        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 070705262-7266-01]
        RIN 0648-AV38
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and Gulf of Alaska, Seabird Avoidance Measures Revisions

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues a proposed rule that would revise the seabird avoidance measures for the Alaska hook-and-line groundfish and halibut fisheries. The proposed rule would strengthen gear standards for small vessels and eliminate certain seabird avoidance requirements that are not needed or not effective. This action is necessary to revise seabird avoidance measures based on the latest scientific information and to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and associated costs.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by October 19, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be submitted by:
          • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
          • Fax: 907-586-7557.
          • E-mail: 0648-AV38-SeabirdPR@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following document identifier: “Seabird Avoidance PR.” E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.
          • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.

          Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for this action may be obtained from the addresses stated above or from the Alaska Region NMFS website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov.

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Alaska Region NMFS and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202-395-7285.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Melanie Brown, 907-586-7228 or email at melanie.brown@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Alaska are managed under 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 (FMPs). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq. Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.
        Management of the Pacific halibut fisheries in and off Alaska is governed by an international agreement between Canada and the United States. This agreement, entitled the “Convention Between the United States of America and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea Convention,” was signed at Ottawa, Canada, on March 2, 1953, and was amended by the “Protocol Amending the Convention,” signed at Washington, D.C., March 29, 1979. The Convention is implemented in the United States by the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). The directed commercial Pacific halibut fishery in Alaska is managed under an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program, as is the fixed gear sablefish fishery. The IFQ Program is a limited access management system. This program is codified at 50 CFR part 679.
        Background
        The purpose of the proposed action is to revise the seabird avoidance measures based on the best available information regarding seabird occurrence and efficient application of the avoidance measures. Seabird avoidance measures reduce the incidental mortality of seabirds in the hook-and-line fisheries off Alaska. Since 1997, NMFS has implemented and revised seabird avoidance measures to mitigate interactions between the Federal hook-and-line fisheries and seabirds (62 FR 23176, April 29, 1997; 63 FR 11161, March 6, 1998; and 69 FR 1930, January 13, 2004).
        Based largely on Washington Sea Grant (WSG) research on seabird avoidance by larger vessels, the seabird avoidance measures include requiring streamer lines on hook-and-line vessels greater than 55 ft (16.8 m) in length overall (LOA)(§ 679.24(e)(4)). These measures mitigate potential adverse effects of hook-and-line fisheries on Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed seabirds and other seabird species. However, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee identified the need for additional study of methods for reducing incidental take of seabirds on small vessels (greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA), especially those fishing the inside waters of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). The Council and NMFS have promoted research to improve the efficiency and success of the seabird avoidance measures and to ensure that no unnecessary burdens on fishermen are imposed.
        Recent research by the WSG and the Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program (ASGMAP) has indicated ways of further refining seabird avoidance measures to improve the efficacy of seabird avoidance gear. The WSG and ASGMAP recently completed several research projects including (1) the performance of seabird avoidance gear on small vessels using hook-and-line gear (greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA); (2) the frequency of observations of seabirds in inside waters of Southeast Alaska, Prince William Sound, and Cook Inlet; and 3) the efficacy of various types of seabird avoidance gear on small vessels. These research projects indicate that seabird avoidance measures may not be needed in Prince William Sound (NMFS Area 649), State of Alaska (State) waters of Cook Inlet, and Eastern GOA Regulatory Area Southeast Inside District (NMFS Area 659) because of the scarcity of seabirds of concern in these areas, particularly albatross and other Procellariiform seabirds. These studies further indicate that smaller vessels fishing in the EEZ should comply with specified standards for seabird avoidance, given both the improved efficacy of measures employing certain standards and the potential overlap of fishing locations with foraging seabirds.
        Based on the latest WSG and ASGMAP research, the Council recommended revisions to the seabird avoidance measures. These revisions would eliminate seabird avoidance measures in areas where most seabird species are not likely to occur; and therefore, are not likely to result in reduced seabird mortality. In addition, the revisions would increase seabird avoidance measures for vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA fishing in the EEZ. Seabird avoidance measures would be increased for these vessels by requiring gear standards. These vessels may encounter seabirds in the EEZ, and the standards are necessary to reduce potential seabird mortality.
        Seabird avoidance measures would be eliminated in all of Prince William Sound (NMFS Area 649), all State waters of Cook Inlet, and in most waters of the Eastern GOA Regulatory Area Southeast Inside District (NMFS Area 659). Pelagic seabirds (particularly the ESA-listed short-tailed albatross and other seabird species of concern) are rarely observed in these waters; and therefore, are not likely to interact with hook-and-line fisheries. Three areas adjacent to the EEZ in NMFS Area 659 have had observations of pelagic seabird species and would continue to have seabird avoidance requirements. These areas are further described below.

        Eliminating certain unnecessary seabird avoidance measures is intended to remove associated economic burdens on affected vessels. Increased measures for certain small vessels in the EEZ would require specific deployment procedures intended to improve the effectiveness of avoidance devices in reducing seabird bycatch. These revisions are an example of adaptive management using the best available information to focus regulatory requirements where they are needed and to ensure requirements are effective and efficient. Research results and the environmental and economic considerations of the proposed action are in the EA/RIR/IRFA for this action (see ADDRESSES).
        Regulatory Amendments

