adaptive management measures, including flexible opening dates for the fishing season, as well as inseason adjustments to shark trip limits, to provide flexibility in management in the furtherance of equitable fishing opportunities, to the extent practicable, for commercial shark fishermen in all regions and areas. These actions were expected to affect commercial shark fishermen in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        15. Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 17A; Emergency Rule To Delay Effectiveness of the Snapper-Grouper Area Closure; Final Rule and Temporary Rule. RIN 0648-AY10 (75 FR 76873; December 9, 2010). NMFS issued this final rule to implement Amendment 17A to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. This final rule established an ACL of zero for red snapper, which means all harvest and possession of red snapper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is prohibited, and for a vessel with a Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper, harvest and possession of red snapper is prohibited in or from State or Federal waters. This rule also implemented an area closure for South Atlantic snapper-grouper that extends from southern Georgia to northern Florida where harvest and possession of all snapper-grouper species is prohibited (except when fishing with black sea bass pots or spearfishing gear for species other than red snapper), and requires the use of non-stainless steel circle hooks when fishing for snapper-grouper species with hook and line gear north of 28 degrees N. latitude in the South Atlantic EEZ. Additionally, Amendment 17A established a rebuilding plan for red snapper and requires a monitoring program as the AM for red snapper. The intended effects of this rule were to end overfishing of South Atlantic red snapper and rebuild the stock. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        16. Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 17B. RIN 0648-AY11 (75 FR 82280; December 20, 2010). NMFS issued this final rule to implement Amendment 17B to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region, as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. This final rule established ACLs and AMs for eight snapper-grouper species in the FMP that were undergoing overfishing, and for black grouper, which was recently assessed and determined to not be undergoing overfishing or overfished; modified management measures to limit total mortality of those species to the ACL; and added ACLs, annual catch targets (ACTs), and AMs to the list of management measures that may be amended via the framework process. The intent of this final rule was to address overfishing of eight snapper-grouper species while maintaining catch levels consistent with achieving optimum yield. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Availability of Completed Reviews

        NMFS will make available a copy of this notice and the completed reviews to the public at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/economic_social/index.html.

          Dated: June 2, 2017.
          Margo B. Schulze-Haugen,
          Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2017-11815 Filed 6-6-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        RIN 0648-BH16
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 20 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Announcement of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has submitted Amendment 20 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan to the Secretary of Commerce for review and approval. We are requesting comments from the public on this amendment. This action is necessary to prevent the reactivation of latent effort in the longfin squid fishery, preserve economic opportunities for more recently active participants in the longfin squid fishery, avoid overharvest during Trimester II (May-August) of the longfin squid fishery, and reduce potential negative impacts on inshore spawning longfin squid aggregations and egg mops. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council intends that these proposed measures would promote the sustainable utilization and conservation of the squid and butterfish resources, while promoting the sustained participation of fishing communities and minimizing adverse economic impacts on such communities.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before September 25, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0110, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0110, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Amendment 20.”

