        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 02-2287, MB Docket No. 02-282, RM-10523]
        Digital Television Broadcast Service; Minot, ND

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Prairie Public Broadcasting, licensee of noncommercial station KSRE(TV), Minot, North Dakota, requesting the substitution of DTV channel *40 for station KSRE(TV)'s assigned DTV channel *57. DTV Channel *40 can be allotted to Minot at reference coordinates 48-03-02 N. and 101-23-25 W. with a power of 1000, a height above average terrain HAAT of 253 meters. Since the community of Minot is located within 400 kilometers of the U.S.-Canadian border, concurrence from the Canadian government must be obtained for this allotment.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before November 14, 2002, and reply comments on or before November 29, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:

          The Commission permits the electronic filing of all pleadings and comments in proceeding involving petitions for rule making (except in broadcast allotment proceedings). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rule Making Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113 (rel. April 6, 1998). Filings by paper can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Todd D. Gray, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC, 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036 (Counsel for Prairie Public Broadcasting).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Pam Blumenthal, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 02-282, adopted September 16, 2002, and released September 23, 2002. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. This document 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 1980 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 contacts.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Digital television broadcasting, Television.

        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.

            § 73.622
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments under North Dakota is amended by removing DTV channel *57 and adding DTV channel *40 at Minot.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            Barbara A. Kreisman,
            Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 02-24897 Filed 9-30-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 697
        [Docket No. 150401332-7999-01]
        RIN 0648-BF01
        Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; American Lobster Fishery; Consideration of Expanded Harvester and Biological Sampling Requirements for American Lobster

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

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

          SUMMARY:
          This notice announces that NMFS intends to consider expanded harvester reporting requirements for the American lobster fishery as recommended by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and is soliciting comments. The expanded requirements would be intended to improve the data available to enhance lobster stock assessments, evaluate the co-occurrence of fixed-gear fisheries with large whales, and estimate the economic impacts of offshore energy projects and other marine activities on the fishing industry. We may combine this action with an ongoing rulemaking that considers trap caps and ownership limits for the lobster fishery. The intent is to address the harvester reporting as soon as practicable, as recommended by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

          DATES:
          We must receive written comments on or before July 16, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2013-0169 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-2013-0169, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

            Mail: Submit written comments to Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Lobster Harvester Reporting.”

            Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. We 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 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). We accept attachments to electronic comments only in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Peter Burns, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9144.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        NMFS works cooperatively with the states to conserve the American lobster resource within the framework of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster (ISFMP). Through the ISFMP, the Commission adopts fishery conservation and management strategies for the lobster resource and coordinates the efforts of the states and NMFS to implement these strategies.
        In February 2018, the Commission approved Addendum XXVI. The intent of Addendum XXVI is to expand lobster harvester reporting requirements, enhance the spatial and effort data collections, and improve the amount and type of biological data collected in the offshore trap fishery. Given the offshore expansion of lobster trap effort in recent years, the Commission developed this addendum to address data gaps due to inconsistent reporting and data collection requirements across state agencies and imposed in Federal waters by NMFS.
        The addendum also serves to complement the Commission's Jonah crab management program as Addendum III to the Jonah Crab ISFMP. NMFS is currently in rulemaking to consider adopting management measures for the Jonah crab fishery, which could include the harvester reporting and other data collection elements of the addendum.
        Addendum XXVI recommends that we require all Federal lobster permit holders to submit trip-level catch reports. Approximately 60 percent of all Federal lobster permit holders are currently required to submit a trip-level catch report. Federal reporting requirements are limited to those Federal lobster permit holders who also hold another Federal fishery permit with a reporting requirement. The new addendum also extends the 100-percent reporting requirement to the State of Maine, which currently requires about 10 percent of state lobster licensees to report their catch. All other lobster-producing states require all of their harvesters to report their catch. The Commission requested that we implement the mandatory trip-level harvester reporting requirement as soon as practicable. Consequently, we propose to combine the harvester reporting action with the ongoing actions for Addenda XXI and XXII and consolidate them into a single rulemaking action. Focused primarily on lobster conservation management areas (LCMAs) 2 and 3, these two addenda recommended modifications to the trap transfer program and trap caps in these LCMAs.