        In February 2007, the Council unanimously recommended revisions to the seabird avoidance measures. These measures would continue to apply to operators of vessels fishing for (1) Pacific halibut in the IFQ and Community Development Quota (CDQ) management programs in waters from 0 to 200 nm; (2) IFQ sablefish in waters from 0 nm to 200 nm, except waters of Prince William Sound and areas in which sablefish fishing is managed under a State limited entry program (Clarence Strait, Chatham Strait); and (3) groundfish with hook-and-line gear in the EEZ.
        The Council recommended that NMFS request that the State of Alaska Board of Fisheries consider modifying the current State regulations on seabird avoidance for groundfish vessels operating in State waters to match the Federal requirements. This would ensure consistent requirements to avoid seabirds for groundfish vessels operating in State and Federal waters of Alaska.
        The proposed rule would revise § 679.24(e) to eliminate redundant paragraphs, match subparagraph citations to the new section structure, and make the text more concise.
        Gear Requirements
        The proposed rule would revise § 679.24(e)(4)(i) and Table 20 to 50 CFR part 679 to require seabird avoidance gear standards for hook-and-line vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA fishing in the EEZ as follows:
        1. Vessels with masts, poles, or rigging using snap-on hook-and-line gear are required to use standards when deploying one streamer line. The streamer line must be at least 147.6 ft (45 m) in length and must be deployed before the first hook is set in such a way that streamers are in the air for 65.6 ft (20 m) aft of the stern and within 6.6 ft (2 m) horizontally of the point where the main groundline enters the water.
        2. Vessels with masts, poles, or rigging using conventional hook-and-line gear (vessels not using snap-on gear) are required to use standards when deploying one streamer line. The streamer line must be a minimum of 300 ft (91.4 m) in length and must be in the air for a minimum of 131.2 ft (40 m) aft of the stern.
        3. Vessels without masts, poles, or rigging and not capable of adding poles or davits to accommodate a streamer line (including bowpickers) must tow a buoy bag line.
        The best available scientific information indicates that vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA are capable of meeting the proposed standards, and that these standards are effective at reducing potential seabird incidental takes.
        The proposed rule also would revise § 679.24(e)(4)(i) and Table 20 to 50 CFR part 679 to eliminate seabird avoidance gear requirements for all hook-and-line vessels fishing in Prince William Sound (NMFS Area 649), the State waters of Cook Inlet, and Southeast Alaska (NMFS Area 659) with certain area exceptions in the inside waters of Southeast Alaska. Three exception areas exist:
        1. Lower Chatham Strait south of a straight line between Point Harris (latitude 56°17.25 N.) and Port Armstrong,
        2. Dixon Entrance defined as the State groundfish statistical areas 325431 and 325401, and
        3. Cross Sound west of a straight line from Point Wimbledon extending south through the Inian Islands to Point Lavinia (longitude 136°21.17 E.).

        Maps of these exception areas are in the EA/RIR/IRFA for this action (see ADDRESSES) and are available from the NMFS Alaska Region website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov.
        To prevent potential seabird mortality in the exception areas, hook-and-line vessels would be subject to the same seabird avoidance gear requirements and standards in these exception areas as when fishing in the EEZ. The best available scientific information regarding seabird observations in the State waters of Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, and Southeast Alaska indicate that ESA-listed seabirds and other seabird species of concern are not likely to occur in these waters, except for the areas listed above in NMFS Area 659. Therefore, the proposed rule would eliminate seabird avoidance measures where seabird mortality is not likely to occur and ensure that they are used in waters where ESA-listed seabirds and seabird species of concern are likely to occur.
        Seabird Avoidance Plan
        The proposed rule would remove § 679.24(e)(3) and the Seabird Avoidance Plan (SAP) requirement for all vessels. The Council recommended eliminating the SAP requirement based on recommendations from the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement and the NMFS Alaska Region Protected Resources Division. A number of vessels omitted technical SAP violations but were in compliance with the seabird avoidance substantive gear requirements. Because the requirement for a SAP does not seem to impact the use of seabird avoidance gear, removing this requirement should have no effect on seabird mortality.
        Other Seabird Avoidance Device
        The proposed rule would remove the requirement to use one “other device” (weighted groundline, buoy bag, streamer line, or strategic offal discharge) as described in § 679.24(e)(4)(ii), (e)(4)(iii), (e)(6), and Table 20 to 50 CFR part 679. NOAA Office of Law Enforcement reports that the “other device” requirement is difficult to enforce, and reduced seabird mortality from the proposed gear standards for small vessels likely would offset any protection lost by removing this requirement.
        Weather Exception
        The proposed rule would revise § 679.24(e)(5) to allow discretion for vessels more than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA to use seabird avoidance devices when winds exceed 30 knots (near gale or Beaufort 7 conditions). The Council raised concerns that the use of seabird avoidance gear on these small vessels in winds exceeding 30 knots may be unsafe because most or all small vessel crew members need to be engaged fully in vessel operations during inclement weather, rather than deploying and retrieving seabird avoidance gear. Information in the EA/RIR/IRFA indicates that seabird foraging activity on hook-and-line gear is likely to decrease with increased wind speeds. Also, streamer lines and buoy bags pose a greater risk of fouling on the fishing gear during high winds. The weather exception would address potential small vessel safety issues related to deploying seabird avoidance gear during high winds and would ensure devices are used when seabirds are more likely to be interacting with hook-and-line gear.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        An IRFA was prepared as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