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          The Council prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for Amendment 20 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) that describes the proposed action and other alternatives considered and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives considered. Copies of Amendment 20, including the EA, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, are available from: Christopher Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The EA and associated analysis is accessible via the internet at: http://www.mafmc.org/s/Squid-Amendment-Draft-EA.pdf.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9141.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        In 1995, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) adopted a limited access permit system for longfin squid and butterfish as part of Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP (April 2, 1996; 61 FR 14465). Under Amendment 5, NMFS issued longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits to vessels that landed a minimum amount of either species during a specified qualification period. Since then, the number of vessels landing longfin squid has decreased, with a relatively small portion of vessels issued longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits landing the majority of longfin squid in recent years. The Council is concerned that unused longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits could be activated, which could lead to excessive fishing effort and bycatch of both longfin squid and non-target species. This could cause negative biological impacts to these species. In addition, this increased effort could increase the race to fish and reduce access to available longfin squid quota by vessels with a continuous history of landings in recent years. Therefore, the Council developed Amendment 20 to consider the appropriate number of vessels in the directed and incidental longfin squid fishery and design appropriate measures to prevent unanticipated increases in fishing effort. The proposed measures described below could help prevent a race to fish, frequent and disruptive fishery closures, and reduced fishing opportunities for vessels that are more recently dependent upon longfin squid.
        Longfin squid spawning occurs year round, but is most frequently observed inshore during the late spring through early fall. Spawning aggregations and associated egg masses (mops) that are attached to the bottom are vulnerable to bottom fishing activities during the summer months when longfin squid are easily accessible to the fishery in large concentrations. In 2007, the Council implemented reduced quotas during summer months (May through August, or Trimester II) as part of the trimester quota system (January 30, 2007; 71 FR 4211). The Council developed the trimester quota system to improve the monitoring and management of the longfin squid fishery and prevent allowable quotas from being exceeded. Once a trimester quota has been caught, possession limits are reduced to incidental levels for all longfin squid permits. The FMP currently includes a possession limit of 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) per trip for incidental permits and when the directed fishery has closed. However, this incidental limit has allowed vessels to continue to land large amounts of longfin squid even after the directed fishery is closed, which contributed to the Trimester II quota being exceeded by large amounts in several years. The Council is concerned that excessive fishing effort inshore during Trimester II could negatively impact the stock, interrupting spawning activity, increasing the mortality of squid eggs, and reducing future recruitment. Measures developed by the Council under this action are intended to reevaluate the management of longfin squid during Trimester II primarily to reduce impacts to spawning squid and egg mops.
        The purpose of Amendment 20 is to optimize management measures in the squid fisheries by reducing latent (unused) effort in the longfin squid fishery and adjusting the management of the longfin squid fishery during Trimester II (May through August) to avoid overharvesting the longfin squid resource. Although the Council considered reducing the number of Illex squid moratorium permits in the fishery, the Council decided a reduction in the number of Illex moratorium permits was not appropriate at this time given low Illex landings and limited vessel participation in the fishery in recent years. Measures proposed under this action would promote the sustainable utilization and conservation of the longfin squid and butterfish resources, while promoting the sustained participation of fishing communities and minimizing adverse economic impacts on such communities. If approved, Amendment 20 would:
        1. Separate butterfish from the current longfin/butterfish moratorium permit to create a new butterfish moratorium permit and a separate longfin squid moratorium permit;
        2. Reissue longfin squid moratorium permits to vessels that landed at least 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of longfin squid in any year from 1997-2013;
        3. Create a new longfin squid moratorium permit with a 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) possession limit for vessels that have not landed at least 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of longfin squid in any year from 1997-2013;
        4. Create a new longfin squid incidental moratorium permit to enable vessels to continue to land 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of longfin squid per trip;
        5. Allow individual entities issued multiple longfin squid moratorium permits a one-time opportunity to swap such permits among their vessels; and
        6. Reduce the longfin squid possession limit from 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) to 250 lb (113 kg) for squid/butterfish incidental catch permits and for all longfin squid permits after the Trimester II longfin squid quota is landed.

        NMFS seeks public comments on Amendment 20 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period specified in the DATES section of this notice of availability (NOA). Concurrent with NMFS's review of the amendment under the Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures, NMFS may publish a rule proposing to implement measures outlined in this amendment in the Federal Register for public comment. All comments received by the end of the comment period on the NOA, whether specifically directed to the NOA or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. NMFS will not consider comments received after the end of the comment period for the NOA in the approval/disapproval decision of this action.

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

          Dated: July 23, 2018.
          Jennifer M. Wallace,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2018-15970 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
        [I.D. 062005C]
        Endangered and Threatened Species:   Recovery Plan Preparation for 16 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead

          AGENCY:
           National Marine Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
           Notice of intent; request for information.

          SUMMARY:
           NMFS announces its intent to develop recovery plans for 16 ESUs of Pacific salmon and steelhead in the Northwest  listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and requests information from the public.  NMFS is required by the ESA to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of listed species.  NMFS is working with state, Federal, tribal and local entities in Washington, Oregon and Idaho to produce draft recovery plans by December 2005.