        Addendum XXVI also recommends that we develop a fixed-gear catch report with expanded data elements, including a requirement for fishermen to report their fishing locations down to the 10-minute square to provide more accurate data on where the fishery is taking place. The expanded data elements also include reporting the number of vertical lines deployed and number of traps per trawl to help get a better sense of fishing effort and to assist in evaluating the interactions between the fixed-gear fisheries and large whales. Further, the addendum recommends that we expand our offshore biological sampling program to help characterize the commercial catch and understand the biological characteristics of the stock. We will consider the expanded data elements and fixed-gear catch report, as well as the expanded offshore sampling recommendations, in a separate future action. We are requesting comments from the public on this approach.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.

          Dated: June 11, 2018.
          Donna S. Wieting,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2018-12777 Filed 6-13-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA 2008-0124]
        RIN 2127-AK13
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Windshield Zone Intrusion

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

          ACTION:
          Withdrawal of rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document withdraws a rulemaking proposal to rescind Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 219, “Windshield zone intrusion.” The agency has determined that there are two ongoing regulatory developments that could influence vehicle designs by putting a premium on the use of lighter or less rigid materials. These two developments are U.S. fuel economy requirements and a global technical regulation aimed at reducing injuries to pedestrians struck by vehicles. As a result, the agency believes that vehicle designs with regard to the hood and windshield are in a state of change and that the implications of these developments should be better understood before deciding whether to rescind FMVSS No. 219.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For non-legal issues, you may contact Mr. David Sutula, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: 202-366-3273) (Fax: 202-366-2739).
          For legal issues, you may contact Ms. Analiese Marchesseault, Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: 202-366-1723) (Fax: 202-366-3820).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Table of Contents

          I. Background
          II. NPRM To Rescind FMVSS No. 219
          III. Agency Response to Comments on the NPRM
          A. The Changing Vehicle Fleet
          B. Real World Data
          C. Dummy and Air Bag Performance in Windshield Zone Intrusion
          D. Industry Burden
          E. Possible Effect of FMVSS No. 219 Rescission on State Regulation
          IV. Agency Decision To Withdraw the Rulemaking

        I. Background
        FMVSS No. 219, “Windshield zone intrusion,” provides that a vehicle's hood must not enter a defined zone in front of the vehicle's windshield during a full frontal crash test at 48 kilometers per hour (km/h) (30 miles per hour (mph)). The purpose of the standard is to reduce injuries and fatalities that result from occupant contact with vehicle components, such as the hood, that are displaced into the occupant compartment through the windshield opening or into the zone immediately forward of the windshield aperture during a frontal crash.
        FMVSS No. 219 specifies a protected zone at the daylight opening (DLO) portion of the vehicle windshield. The protected zone is an area encompassing the width of the windshield and that protrudes about 76 mm (3 inches) from the outer surface of the windshield. In a 48 km/h (30 mph) frontal rigid barrier crash test, no part of the vehicle from outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to normally be in contact with the windshield, are permitted to penetrate the protected zone to a depth of more than 6 mm (0.25 inches) and no such part of a vehicle is permitted to penetrate the inner surface of that portion of the windshield, within the DLO, below the protected zone.
        FMVSS No. 219, which took effect on September 1, 1976, applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) or less, except for forward control vehicles, walk-in van-type vehicles, or open-body-type vehicles with fold-down or removable windshields. NHTSA has maintained this standard without substantive revision since 1976.
        II. NPRM To Rescind FMVSS No. 219
        As part of a periodic review of existing vehicle safety regulations to determine whether a continuing safety need exists for the standard under review, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to rescind FMVSS No. 219 on July 7, 2008.1

           NHTSA undertakes periodic reviews of its regulations under, inter alia, the Department's 1979 Regulatory Policies and Procedures, under Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 501 et seq.). In addition, NHTSA conducts reviews pursuant to its internal operating procedures. During this review process, FMVSS No. 219 was identified as a standard that could possibly be removed as unnecessary. The NPRM tentatively concluded that the safety need that FMVSS No. 219 addresses was being met by FMVSS No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” and FMVSS No. 113, “Hood latch system.” The NPRM cited the improvements made to FMVSS No. 208 over the years as well as the secondary latch position required by FMVSS No. 113. Based on the performance requirements in FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 113, the agency tentatively concluded that FMVSS No. 219 was no longer necessary.