        The vessels that are directly regulated by the proposed action fish for groundfish or halibut with hook-and-line gear in the waters off Alaska. The seabird avoidance measures presently in place, and the alternatives and options considered, apply directly to the operator of a vessel deploying hook-and-line gear in the waters off Alaska. These regulations apply to the operation of a vessel and not directly to the holder of an IFQ for halibut or sablefish unless the holder is also the owner/operator of a vessel. Multiple IFQs may be used on a single vessel. Thus, the IRFA analysis of large and small entities is conducted at the vessel level and not the IFQ level. This analysis is complicated by the fact that the halibut fishery is managed somewhat separately than the Federal groundfish fisheries. Thus, data from multiple sources and years have been used to estimate the numbers of large and small entities.
        In 2004, approximately 1,523 vessels participated in the Pacific halibut fishery off Alaska, and 674 vessels participated in the Federal hook-and-line groundfish fisheries off Alaska. Logbook research indicates that 506 of the hook-and-line vessels that caught halibut also harvested groundfish in the waters off Alaska that year. Because of overlap between these two fishery groups, the total count of unique vessels is 1,691.
        The IRFA uses actual revenue reported by fishing entities for the year 2005 as compiled and supplied in a comprehensive database by the Alaska Fish Information Network (AKFIN). Vessels were considered small, according to the Small Business Administration criteria, if they had estimated 2004 gross revenues less than or equal to $4 million, and were not known to be affiliated with other firms whose combined receipts exceeded $4 million. The analysis revealed that 141 eligible vessels had total gross revenue from all directed fishing sources that was greater than $4 million in 2005. This implies that, ignoring affiliations, 1,550 vessels could be considered small entities. A review of American Fisheries Act (AFA) permit data revealed that none of the vessels with gross revenue less than $4 million in 2004 are AFA-permitted vessels. Because AFA affiliations are relatively stable across years, very few of these vessels are large because of AFA affiliations.
        The IRFA indicated that this proposed action is not likely to impose significant costs on directly regulated small entities. The action reduces the regulatory burden on some vessels by eliminating all seabird avoidance requirements for vessels operating in State waters of Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet and most of Southeast Alaska. In addition, vessels operating in the EEZ and State waters may benefit by elimination of the need for an other seabird avoidance device. Vessel operational cost of production data are not presently collected, making it impossible to quantify the net effect on operational costs that might occur under each alternative and option. However, the alternatives and options to the status quo are expected to impose only a slight additional burden, if any. The increased requirement to meet the gear standards for smaller vessels is likely to result in minimal additional costs because these vessels are already using gear manufactured to meet the standards and vessel crew are experienced with using the gear. Any additional costs in training and labor to ensure gear deployment meets the standards would be offset by the reduced costs from no longer being required to deploy the “other device.”
        Since the initial adoption of seabird avoidance regulations, research has been conducted to more precisely identify the geographical distribution and range of seabirds of concern, and on the efficacy of required seabird avoidance devices. Recent research has addressed whether small vessels can properly deploy seabird avoidance devices, given a small vessel's inherent physical limitations, and whether those devices are effective and necessary. The proposed action, which is partly intended to reduce the economic, operational, and reporting burden placed on small entities operating in these fisheries, is a direct result of this research.
        An IRFA must describe any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of the proposed action, consistent with applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Including status quo, this proposed action has three alternatives and three options. Alternative 2 reduces the regulatory burden on small entities by eliminating seabird avoidance measures in the inside waters of Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, and Southeast Alaska. Alternative 3 reduces the seabird avoidance measures in the same locations except for three areas of the Southeast Alaska inside waters where seabirds of concern have been observed. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 increase the regulatory burden on small entities by requiring vessels more than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA to meet gear standards while operating in the EEZ and certain State waters. Options 1 and 2 to Alternatives 2 and 3 reduce the regulatory burden and improve safety by removing the Seabird Avoidance Plan requirement and providing discretion for using seabird avoidance gear in high winds, respectively. Option 3 would reduce burden by reducing seabird avoidance gear requirements to only a buoy bag line for hook-and-line vessels more than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 32 ft (16.8 m) LOA operating in the EEZ waters of International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) Area 4E. The suboption to Option 3 would further reduce the regulatory burden in IPHC Area 4E by eliminating the seabird avoidance measures for vessels between 26 ft (7.9 m) and 32 ft (16.8 m) LOA.
        One of the objectives of the action was to use new information to better protect seabirds of concern while reducing the burden on fishermen. The status quo does not meet the objectives of the action because it does not reflect new information on the range and geographic distribution of seabirds of concern nor does it reflect new research on the efficacy of seabird avoidance devices. The status quo alternative was rejected in part because it imposed a heavier burden on fishing operations. Alternative 2 was rejected because it did not provide for seabird avoidance measures in those State waters of Southeast Alaska with observed ESA-listed seabirds and other seabird species of concern and, thus, did not meet the objectives of the action. Option 3 and its suboption also were rejected because sufficient information was not available to support reducing or eliminating seabird avoidance measures for IPHC Area 4E; and therefore, did not meet the objectives of the action. The Council recommended Alternative 3 with options 1 and 2 because it would meet the objective to use the latest scientific information available regarding seabird occurrence and effective gear standards for small vessels and to reduce regulatory burden, where possible.

        The proposed action alleviates the small entity compliance burden by eliminating seabird avoidance measures in certain State waters where seabirds of concern are absent or very rarely present and where many small entities operate. The action also adopts performance standards, rather than design standards in the EEZ and in State waters. The use of performance standards allows flexibility in the type of avoidance gear used while ensuring an acceptable level of avoidance is achieved. The action also bases requirements on vessel capability (e.g., superstructure configuration, vessel length). Basing the requirements on vessel capability ensures that vessel owners are able to meet the seabird avoidance gear requirements without making costly changes to the vessel structure. Further, the action would eliminate preparation of a seabird avoidance plan, which eases the compliance and reporting requirements for all affected entities, including the large number of small entities that are potentially directly regulated by the proposed action.
        No Federal rules duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action.

        This proposed rule would remove a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control Number 0648-474. Public reporting burden for the Seabird Avoidance Plan is estimated to average 8 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection-of-information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
        An informal consultation under the Endangered Species Act was concluded for this proposed action on August 8, 2007. As a result of the informal consultation, NMFS determined that fishing activities under this rule are not likely to adversely affect endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat. By requiring gear performance standards for vessels more than 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA, this proposed action should result in reduced potential for incidental takes of ESA-listed seabirds. Other provisions of this proposed rule would have no effect on ESA-listed species.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: September 13, 2007.
          Samuel D. Rauch III
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 679 as follows:

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
          1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; and Pub. L. 108-199, 118 Stat. 110.
            2. Section 679.24 is amended by:
            a. Removing paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(6).
            b. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(4) and (e)(5) as paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4), respectively.
            c. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(7) and (e)(8) as paragraphs (e)(5) and (e)(6), respectively.
            d. Revising paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2)(i), (e)(2)(iii), and newly redesignated paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(5).
            e. Adding paragraph (e)(4)(v).
            The revisions and additions read as follows:

            § 679.24
            Gear limitations.

            (e) * * *
            (1) Applicability. The operator of a vessel that is longer than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA fishing with hook-and-line gear must comply with the seabird avoidance requirements as specified in paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this section while fishing for:
            (i) IFQ halibut or CDQ halibut,
            (ii) IFQ sablefish, and
            (iii) Groundfish in the EEZ off Alaska.
            (2) * * *
            (i) Gear onboard. Have onboard the vessel the seabird avoidance gear as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section;

            (iii) Gear use. Use seabird avoidance gear as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section that meets standards as specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this section, while hook-and-line gear is being deployed.