          DATES:
           All information must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time on September 6, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
           Information may be submitted by any of the following methods:

          • E-mail:   The mailbox address for submitting e-mail information for recovery planning is RecoveryInfo.nwr@noaa.gov.  Please include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the identifier “Information for ESA Recovery Planning, Attention:  (insert name of appropriate NMFS Recovery Coordinator)” and specify the recovery domain to which your information applies (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
          • Federal e-rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov

          • Mail:   Submit written comments and information to Salmon Recovery Branch Chief, NMFS, Salmon Recovery Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon, 97232-1274.  Please identify information as regarding the “Information for ESA Recovery Planning.”
          • Hand Delivery/Courier:  NMFS, Salmon Recovery Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon, 97232-1274.  You can hand-deliver written information to our office at the street address above.  Business hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          • Fax:  503-872-2737.  Please identify the fax comment as regarding “Information for Recovery Plans” and specify the recovery domain to which your information applies (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

           NMFS, Northwest Region, Salmon Recovery Division, and contact the recovery coordinator listed below for the area in which you are interested.   Additional salmon-related materials are available on the Internet at www.nwr.noaa.gov.

          Puget Sound Recovery Domain:   Elizabeth Babcock, (phone:  206-526-4505), email address: Elizabeth.Babcock@noaagov; Upper Columbia Recovery Domain:  Lynn Hatcher, (phone:  509-962-8911 x 223), email address: Lynn.Hatcher@noaa.gov;  Mid Columbia Recovery Domain:   Paula Burgess, (phone:   503-808-6525), email address: Paula.Burgess@noaa.gov;  Willamette/Lower Columbia Recovery Domain:   Patty Dornbusch, (phone:   503-230-5430), email address: Patty.Dornbusch@noaa.gov;  Oregon Coast Recovery Domain:   Rosemary Furfey, (phone:   503-231-2149), email address: Rosemary.Furfey@noaa.gov;  Snake River Recovery Domain:   David Mabe,  (phone:   208-378-5698), email address: David.Mabe@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS is charged with the recovery of Pacific salmon and steelhead species listed under the ESA.  Recovery under the Act means that listed species and their ecosystems are restored, and their future secured, so that the protections of the ESA are no longer necessary.
        There are 15 “distinct population segments” or ESUs of salmon and steelhead listed as threatened or endangered in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho:
        Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha):   Upper Willamette River; Lower Columbia River; Upper Columbia River Spring-run; Puget Sound; Snake River Fall-run; and Snake River Spring/Summer-run.
        Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta):  Hood Canal summer-run; Columbia River.
        Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka):   Snake River; Ozette Lake.
        Steelhead Salmon (Oncorhynchus mykiss):   Upper Willamette River; Lower Columbia River; Middle Columbia River; Upper Columbia River; Snake River Basin.
        NMFS has proposed to list Oregon Coast coho and the Lower Columbia River coho ESUs as threatened (69 FR 33102; June 14, 2004).  If these ESUs are listed, they will be included in the Oregon Coast and Willamette/Lower Columbia River recovery planning efforts.  Notice of recovery plans for the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU will be announced separately with other California ESUs.
        The ESA requires that NMFS develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species.  These recovery plans provide blueprints to determine priority recovery actions for funding and implementation.  The ESA specifies that recovery plans must include:   (1) a description of site-specific management actions as may be necessary to achieve the plan's goals for the conservation and survival of the species; (2) objective, measurable criteria, which when met, would result in the species being removed from the list; and (3) estimates of the time and costs required to achieve the plan's goal and achieve intermediate steps toward that goal.  NMFS will take into consideration information provided during this comment period to prepare draft recovery plans.