            1 73 FR 38372.

        Our belief stemmed from the fact that FMVSS No. 219 had succeeded in virtually eliminating the intrusion of vehicle components from outside the occupant compartment into the windshield. The agency's analysis of FMVSS compliance and New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) tests indicated there had been no known incidents in which a crash tested vehicle failed to meet the performance requirements in FMVSS No. 219. Furthermore, in a preliminary analysis of crashes in the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data System (CDS), no hood intrusions into the areas prescribed by FMVSS No. 219 were found among full frontal crashes.
        III. Agency Response to Comments on the NPRM
        The following organizations submitted comments on the NPRM: Public Citizen and the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) (the two commenters submitted joint comments), Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance).2

           The issues raised include: changes in the vehicle fleet, real world data, dummy and air bag performance in windshield zone intrusion, industry burden and possible effects of FMVSS No. 219 rescission on State regulation. The consumer advocacy organizations and the insurance consortium did not support the NPRM, while the vehicle manufacturer organization generally supported the rescission.

            2 The members included: BMW Group, Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen.

        A. The Changing Vehicle Fleet
        Public Citizen/CAS stated, “In coming years, there will be an influx of new small cars from Europe and Asia, which will not necessarily be designed with consideration of FMVSS [No.] 219 if it is rescinded.” Advocates stated that “both long and short-term changes in the vehicle fleet make this an inappropriate action to take at this time.” Advocates stated:

          the vehicle manufacturing industry is in a rapidly evolving, dynamic state and is developing radically new designs and types of motor vehicles. Small, uniquely designed vehicles are being produced in Europe and imported into the U.S. Three-wheel vehicles are also nearing entry into the U.S. market. In the near future, production of vehicles in China will supply many more models for import into the U.S. market, and inexpensive passenger vehicles using new designs are planned in India and other countries that may eventually be sold in the U.S. In addition, alternative fuel vehicles will incorporate unknown designs and features that, without the performance requirement and safety protection for occupants provided by FMVSS No. 219, may present safety threats that neither FMVSS No. 208 nor FMVSS No. 113 are equipped to prevent.

        IIHS commented that “NHTSA is underestimating the continuing benefits of FMVSS [No.] 219, especially considering a growing global market, while simultaneously overestimating the benefits of its rescission.”