            (3) (See also Table 20 this part.) The operator of a vessel identified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section must comply with the following requirements while fishing with hook-and-line gear for groundfish, IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish in Federal waters (EEZ) and for IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish in the State of Alaska waters, excluding NMFS Reporting Area 649 (Prince William Sound), State waters of Cook Inlet, and NMFS Reporting Area 659 (Eastern GOA Regulatory Area, Southeast Inside District), but including waters in the areas south of a straight line at 56°17.25 N. lat. between Point Harris and Port Armstrong in Chatham Strait, State statistical areas 325431 and 325401, and west of a straight line at 136°21.17 E. long. from Point Wimbledon extending south through the Inian Islands to Point Lavinia:
            (i) Using other than snap gear,
            (A) A minimum of 1 buoy bag line as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA without masts, poles, or rigging.
            (B) A minimum of a single streamer line as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA with masts, poles, or rigging.
            (C) A minimum of a paired streamer line of a standard as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA.
            (ii) Using snap gear,
            (A) A minimum of 1 buoy bag line as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA without masts, poles, or rigging.
            (B) A minimum of a single streamer line as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA with masts, poles, or rigging.
            (C) A minimum of a single streamer line as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA.
            (4) * * *
            (v) Weather Safety Standard. The use of seabird avoidance devices required by paragraph (e)(3) of this section is discretionary for vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA in conditions of wind speeds exceeding 30 knots (near gale or Beaufort 7 conditions).
            (5) Other methods. The following measures or methods must be accompanied by the applicable seabird avoidance gear requirements as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section:
            (i) Night-setting,
            (ii) Line shooter, or
            (iii) Lining tube.

            3. In 50 CFR part 679, Table 20 is revised to read as follows:

              Table 20 to Part 679—Seabird Avoidance Gear Requirements for Vessels, based on Area, Gear, and Vessel Type
              (See § 679.24(e) for complete seabird avoidance program requirements; see § 679.24(e)(1) for applicable fisheries)

                  If you operate a vessel deploying hook-and-line gear, other than snap gear, in waters specified at § 679.24(e)(3), and your vessel is...

                  Then you must use this seabird avoidance gear in conjunction with requirements at § 679.24(e)...

                >26 ft to 55 ft LOA and without masts, poles, or rigging
                minimum of one buoy bag line

                >26 ft to 55 ft LOA and with masts, poles, or rigging
                minimum of a single streamer line of a standard specified at § 679.24(e)(4)(ii)

                >55 ft LOA
                minimum of paired streamer lines of a standard specified at § 679.24(e)(4)(iii)

                  If you operate a vessel deploying hook-and-line gear and use snap gear in waters specified at § 679.24(e)(3), and your vessel is...

                  Then you must use this seabird avoidance gear in conjunction with requirements at § 679.24(e)...

                >26 ft to 55 ft LOA and without masts, poles, or rigging
                minimum of one buoy bag line

                >26 ft to 55 ft and with masts, poles, or rigging
                minimum of a single streamer line of a standard specified at § 679.24(e)(4)(iv)

                >55 ft LOA
                minimum of a single streamer line of a standard specified at § 679.24(e)(4)(iv)

                  If you operate a vessel < 32 ft in the State waters of IPHC Area 4E, or operate a vessel in NMFS Reporting Area 649 (Prince William Sound), State waters of Cook Inlet, and NMFS Reporting Area 659 (Eastern GOA Regulatory Area, Southeast Inside District), but not including waters in the areas south of a straight line at latitude 56 deg. 17.25 N between Point Harris and Port Armstrong in Chatham Strait, State statistical areas 325431 and 325401, and west of a straight line at longitude 136 deg. 21.17 E from Point Wimbledon extending south through the Inian Islands to Point Lavinia...

                  Then you are exempt from seabird avoidance regulations.

      [FR Doc. E7-18489 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 04-1198, MB Docket No. 04-164, RM-10548]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Corning, Quincy and Susanville, CA

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          This document requests comments on a petition filed by Corey J. McCaslin proposing the allotment of Channel 262A at Susanville, California, as its fourth FM broadcast aural transmission service. Channel 262A can be allotted to Susanville, consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's Rules using city reference coordinates. The reference coordinates for Channel 262A at Susanville are 40-24-59 North Latitude and 120-39-07 West Longitude. Additionally, to accommodate the proposed allotment of Channel 262A at Susanville, Corey J. McCaslin requests the substitution of Channel 265A for Channel 262A at Quincy, California, and modification of the license for Station KHGQ(FM) at its current transmitter site. An Order to Show Cause is issued to Keily Miller, licensee of Station KHGQ(FM), as requested. To accommodate the allotment of Channel 265A at Quincy, Corey J. McCaslin also proposes the downgrade of Station KTHU(FM), Channel 264C1, Corning, California to Channel 264B. The FM Table of Allotments was recently changed to reflect Channel 264B at Corning, California. See 68 FR 60043, published October 21, 2003.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before June 25, 2004, and reply comments on or before July 12, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, as follows: Corey J. McCaslin, P.O. Box 7612, Chico, California 95927.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 04-164, adopted April 30, 2004, and released May 4, 2004. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.

        Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contact.

        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio, Radio broadcasting.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under California, is amended by adding Channel 265A and removing Channel 262A at Quincy; and by adding Channel 262A at Susanville.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            John A. Karousos,
            Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 04-11919 Filed 5-25-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 200616-0160]
        RIN 0648-BH61
        Pacific Island Fisheries; Swordfish Trip Limits in the American Samoa Pelagic Longline Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to remove the swordfish retention limit in the American Samoa deep-set longline fishery. NMFS originally implemented the limit as part of a suite of gear and operational requirements intended to discourage shallow-set fishing, thus reducing interactions with green sea turtles. The gear requirements have reduced green sea turtle interactions, and the swordfish retention limit is not needed. The proposed rule would remove the unnecessary restriction that results in the discard of small amounts of marketable swordfish that could otherwise be supplied as seafood. The proposed rule is intended to promote efficiency in the fishery.

          DATES:
          NMFS must receive comments by July 14, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2019-0123, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0123, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Send written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

            Instructions: NMFS may not consider comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on https://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.