        In order to develop recovery plans that address multiple species in an ecosystem context, NMFS organized the listed and proposed ESUs in the Northwest into six recovery areas or “domains” (Puget Sound, Upper Columbia, Middle Columbia, Snake River, Oregon Coast, and Willamette/Lower Columbia).  Each domain will have a recovery plan that addresses all listed salmon and steelhead ESUs within that area.  While each recovery plan will meet the requirements of the ESA and will utilize consistent scientific principles, each plan also will be unique because of conditions in that domain and because it will be based on local initiatives such as the State of Washington's regional recovery boards, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's subbasin plans and the State of Oregon's Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds' Oregon Coast Coho Project.   To develop key technical products and provide science support NMFS formed teams of scientists, called “Technical Recovery Teams” for:   Puget Sound, Willamette/Lower Columbia, Interior Columbia, and Oregon Coast recovery domains.  Finally, NMFS has developed a schedule for producing draft recovery plans in each recovery domain by December 2005.   Because draft recovery plans will be based on local recovery planning efforts, the level of detail in these draft recovery plans completed by December will vary.  After further local public review by federal agencies, state and tribal co-managers, and interested persons, NMFS will publish proposed recovery plans in the Federal Register and public comment will be sought for each proposed plan.
        As part of its recovery planning process, NMFS published a Notice of Availability of a Draft Interim Regional Recovery Plan for Portions of Three ESUs of Salmon and Steelhead within the Washington Lower Columbia Management Unit (70 FR 20531; April 20, 2005).  Public comment is being sought until June 20, 2005, on this draft regional recovery plan.
        NMFS requests relevant information from the public that should be addressed during preparation of draft recovery plans.  Such information should address:  (1) criteria for removing the ESUs from the list of threatened and endangered species; (2) factors that are presently limiting, or threaten to limit survival of the ESUs; (3) actions to address limiting factors and threats; (4) estimates of time and cost to implement recovery actions; and 5) research, monitoring, and evaluation needs.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

          Dated:   June 30, 2005.
          P. Michael Payne,
          Acting Division Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-13394 Filed 7-6-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
        Internal Revenue Service
        26 CFR Part 1
        [REG-140437-12]
        RIN 1545-BL28
        Bond Premium Carryforward

          AGENCY:
          Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.

          SUMMARY:

          In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register, the IRS is issuing temporary regulations that provide guidance on the tax treatment of a debt instrument with a bond premium carryforward in the holder's final accrual period, including a Treasury bill acquired at a premium. The text of those regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations.

          DATES:
          Written or electronic comments must be received by April 4, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:

          Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-140437-12), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-140437-12), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-140437-12).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Concerning the proposed regulations, William E. Blanchard, (202) 622-3900; concerning submissions of comments, Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) Taylor, (202) 622-7180 (not toll-free numbers).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background and Explanation of Provisions

        Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register amend the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) relating to section 171. The temporary regulations provide guidance on the tax treatment of a taxable debt instrument with a bond premium carryforward in the holder's final accrual period, including a Treasury bill acquired at a premium. In general, the temporary regulations provide that, upon the sale, retirement, or other disposition of a taxable bond, the holder treats the amount of any bond premium carryforward determined as of the end of the accrual period under § 1.171-2(a)(4)(i)(B) as a bond premium deduction under section 171(a)(1) for the holder's taxable year in which the sale, retirement, or other disposition occurs. The text of the temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations.
        Special Analyses
        It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small businesses.
        Comments

        Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in the preamble under the “Addresses” heading. The Treasury Department and the IRS welcome comments on the clarity of the proposed rules and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available at www.regulations.gov for public inspection and copying. A public hearing may be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for a public hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

        Drafting Information
        The principal author of these regulations is William E. Blanchard, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

          List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
          Income Taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        Proposed Amendments to the Regulations
        Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 1—INCOME TAXES

          Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows:

          Authority:
           26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

          Par. 2. Section 1.171-2 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(4)(i)(C) to read as follows:

          § 1.171-2
          Amortization of bond premium.
          (a) * * *
          (4) * * *
          (i) * * *

          (C) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.171-2(a)(4)(i)(C) is the same as the text for § 1.171-2T(a)(4)(i)(C) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register].

          Steven T. Miller,
          Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.