          Agency Response: The agency agrees that the vehicle fleet is in a period of change because of many factors. We agree that the U.S. fleet may begin to see new entrants from foreign and domestic manufacturers that have less experience with the FMVSS framework, in comparison to manufacturers that have long been part of the U.S. market. In addition, we also believe a period of change may be initiated by two specific influences on vehicle design, the effects of which have not yet been fully determined. Those influences are more stringent U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and a global technical regulation requiring changes in vehicle design aimed at minimizing injuries to pedestrians that are struck by automobiles.
        We believe manufacturers may begin using lighter materials to meet CAFE standards, including materials in and around the hoods of vehicles. Hood design could be affected by the use of lighter materials. We, therefore, agree with commenters that suggested that FMVSS No. 219 should remain in place to assure protection against hood intrusion while the vehicle fleet evolves in response to CAFE standards.
        Additionally, in November 2008, the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) adopted Global Technical Regulation (GTR) No. 9 (ECE/TRANS/180/Add. 9). GTR No. 9 is aimed at establishing vehicle design criteria that will result in vehicles with hoods and related hardware that will reduce the severity of injuries to pedestrians struck by automobiles. Among the vehicle changes that manufacturers are likely to consider as a result of implementation of this GTR are softer, more deformable hood structures and alternative hood designs that aid in protecting a pedestrian that is struck by a vehicle. NHTSA is considering the benefit of adopting this GTR to harmonize U.S. regulations with the international community. Canada is currently considering adopting GTR No. 9, while Japan and the European Commission already have adopted requirements in their domestic regulations similar to those of the GTR.
        Several vehicles have already shown up in the U.S. market that both comply with FMVSS No. 219 and have incorporated the kinds of changes in vehicle design anticipated by the GTR. The agency is concerned that a pedestrian safety standard might increase the possibility that some manufacturers would use hood hinges that are significantly less stiff, to produce low injury values for pedestrian testing. It makes sense that FMVSS No. 219 would be needed, at least during the initial implementation of a pedestrian standard, to ensure that rearward deformation of the vehicle's hood is not excessive in an FMVSS No. 219 type crash.
        The agency agrees that there are unknowns associated with the effect of new pedestrian safety designs on the vehicle fleet as they pertain to FMVSS No. 219. Therefore, these unknowns warrant retaining FMVSS No. 219, at least until the impact of these circumstances can be more fully understood.
        B. Real World Data
        The IIHS and Public Citizen/CAS commented that NHTSA did not provide sufficient real world data to support the rescission of FMVSS No. 219. Public Citizen/CAS suggested that NHTSA should analyze the effectiveness of FMVSS No. 219 and the potential consequences of rescinding it before deciding whether to rescind the standard.
        The IIHS stated that a review of NASS cases revealed that vehicle hood penetration into the occupant compartment still occurs in a small number of offset crashes, pole impacts, and severe underride collisions with large trucks or tractor trailers. The IIHS said that it identified NASS cases from 2002-2006 that involved crashes different from the 48 km/h (30 mph) flat barrier test required by FMVSS No. 219. The IIHS suggested that FMVSS No. 219 be modified to address the types of crashes seen in these NASS cases. Public Citizen/CAS also stated that an offset frontal crash test should be incorporated into FMVSS No. 219.
        CAS compiled a list of 40 recalls from model year 1980 through 2007 that related to defective hood latch equipment. The organization said, “[T]he presence of FMVSS No. 113 does not protect occupants in the face of these defects; therefore, the protection provided by FMVSS No. 219 ensures that occupants are not injured by an intruding roof [sic] in the event of a latch failure.” 3

            3 NHTSA assumes that Public Citizen and the Center for Auto Safety were referring to an intruding hood rather than an intruding roof. [Footnote added.]

          Agency Response: NHTSA has analyzed crash data to determine the potential safety consequences of a decision to rescind FMVSS No. 219. As discussed below, the analysis has shown that the safety need for the standard for current vehicles is apparently being met by other standards. Nonetheless, for reasons related to future vehicle designs, we have decided not to rescind FMVSS No. 219.
        NHTSA analyzed NASS cases of model year 2004-2008 vehicles with dual frontal air bags that were coded as having hood intrusion. A total of 78 cases were identified. Of these 78 NASS cases, only one case involved an injury to a non-ejected occupant due to hood intrusion, and the resulting injury was coded as a minor injury to the occupant's right hand and arm. Based on nationally weighting this one case, NHTSA estimates there are annually 127 minor injuries to non-ejected occupants associated with hood intrusion.
        The agency also analyzed more than 900 NASS cases that met the following criteria: a 2000 model year vehicle, or newer, with a delta V of 35 km/h (22 mph),4
           or greater, with a primary frontal impact and available air bags. The agency found only 12 cases in which the hood intruded through the windshield. These cases involved frontal offset, pole impact, and underride crashes. None of these crash modes are required to be tested in FMVSS No. 219. The single NASS case with a minor injury to the occupant's arm and hand, described in the previous paragraph, was identified in this analysis as well. There were no other occupant injuries resulting from hood intrusion found.

            4 This delta V threshold was set in order to limit the number of cases to a manageable level and to capture crashes around the crash severity of the standard and just below.