          The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS prepared a regulatory amendment, including an environmental assessment (EA), that describes the potential impacts on the human environment that could result from the proposed rule. The regulatory amendment is available at www.regulations.gov, or from the Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, www.wpcouncil.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sarah Ellgen, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5173.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Council and NMFS manage the American Samoa deep-set longline fishery under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific (FEP) and implementing regulations, as authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The fishery targets South Pacific albacore, and occasionally catches other pelagic fish, such as swordfish. In 2011, based on a Council recommendation in FEP Amendment 5, NMFS implemented gear requirements that were intended to reduce interactions with green sea turtles (76 FR 52888, August 24, 2011). That rule also implemented a limit of 10 swordfish that may be retained on a fishing trip for vessels over 40 ft. The 10-fish limit was intended to discourage switching from deep-set gear targeting albacore to shallow-set gear targeting swordfish because shallow-set fishing may interact more frequently with green sea turtles than deep-set fishing.

        The deep-set gear requirements, including setting hooks below 100 m, have reduced interactions with green sea turtles. The number of swordfish caught per trip has been small, and there has been no evidence that longline fishermen have targeted swordfish. Based on logbook data from 2010 through 2018, the average annual catch rate of swordfish ranged from 0.0008 to 0.03 swordfish per 1,000 hooks. From 2008 through 2018, the number of swordfish caught ranged from 0.6 to 2.8 fish per trip. The most recent stock assessment of Southwest Pacific swordfish, conducted in 2017, indicated the swordfish stock is neither overfished nor subject to overfishing. See the regulatory amendment and the Classification section for details about catch and revenue in this fishery.

        The current requirement for vessels over 40 ft. to discard any swordfish in excess of the 10-fish limit results in wasteful discards, potential lost revenues, and an unnecessary reduction in seafood available to the Nation. The American Samoa longline fishery is facing challenging economic conditions and the Council recommended that NMFS remove the swordfish limit to provide relief. Removing the swordfish limit would allow fishermen to retain a few more swordfish that might be caught incidentally during deep-set fishing, while maintaining safeguards for green sea turtles through the existing gear restrictions. All other management measures (including a limited vessel participation, prohibited fishing areas, fishery observers, logbook reporting, vessel monitoring systems, and gear and operational requirements) would remain in place and continue to apply in the fishery.

        NMFS will consider public comments on this proposed rule and will announce the final rule in the Federal Register. NMFS must receive any comments by the date provided in the DATES heading, not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
        Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would remove the limits on the number of swordfish that may be landed or possessed during any given American Samoa-based longline fishing trip south of the Equator. Currently, a longline vessel over 40 ft may keep no more than 10 swordfish on any given trip. Under the proposed rule, there would be no limit on the number of swordfish landed or kept per trip. All other measures applicable to the fishery would remain unchanged. The proposed rule intends to reduce regulatory discards and optimize the yield of swordfish.
        This rule would directly affect vessels that hold American Samoa longline limited entry Class B, C, and D permits. Class A permit holders are exempt from the current swordfish retention requirement. As of May 15, 2020, 43 vessels held American Samoa longline limited entry Class B, C, and D permits, but the potential number of affected vessels could be as high as 60, which is the total number of permits available. According to logbook information, twelve American Samoa longline vessels within these class size permit categories actively fished in 2018 (four Class C and eight Class D). No Class B vessels actively fished in recent years.
        Based on data provided in logbooks and observer records, a total of approximately 21,500 lb of swordfish may have been discarded due to the swordfish trip limit among all vessels from 2013 through 2016. At the 2018 market price of $3.37/lb, and assuming that none of those discards were due to shark predation, small size, or other factors contributing to low marketability, those discards would have represented a loss of total fleetwide revenue of approximately $72,000 over the four years, or an annual fleetwide loss in revenue of just over $18,000. Using the average number of Class C and D longline vessels that actively fished in 2017 and 2018, this would represent an annual loss in potential revenue of $1,393 per active vessel. Not all swordfish retained would have been sold in the local markets; some would be retained for onboard consumption, kept for personal consumption and/or given away to the local community, as is customary in American Samoa.
        NMFS estimates the average annual 2015-2018 gross ex-vessel value of pelagic fish landed by the American Samoa-based longline fishery to be about $5.075 million (all years adjusted to 2018 dollars). Based on the average number of vessels fishing during those years, the average annual revenue would be just over $300,000 per active vessel. NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in excess of $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all vessels that are currently permitted federally under the FEP are small entities.
        Under the proposed action, American Samoa-based longline fishermen would be able to keep more swordfish than what is currently allowed, resulting in an additional revenue gain of up to $1,393 per active vessel per year. The other action alternative that was considered would allow the retention of up to 25 swordfish per trip for a trip where no observer is on board the vessel, and an unlimited amount of swordfish if an observer is on board. The preferred action was selected because deep-set gear restrictions have reduced green sea turtle interactions, there has been no evidence that fishermen switch to shallow-setting on unobserved trips, and this action would be preferred by small entities.

        Under the proposed action, the American Samoa longline fishery managed under the Pelagic FEP is not expected to expand substantially nor change the manner in which they are currently conducted (i.e., area fished, number of vessels longline fishing, number of trips taken per year, number of hooks set per vessel during a trip, depth of hooks, or deployment techniques in setting longline gear). The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules and is not expected to have significant impact on small organizations or government jurisdictions. Furthermore, there would be little, if any, disproportionate adverse economic impacts from the proposed rule based on gear type, or relative vessel size. The proposed rule also will not place a substantial number of small entities, or any segment of small entities, at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities.
        For the reasons above, NMFS does not expect the proposed action to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR 665
          Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Longline, Pacific Islands, Seafood, Swordfish.

          Dated: June 16, 2020.
          Samuel D. Rauch, III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 665 as follows:

          PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

        1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 665 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 665.813, revise paragraph (k) introductory text and remove paragraph (k)(5) to read as follows:

          § 665.813
          Western Pacific longline fishing restrictions.

          (k) South Pacific Longline Requirements. When fishing south of the Equator (0° lat.) for western Pacific pelagic MUS, owners and operators of vessels longer than 40 ft (12.2 m) registered for use with any valid longline permit issued pursuant to § 665.801 must use longline gear that is configured according to the requirements in paragraphs (k)(1) through (4) of this section.

      [FR Doc. 2020-13317 Filed 6-26-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
        42 CFR Parts 400, 405, 410, 412, 413, 414, 488, and 494
        [CMS-3818-RCN]
        RIN 0938-AG82
        Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Conditions for Coverage for End Stage Renal Disease Facilities—Extension of Timeline for Publication of Final Rule

          AGENCY:
          Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

          ACTION:
          Extension of timeline for publication of final rule.