      [FR Doc. 2012-31746 Filed 1-3-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4830-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D. 041000G]
        New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Announcement of Public Meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a 2-day public meeting on May 3 and 4, 2000, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

          DATES:
          The meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 3, 2000, beginning at 9:30 a.m., and Thursday, May 4, at 8:30 a.m.

          ADDRESSES:
          The meeting will be held at the Providence Biltmore Hotel, 11 Dorrance Street, Kennedy Plaza, Providence, RI 02903; telephone (401) 421-0700. Requests for special accommodations should be addressed to the New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone (978) 465-0492.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council (978) 465-0492.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Wednesday, May 3, 2000
        After introductions, the meeting will begin with reports on recent activities from the Council Chairman, Executive Director, the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council liaisons, and representatives of the Coast Guard, NMFS Enforcement and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Following reports, the Council's Research Steering Committee Chairman will provide a briefing on progress to fund collaborative research projects submitted by fishermen and researchers in response to a Congressional appropriation for groundfish research in New England. The Council will approve procedures to determine final decisions on proposals submitted for funding. During the Groundfish Committee report the Council will discuss and possibly approve committee recommendations developed for Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). These include committee recommendations on overfishing definitions for species managed through the FMP and for biological goals and rebuilding schedules. The day will conclude with a report from the Whiting Committee. The Council will consider final approval of Framework Adjustment 35 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP (whiting raised footrope trawl exempted fishery). The action would allow a seasonal whiting raised footrope trawl fishery to occur in Upper Cape Cod Bay. Issues to be addressed include: Season, area and gear requirements; possible modification of the current raised footrope trawl gear specifications for Small Mesh Areas 1 and 2; possible adjustment to the October/November closure of Blocks 124 and 125 or an exemption for participants in the raised footrope trawl fishery; whiting possession limits and bycatch restrictions; possible modification to the bycatch restrictions for Small Mesh Areas 1 and 2; monitoring recommendations; and possible requirement for vessels to use multispecies days-at-sea when participating in the raised footrope trawl fishery.
        Thursday, May 4, 2000
        The second day of the meeting will begin with a Herring Committee Report. This will include discussion and possible approval of an in-season adjustment to area specific Total Allowable Catches and consideration of measures to provide access to the herring resource for the fixed gear fishery. There also will be a report on the development of a controlled access or limited entry system in the Atlantic herring fishery in light of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's limited entry proposals for the Atlantic mackerel fishery. During the Monkfish Committee discussion which will follow, the Council will provide guidance on issues raised at the most recent committee meeting. These include: Revision of the limited access permit qualification period to allow vessels to fish south of the North Carolina/Virginia border; delay in implementation of the Southern Fishery Management Area trip limit, pending review of data for the fishery following the November 8, 1999, implementation of year 1 measures; establishment of procedures and options for addressing monkfish bycatch in fisheries managed under other fishery management plans; and discussion of methods to address a proposal for an inshore/offshore line in the Mid-Atlantic region. The Sea Scallop Committee will present proposed Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP Amendment 10 management alternatives. Alternatives selected for further development will be analyzed in terms of their scallop, habitat, bycatch, gear conflict, enforcement, and social and economic impacts in a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS). Under consideration are proposals for: Rotational area management (which would also require a re-estimation of the overfishing definition reference points, consistent with the expected change in size selection and other factors); a requirement for scallop nets to be modified to achieve the same selectivity and/or equivalent fishing mortality as dredges; a change in the fishing year and the annual review process and possibly adjusting the present crew size limits. Prior to addressing any other outstanding business, the Capacity Committee will update the Council on the recent activities.

        Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this announcement that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

        The Council will consider public comments at a minimum of two Council meetings before making recommendations to the Regional Administrator on any framework adjustment to a fishery management plan. If she concurs with the adjustment proposed by the Council, the Regional Administrator has the discretion to publish the action either as proposed or final regulations in the Federal Register. Documents pertaining to framework adjustments are available for public review 7 days prior to a final vote by the Council (see ADDRESSES).
        Special Accommodations

        This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

          Dated: April 12, 2000.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-9698 Filed 4-18-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-F