        Finally, the agency also reviewed 230 Crash Injury Research Engineering Network (CIREN) cases and found 9 cases that were coded with hood intrusion, 4 of which had injuries associated with hood intrusion. All of these cases involved exceedingly severe crashes under conditions that far exceed the FMVSS No. 219 testing requirements, and resulted in a significant loss of occupant space. These crashes were so severe that they exceeded the parameters of any crash test in common use, including offset or pole testing suggested by IIHS and Public Citizen/CAS.
        Details of the NASS and CIREN crashes discussed above are contained in a technical report titled, “Evaluation of NASS Cases for Windshield Zone Intrusion,” which may be found in Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0124 (the docket for the July 7, 2008 NPRM).
        C. Dummy and Air Bag Performance in Windshield Zone Intrusion
        The IIHS commented that FMVSS No. 208 does not protect against windshield zone intrusion in the same way that FMVSS No. 219 does because, under FMVSS No. 208, an intrusion would have to occur and strike a test dummy in the vehicle to be considered dangerous. Any component intruding through a windshield should be considered a hazard, IIHS stated, because when intrusion occurs, even slight changes to the crash scenario could result in occupant injury.
        Advocates commented that it is unclear how the dummy performance requirements of FMVSS No. 208, which it suggested are intended to protect occupants from injuries caused by contact with internal vehicle surfaces, will serve to reflect impact injuries due to windshield intrusion by external vehicle parts. It stated that the agency cannot assure the public that only blunt impact injuries would occur if FMVSS No. 219 were rescinded. Advocates also stated that FMVSS No. 208 will not necessarily prevent lacerative injuries because it is unknown how quickly air bags will deflate once punctured by a sharp object protruding through the windshield or because an air bag, once having performed its function, could start to deflate before an object intrudes through a windshield. It stated that in real world crashes, an object can strike an occupant without encountering an inflated air bag.

          Agency Response: We believe that the concerns raised by Advocates and IIHS about how well FMVSS No. 208 would protect vehicle occupants against injury from objects intruding through a windshield during a crash would merit further discussion in the event further steps were taken to rescind the standard. The agency is today deciding not to proceed with rescinding FMVSS No. 219 based primarily on changes that are likely to occur in the vehicle fleet. Should the agency consider rescinding FMVSS No. 219 at a future time, we will address all appropriate issues then.
        D. Industry Burden
        The Alliance supported the agency's tentative assessment in the NPRM that FMVSS Nos. 208 and 113 adequately protect against windshield intrusion, that FMVSS No. 219 is redundant, and that the standard imposes an unnecessary burden on manufacturers. The Alliance commented that it “supports the agency's periodic review of its regulations and standards  * * * to assure that out of date or ineffective regulations or standards are not creating needless compliance burdens.”
        Advocates, IIHS, and Public Citizen/CAS stated that FMVSS No. 219 testing imposes little burden or cost on vehicle manufacturers. IIHS stated that FMVSS No. 219 testing poses little additional compliance test burden because this aspect of safety is addressed at the same time as other flat barrier dynamic testing. Furthermore, IIHS commented that “[M]aintaining the standard creates little additional work for the agency or manufacturers.” Advocates stated that “any cost savings to industry would be extremely small.” Public Citizen/CAS commented that FMVSS No. 219 “places a minimal burden on the industry.”

          Agency Response: We note that we clearly stated in the NPRM that any cost savings resulting from the rescission of FMVSS No. 219 would be so minimal that the savings cannot be calculated. We note that the requirements of FMVSS No. 219 may be assessed during the FMVSS No. 208 crash test.5

            5 The full frontal barrier tests in FMVSS No. 208 are now performed at 56 km/m (35 mph), which is a more severe test than that specified in FMVSS No. 219.

        In December 2004, NHTSA published a technical report analyzing the cost and weight added by different FMVSSs.6
           This report concluded that there was no attributable weight or cost associated with FMVSS No. 219. This conclusion relied on the results of a NHTSA report 7
           that sampled twelve make-models pre-standard and post-standard. The report found no measurable or determinable weight or cost per vehicle associated with FMVSS No. 219.8
           Based on the negligible cost to industry to maintain and test to the performance requirements in FMVSS No. 219, the agency has concluded that FMVSS No. 219 does not place an unreasonable burden on industry.

            6 Tarbet, M.J., Cost and Weight Added by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for Model Years 1968-2001 in Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. NHTSA Technical Report No. DOT HS 809 834:128 (2004).

            7 McVetty, T.N., Cross, A.J., and Parr, L.W., Cost Evaluation for Two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards—FMVSS 113 Hood Latch—Passenger Cars—FMVSS 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion—Passenger Cars. NHTSA Technical Report No. DOT HS 806 187:19-36 (1982).

            8 We note that in that report, the agency stated that “it is conceivable that a more thorough teardown study including vehicles a year or two before 1976 could have revealed costs of changes made in anticipation of FMVSS No. 219, if there were any.”