          SUMMARY:

          This notice announces an extension of the timeline for publication of the “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Conditions for Coverage for End Stage Renal Disease Facilities” final rule. This notice is issued in accordance with section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act (the Act), which requires that a notice be published in the Federal Register if a final regulation, due to exceptional circumstances, will take longer to publish than 3 years after the publication date of the proposed rule. In this case, the complexity of the rule and scope of public comments warrants the extension of the timeline for publication.

          DATES:
          As of February 4, 2008, CMMS announces a delay in the timeline for publication of final rulemaking.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Lynn Riley, (410) 786-1286. Lauren Oviatt, (410) 786-4683.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background
        On February 4, 2005, we published in the Federal Register a proposed rule (70 FR 6184), that would establish new certification requirements for Medicare coverage of dialysis facilities. The proposed revisions would reflect advances in dialysis technology and standard care practices that have developed since the requirements were last revised in their entirety in 1976.
        II. Notice of Continuation
         This notice announces an extension of the timeline for publication of a final rule responding to comments on the above proposed rule. Section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to publish Medicare final regulations no later than 3 years after the publication date of the proposed rule. To meet this 3-year timeframe, the final rule would have to be published by February 4, 2008.

        Section 1871(a)(3)(B) also provides that under “exceptional circumstances,” the Secretary may extend the initial targeted publication date of a final regulation. The Secretary is required, prior to the regulation's previously established proposed publication date, to provide public notice of this extension in the Federal Register, including a brief explanation of the justification for the variation.
        This notice extends the timeline based on the following exceptional circumstances, which we believe, justify such an extension. We are not able to meet the 3-year timeline for publication of the final rule due to the complexity of the rule and the large number of public comments we received.
        We received a large volume of timely comments on the proposed rule. The commenters presented extremely complex and detailed policy and legal issues, which require extensive consultation, review, and analysis. Also, the development of the final rule requires collaboration among other government agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies under the Department of Health and Human Services. We note that extensive coordination has been needed to ensure that these provisions follow guidelines and rules of all affected administrative agencies.
        In addition, this final rule is extremely comprehensive because it updates and revises policies regarding infection control, water and dialysate quality, hemodialyzer re-use, self dialysis in the home, and clinical management of the dialysis patients' anemia management. Therefore, the incorporation of these updates has required extensive time, outreach, and collaboration to ensure that the final rule's provisions are consistent with technological and scientific advancement in the provision of dialysis services.
        We believe that an extension of the publication timeline is necessary and appropriate to ensure that we are able to address all of the comments and issues raised in response to the February 4, 2005 proposed rule. Therefore, this notice extends the timeline for publication of the final rule until February 4, 2009.

          Authority:
          Section 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395hh).

          (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.773 Medicare—Hospital Insurance Program; and No. 93.774, Medicare—Supplementary Medical Insurance Program)

          Dated: January 31, 2008.
          Ann Agnew,
          Executive Secretary to the Department.

       [FR Doc. E8-2051 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4120-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 567
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0093, Notice 1]
        RIN 2127-AL18
        Vehicle Certification; Contents of Certification Labels

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document proposes to clarify the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations that prescribe the format and contents of certification labels that manufacturers are statutorily required to affix to motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States. The proposal would require specified language on the certification labels for certain types of vehicles.

          DATES:
          You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than September 5, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above and be submitted by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: 202-493-2251

            Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.

            Privacy Act: 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 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-3151.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NHTSA published a final rule on February 14, 2005 (70 FR 7414) that amended title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations with regard to the certification of vehicles. In amending the certification label requirements, the agency inadvertently omitted from 49 CFR 567.4(g)(5) the requirement that manufacturers include a specific statement in the certification labels that they affix to certain types of motor vehicles. This rulemaking corrects that inadvertent omission.

          Background and Amendments: Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, (49 U.S.C. 30112(a), 30115), a motor vehicle manufactured for sale in the United States must be manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and bear a label certifying such compliance that is permanently affixed by the vehicle's manufacturer. The label constitutes the manufacturer's certification that the vehicle complies with the applicable standards. Under 49 CFR 567.4, the label, among other things, must identify the vehicle's manufacturer, its date of manufacture, the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating or GVWR, the Gross Axle Weight Rating or GAWR of each axle, the vehicle type classification (e.g., passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus, motorcycle, trailer, low-speed vehicle), and the vehicle's Vehicle Identification Number or “VIN.” The certification label must also contain a variant of the statement: “This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above.” For example, passenger cars are subject to safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards; therefore, a passenger car certification label must contain the statement: “This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above.” The expression “U.S.” or “U.S.A.” may be inserted before the word “Federal” as it appears in this statement.
        In the final rule published on February 14, 2005 (70 FR 7414), 49 CFR 567.4(g)(5) was amended by replacing the statement “This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above” with the language, “One of the following statements, as appropriate” followed by subparagraphs i, ii, and iii, which pertain, respectively, to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) and trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, and multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of over 6,000 pounds. Manufacturers of other types of vehicles remained subject to the statutory duty to certify these vehicles to the applicable FMVSSs. And the logical certification language was for these manufacturers to state: “This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above.” But due to an inadvertent omission in the course of amendments to the regulations, the regulations did not specifically state that manufacturers of trailers, buses, motorcycles, and low-speed vehicles (those vehicle types not identified by subparagraphs i, ii, and iii) were required to use this specific language.
        To address this lack of specificity regarding certification language for certain vehicle types, the agency proposes to amend section 567.4(g) to add a new subparagraph (iv) that would cover these vehicle types. Subparagraphs i, ii, and iii would remain unchanged.