        E. Possible Effect of FMVSS No. 219 Rescission on State Regulation
        The Alliance said that NHTSA “should confirm in the notice publishing the final rule the conclusion that the safety need addressed by FMVSS No. 219 is addressed sufficiently by the current versions of FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 113, leaving no room for State regulation of this aspect of vehicle performance.” The NPRM had stated the agency's tentative determination that if FMVSS No. 219 were rescinded, States would be free to regulate the aspect of motor vehicle performance that was regulated by the standard (73 FR at 38374).

          Agency Response: Our action today to withdraw the July 7, 2008 NPRM will not change the current relationship between FMVSS No. 219 and State regulation of this aspect of vehicle performance.
        IV. Agency Decision To Withdraw the Rulemaking

        The agency has decided to withdraw this rulemaking. There are relatively new considerations affecting vehicle design, specifically, enhanced corporate average fuel economy standards, and global technical regulations for vehicle hoods that will reduce the severity of injuries sustained by pedestrians that are struck by vehicles. These considerations are likely to stimulate the use of lighter or less stiff materials in vehicles. In addition, we may begin to see new entrants from foreign and domestic manufacturers that have less experience with the FMVSS framework, in comparison to manufacturers that have long been part of the U.S. market. Therefore, the agency has concluded that now is not an appropriate time to rescind FMVSS No. 219. The agency will continue to monitor changes in the vehicle fleet that may occur as a result of these new design considerations and will continue its process of regularly reviewing the existing safety standards, which will include FMVSS No. 219.

          Authority:
           49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

          Christopher J. Bonanti,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 2012-28815 Filed 11-28-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 300
        [Docket No. 130123063-3063-01]
        RIN 0648-BC75
        Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to approve and implement changes to the Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan (Plan) for the International Pacific Halibut Commission's (IPHC or Commission) regulatory area off Washington, Oregon, and California (Area 2A). NMFS proposes to implement the portions of the Plan and management measures that are not implemented through the IPHC. These measures include the sport fishery allocations and management measures for Area 2A. These actions are intended to enhance the conservation of Pacific halibut, provide greater angler opportunity where available, and protect overfished groundfish species from being incidentally caught in the halibut fisheries.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed changes to the Plan and on the proposed domestic Area 2A halibut management measures must be received on February 26, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2013-0015, 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-2013-0015, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to William Stelle, Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070.
          • Fax: 206-526-6736; Attn: Sarah Williams.

            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). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Sarah Williams, phone: 206-526-4646, fax: 206-526-6736, or email: sarah.williams@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access

        This rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register Web site at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html. Background information and documents are available at the NMFS Northwest Region Web site at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-Management/index.cfm and at the Council's Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org.

        Background
        The Northern Pacific Halibut Act (Halibut Act) of 1982, 16 U.S.C. 773-773K, gives the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) general responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Halibut Convention between the United States and Canada (Halibut Convention) (16 U.S.C. 773c). It requires the Secretary to adopt regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Halibut Convention and the Halibut Act. Section 773c of the Halibut Act also authorizes the regional fishery management councils to develop regulations in addition to, but not in conflict with, regulations of the IPHC to govern the Pacific halibut catch in their corresponding U.S. Convention waters. Each year between 1988 and 1995, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) developed a catch sharing plan in accordance with the Halibut Act to allocate the total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific halibut between treaty Indian and non-treaty harvesters and among non-treaty commercial and sport fisheries in Area 2A.
        In 1995, NMFS implemented the long-term Plan recommended by the Pacific Council (60 FR 14651, March 20, 1995, as amended by 61 FR 35548). In each of the intervening years between 1995 and the present, minor revisions to the Plan have been made to adjust for the changing needs of the fisheries, in accordance with 50 CFR 300.62. These revisions are not codified. The Plan allocates 35 percent of the Area 2A Pacific halibut TAC to Washington treaty Indian tribes in Subarea 2A-1, and 65 percent of the Area 2A TAC to non-tribal fisheries.
        The TAC allocation to non-tribal fisheries is divided into three shares, with the Washington sport fishery (north of the Columbia River) receiving 36.6 percent, the Oregon/California sport fishery receiving 31.7 percent, and the commercial fishery receiving 31.7 percent. The commercial fishery is further divided into a directed commercial fishery that is allocated 85 percent of the commercial allocation of Pacific halibut TAC, and an incidental catch in the salmon troll fishery that is allocated 15 percent of the commercial allocation. The directed commercial fishery in Area 2A is confined to southern Washington (south of 46°53.30′ N. lat.), Oregon, and California. North of 46°53.30′ N. lat. (Pt. Chehalis), the Plan allows for incidental halibut retention in the sablefish primary fishery when the overall Area 2A TAC is above 900,000 lb (408.2 mt). The Plan also divides the sport fisheries into six geographic subareas, each with separate allocations, seasons, and bag limits.

        This proposed rule describes catch limit information presented at the IPHC's annual meeting which occurred January 21-25, 2013, in Victoria, BC. The IPHC has set the 2013 Area 2A TAC at 990,000 pounds.
        Incidental Halibut Retention in the Sablefish Primary Fishery North of Pt. Chehalis, WA

        The Plan provides that incidental halibut retention in the sablefish primary fishery north of Pt. Chehalis, Washington, will be allowed when the Area 2A TAC is greater than 900,000 lb (408.2 mt), provided that a minimum of 10,000 lb (4.5 mt) is available above a Washington recreational TAC of 214,100 lb (97.1 mt). In 2013, the TAC is 990,000 lb (449 mt); therefore incidental halibut retention will be allowed in this fishery. The Council will recommend landing restrictions for public review at its March 2013 meeting and make final recommendations at its April 2013 meeting. Following this meeting NMFS will publish the restrictions in the Federal Register.
        Through this proposed rule, NMFS requests public comments on the Pacific Council's recommended modifications to the Plan and the resulting proposed domestic fishing regulations by February 26, 2013. The States of Washington and Oregon will conduct public workshops shortly to obtain input on the sport season dates. Following the proposed rule comment period NMFS will review public comments and comments from the states, and issue a final rule for Areas 2A, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E. This final rule will also contain the IPHC regulations for the 2013 Pacific halibut fisheries. This proposed rule provides for a 15-day public comment period, which will allow NMFS time to incorporate the final U.S. domestic regulations into the IPHC regulations in order to have the combined regulations in place as close to March 1 as possible. The regulations need to be in effect in early March because the fishing season begins in mid-March. The 2013 commercial season starting date(s) need to be published soon after the IPHC meeting in January 2013 to notify the public of that date so the industry can plan for the season.
        Publishing the IPHC regulations in the same Federal Register notice with the final domestic regulations for Washington, Oregon, and California is in the best interest of the public because it results in the occurrence of all the halibut regulations in one Federal Register notice. Therefore fishery participants only have to reference one document for all Pacific halibut regulations applicable to the Area 2A fishery; both the IPHC regulations and domestic regulations. Combining these regulations also eliminates errors that may occur from trying to separate the halibut regulations into two different rules.
        Proposed Changes to the Plan
        Each year, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the tribes with treaty fishing rights for halibut consider whether changes to the Plan are needed or desired by their fishery participants. In 2012, fishery managers from WDFW and ODFW held public meetings before both the September and November Pacific Council meetings to get public input on revisions to the Plan. At the September 2012 Pacific Council meeting, WDFW, ODFW, and CDFG recommended changes to the Plan, while NMFS and the tribes did not recommend any changes to the Plan for the 2013 fishing season. Following the meeting, WDFW and ODFW again reviewed their proposals with the public and drafted their recommended revisions for review and recommendation by the Pacific Council.
        At its November 2-7, 2012, meeting the Pacific Council considered the results of state-sponsored workshops on the proposed changes to the Plan, and made its final recommendations for modifications to the Plan. The following are the Council's proposed changes to the Plan:
        1. In the Plan, sections (e)(1) and (e)(1)(iii), incidental halibut catch in the salmon troll fishery, adjust the months for the incidental take fishery from May-June to April-June. The goal of this change is to allow salmon fishers access to the incidental halibut allocation earlier in the year.
        2. In the Plan, section (f)(1)(iv) Columbia River subarea, adjust the spring season schedule from Thursday-Saturdays to Fridays-Sundays and replace the automatic regulatory closure for the spring fishery with a closure that would occur upon reaching 80 percent of the subarea allocation. The goal of the days of the week change is to allow better access to the spring fishery and to make the spring and summer season open days consistent. The goal of removing the regulatory closure is to allow the spring fishery to stay open longer in the spring, when effort is generally higher. The summer season has often underutilized the allocation, therefore allowing the spring fishery to stay open longer is designed to better utilize the allocation for the whole subarea. Since 2008 the summer fishery has harvested less than 20 percent of the subarea quota even though the allocation was 30 percent, leaving a portion of the allocation unharvested that could be harvested in the spring since the summer fishery occurs after the spring fishery.
        3. In the Plan, section (f)(1)(v), Oregon Central Coast subarea, several changes are proposed. This subarea consists of three fisheries, nearshore, spring and, summer. Changes are proposed to all three fisheries. The goal is to better align the allocations for the nearshore and spring fisheries with recent increasing effort. The proposed modifications to each fishery's allocation changes the allocations from fixed percentages to percentages that depend on the 2A TAC. This change is proposed to maximize the number of days the entire subarea can be open. The effort in the nearshore fishery has increased in recent years, requiring the fishery to close early. Eliminating the summer fishery and increasing the nearshore and spring allocations will allow more fishing days overall. The elimination of the summer fishery when the Area 2A TAC is below 700,000 lbs is necessary because if the TAC is at that level, the resulting summer fishery allocation is not enough to allow one day of fishing.
        a. For the nearshore fishery, adjust the open days from daily to 3 days per week Thursday -Saturday and adjust the allocation to this fishery from 12 percent of the subarea quota to 12 percent of the subarea quota if the 2A TAC is above 700,000 lbs or greater and 25 percent of the subarea quota if the 2A TAC is less than 700,000 lbs.
        b. For the spring fishery, adjust the allocation from 63 percent of the subarea allocation to 63 percent of the subarea quota if the 2A TAC is above 700,000 lbs or greater and 75 percent of the subarea quota if the 2A TAC is less than 700,000 lbs. Also, adjust the closure date for this fishery if the TAC is less than 700,000 lbs from July 31st to October 31st or attainment of the fishery allocation.
        c. For the summer fishery, adjust the allocation from 25 percent of the subarea allocation to 25 percent of the subarea quota if the 2A TAC is above 700,000 lbs or greater and 0 percent of the subarea quota if the 2A TAC is less than 700,000 lbs. This closes the summer fishery if the TAC is less than 700,000 lbs.