          Effective Date: The effective date of the final rule would be 30 days after its issuance.
        Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
        A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

        (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
        (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
        (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
        (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
        NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is not significant. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rulemaking document under Executive Order 12866. Further, NHTSA has determined that the rulemaking is not significant under Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. Manufacturers are required by statute (49 U.S.C. 30115(a)) to permanently affix a tag or label to a vehicle certifying the vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards. The agency is not aware of any manufacturer that has discontinued inserting the certification language on the certification labels affixed to trailers, buses, motorcycles, and low-speed vehicles manufactured since the regulations were revised in 2005. Based on this, NHTSA anticipates that if made final, the costs of the proposed rule would be so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation. The action does not involve any substantial public interest or controversy. If made final, the rule would have no substantial effect upon State and local governments. There would be no substantial impact upon a major transportation safety program.
        B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (95 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996) provides that no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        NHTSA has considered the effects of this proposed rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and certifies that if the proposed amendments are adopted they will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, the agency has not prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis for this proposed rulemaking. NHTSA makes these statements on the basis that covered entities have been and are subject to a statutory obligation to certify vehicles they manufacture, the proposed rulemaking merely restores text that was part of the regulation before it was last amended in 2005 and manufacturers have continued to affix labels that include the appropriate certification language on trailers, buses, motorcycles, and low-speed vehicles manufactured since then. As a consequence, this rulemaking will not impose any significant costs on anyone. Therefore, it has not been necessary for NHTSA to conduct a regulatory evaluation or Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this proposed rulemaking.
        The costs of the underlying rule were analyzed at the time of its issuance as a final rule. At that time, we explained that the rule did not impose any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. The rule did not have a significant economic impact on these entities. The agency explained that the rule would reduce burdens on final-stage manufacturers, many of which are small businesses.
        The agency is not aware that any vehicle manufacturers have stopped including the certification language that is the subject of this rule on the labels they affix to trailers, buses, motorcycles, or low-speed vehicles. For this reason, we view this proposed rulemaking as merely restoring to the regulation text that was inadvertently omitted in the 2005 amendment and find that there is no change in the meaning or application of the rule as explained in the preamble at 70 FR 7414.
        C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
        Executive Order 13132 on “Federalism” requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.” Executive Order 13132 defines the term “policies that have federalism implications” to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
        The proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rulemaking action.
        D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
        Executive Order 12988 requires that agencies review proposed regulations and legislation and adhere to the following general requirements: (1) The agency's proposed legislation and regulations shall be reviewed by the agency to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) The agency's proposed legislation and regulations shall be written to minimize litigation; and (3) The agency's proposed legislation and regulations shall provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and shall promote simplification and burden reduction.
        When promulgating a regulation, Executive Order 12988 specifically requires the agency to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language the preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed, circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship of regulations.

        NHTSA has reviewed this proposed rulemaking according to the general requirements and the specific requirements for regulations set forth in Executive Order 12988. This proposed rulemaking simply restores text that existed before the regulation was amended in 2005 and makes clear the requirement that manufacturers include language in the certification labels that they must affix to vehicles under 49 U.S.C. 30115 and the regulations at 49 CFR part 567. This change does not result in any preemptive effect and does not have a retroactive effect. A petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceeding is not required before parties may file suit in court.
        E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
        Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with the base year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written assessment is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and to adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of Section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Because a final rule based on this proposal would not require the expenditure of resources beyond $100 million annually, this action is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
        F. Plain Language
        Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:

        —Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
        —Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated?
        —Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon that is unclear?
        —Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of heading, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
        —Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
        —Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
        —What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

        If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this document.
        G. Paperwork Reduction Act

        Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This proposed rule includes a “collection of information,” as that term is defined in 5 CFR part 1320 Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public, because it requires manufactures to insert text in the certification labels they affix to trailers, buses, motorcycles, and low-speed vehicles that is not specified in the regulations as they currently exist. There is no burden on the general public.

        OMB has approved NHTSA's collection of information associated with motor vehicle labeling requirements under OMB clearance no. 2127-0512, Consolidated Labeling Requirements for Motor Vehicles (Except the Vehicle Identification Number). NHTSA's request for the extension of this approval was granted on June 6, 2011, and remains in effect until June 30, 2014. For the following reasons, NHTSA believes that the requirements that would be imposed by this rule will not increase the information collection burden on the public. Manufacturers of all motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States are required by statute to certify their vehicles' compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 49 U.S.C. 30115(a). The statute provides that “[c]ertification of a vehicle must be shown by a label or tag permanently fixed to the vehicle.” Ibid. To satisfy this requirement, manufacturers of all motor vehicles, including trailers, buses, motorcycles, and low-speed vehicles, have been affixing certification labels to those vehicles containing the required certification language even though there has been no language addressing this issue in the regulations since the regulations were amended in 2005. Reinstating the specific language into the regulations will therefore not increase the paperwork burden on those manufacturers.
        H. Executive Order 13045
        Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us. This rulemaking is not economically significant and does not concern an environmental, health, or safety risk.
        I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
        Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
        In this proposed rule, we propose adding to 49 CFR 567.4(g)(5) the requirement that manufacturers include in the certification labels that they affix to certain types of motor vehicles a statement certifying that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS. This language was inadvertently omitted from the regulation in 2005 and we are proposing no substantive changes to the regulation nor do we propose any technical standards. For these reasons, Section 12(d) of the NTTAA would not apply.
        J. Public Participation
        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 comments must not be more than 15 pages long. 49 CFR 553.21. We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

        Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the beginning of this document, under ADDRESSES. You may also submit your comments electronically to the docket following the steps outlined under ADDRESSES.
        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, you should submit the following to the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (NCC-110), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590: (1) A complete copy of the submission; (2) a redacted copy of the submission with the confidential information removed; and (3) either a second complete copy or those portions of the submission containing the material for which confidential treatment is claimed and any additional information that you deem important to the Chief Counsel's consideration of your confidentiality claim. A request for confidential treatment that complies with 49 CFR Part 512 must accompany the complete submission provided to the Chief Counsel. For further information, submitters who plan to request confidential treatment for any portion of their submissions are advised to review 49 CFR part 512, particularly those sections relating to document submission requirements. Failure to adhere to the requirements of part 512 may result in the release of confidential information to the public docket. In addition, you should submit two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given at the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES.
        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 at the beginning of this notice under DATES. In accordance with our policies, to the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after the specified comment closing date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing the proposed rule, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
        How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

        You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given near the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES.

        You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the on-line instructions provided. You may download the comments. The comments are imaged documents, in either TIFF or PDF format. 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 search the Docket for new material.
        K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
        The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 567
          Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

        In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend part 567, Certification, in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

          PART 567—CERTIFICATION
          1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
             49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166, 32502, 32504, 33101-33104, 33108, and 33109; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          2. Amend § 567.4(g) by adding paragraph (g)(5)(iv) to read as follows:

            § 567.4
            Requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles.

            (g) * * *
            (5) * * *
            (iv) For all other vehicles, the statement: “This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above.” The expression “U.S.” or “U.S.A.” may be inserted before the word “Federal”.

            Issued On: July 20, 2012.
            Daniel C. Smith,
            Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.

      [FR Doc. 2012-18338 Filed 8-3-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 001113318-0318-01; I.D. 110200D]
        RIN 0648-AO75
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fisheries; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Incidental Catch

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

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR); request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS intends to undertake rulemaking to reduce the level of Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) that is discarded dead by vessels in the pelagic longline fishery, and issues this ANPR to request comments on potential changes to the Atlantic tuna regulations that could reduce the level of dead discards of BFT including the adjustment of target catch requirements for landing incidental catch.  The level of allowed discards needs to be reduced in order to decrease the waste of valuable bycatch.

          DATES:
          Written comments on this ANPR must be received on or before December 14, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments should be addressed to Christopher Rogers, Acting Chief, Highly Migratory Species Management Division (F/SF1), National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Brad McHale or Pat Scida, 978-281-9260.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Atlantic pelagic longline fishery, which commonly targets swordfish, sharks, and yellowfin and bigeye tunas, also occasionally catches BFT incidental to these other fisheries.  Because the U.S. longline fleet has not historically targeted BFT, the portion of the U.S. national BFT quota allocated to the longline category has always been intended to account for incidental catch only.  Accordingly, under current BFT regulations, vessels permitted in the Atlantic Tunas Longline category are permitted to retain and land BFT caught with pelagic longline gear only if a specific minimum level of other fish species are landed from the same trip.  While the regulations pertaining to landing incidental BFT catch have been adjusted on several occasions, the pelagic longline industry continues to comment that the target catch requirements are overly restrictive and result in unnecessary dead discards.
        Background
        The history of U.S. regulatory activity and public comment regarding this issue dates back to the early 1980's.  A full description of this history is provided in the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP) chapter 3, section 3.5.3 “Management Measures to Address Bycatch Problems.”
        In 1998, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), in its recommendation on western BFT rebuilding, required that nations minimize dead discards of BFT to the extent practicable and established a dead discard allowance of 79 metric tons (mt) for western BFT, 68 mt of which was allocated to the United States.  The 1998 ICCAT recommendation also provided that, if a nation exceeds its dead discard allowance in one year, that nation must deduct the excess from its following year’s landing quota.  If the actual amount of dead discards is less than the allowance, one-half of the difference may be added to the allocation of catch that can be retained.  Dead discards of BFT are reported to ICCAT by NMFS, along with landings data, and are summarized in the U.S. National Report to ICCAT.
        The final rule that implemented the HMS FMP addressed the dead discard issue by establishing a time/area closure for the use of pelagic longline gear in the Northwestern Atlantic from 39° to 40° N. lat. and 68° to 74° W. long. during the month of June.  This closed area was chosen to meet the goal of minimizing BFT dead discards while having the least economic impact on the directed pelagic longline fisheries.  Since NMFS first implemented BFT incidental catch regulations, the agency has received public comment and inquiries regarding the target catch requirements to retain incidental catch of BFT and the effectiveness of the regulations in avoiding dead discards.  These comments have continued after the publication of the HMS FMP.
        Potential Adjustments

        Several reviews of landings, logbook, and observer data have been conducted in recent years regarding the pelagic longline fisheries interaction with BFT.  Observer data from longline trips (from 1991 to 1994) indicate that two or fewer BFT were hooked on 91 percent of all observed trips.  Longline landings information for 1998 and 1999 indicate that median values for landed catch (not including BFT) are approximately 3,000 lb ( 1,361 kg) for trips made in the months of January through April, and 3,800 lb (1,724 kg) for trips made in May through December, in fisheries south of 34° N. lat.; and 3,700 lb (1,679 kg) for trips made throughout the year in fisheries north of 34° N. lat.  For the same time period, 75 percent of the trips had a landed catch (other than BFT) of approximately 1,350 lb (613 kg) for trips made in the months of January through April, and 1,650 lb (749 kg) for trips made in May through December, in fisheries south of 34° N. lat; and 1,600 (726 kg) for trips made throughout the year in fisheries north of 34° N. lat.
        Based on current landings and dead discard information, NMFS could consider several possible adjustments.  One approach could be to undertake a comprehensive review and adjust target catch requirements, geographic location, and seasonal subdivisions.  An alternative could be to adjust the target catch requirements while maintaining the current geographic and southern area seasonal subdivision.  For example, in the Longline south subcategory, from January through April, one fish per vessel per fishing trip with at least 1,500 lb (680 kg) of target catch, or two fish per vessel per trip with at least 4,500 lb (2,040 kg) of target catch; from May through December, one fish per vessel per fishing trip with at least 3,500 lb (1,588 kg) of target catch, or two fish per vessel per trip with at least 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) of target catch.  In the Longline north subcategory, one fish per vessel per fishing trip with at least 3,500 lb (1,588 kg), or two fish per vessel per trip, with at least 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) of target catch.  Under this alternative, another option could be to adjust only the percent target catch requirement for the Northern area (e.g., 5 or 8 percent versus two percent) and to maintain the current target catch requirements, by season, for the south.
        Another alternative could be to institute one target catch requirement (either a percent or a fixed number of BFT) coastwide regardless of season.  For example, one BFT per vessel per fishing trip with at least 1,500 lb (680 kg) of target catch, or two fish per vessel per trip with at least 4,000 lb (1,815 kg) of target catch, or one BFT per trip, so long as other targeted species are landed.  Under this alternative, another option could be to apply a percent target catch requirement coastwide.
        Request for Comments
        NMFS requests comments on possible changes to the BFT landings allowances as outlined above or on alternative means of reducing dead discards of BFT in the pelagic longline fisheries.  Comments received by the due date will be considered in drafting any proposed changes to the Atlantic tuna regulations.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C.971 et seq. and 1801 et seq.

          Dated: November 13, 2000.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-29473 Filed 11-14-00; 3:22 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S