        NMFS proposes to approve the Pacific Council recommendations and to implement the changes described above. A version of the Plan including these changes can be found at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Pacific-Halibut/Index.cfm.

        Proposed 2013 Sport Fishery Management Measures
        In this rulemaking, NMFS also proposes sport fishery management measures that are necessary to implement the Plan in 2013. The annual domestic management measures are published each year through a final rule in combination with the IPHC regulations, as discussed above. For the 2012 fishing season the final rule was published on March 22, 2012 (77 FR 16740), and the following section numbers refer to sections within that final rule. The final 2013 TAC for Area 2A has been determined by the IPHC in the amount of 990,000 lbsWhere season dates are not indicated, those dates will be provided in the final rule, following consideration of the 2013 TAC and consultation with the states and the public.
        In Section 8 of the annual domestic management measures, “Fishing Periods,” paragraphs (2) and (3) are proposed to read as follows and paragraph (6) is added to read as follows:
        (1) * * *

        (2) Each fishing period in the Area 2A directed fishery shall begin at 0800 hours and terminate at 1800 hours local time on (insert season dates) unless the Commission specifies otherwise.
        (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), and paragraph (7) of section 11, an incidental catch fishery is authorized during salmon troll seasons in Area 2A in accordance with regulations promulgated by NMFS. This fishery will occur between 1200 hours local time on (insert date) and 1200 hours local time on (insert season date).
        (4) * * *
        (5) * * *
        (6) Notwithstanding paragraph (7) of section 11, an incidental catch fishery is authorized during the sablefish primary fishery in Area 2A in accordance with regulations promulgated by NMFS.
        In section 26 of the annual domestic management measures, “Sport Fishing for Halibut,” paragraph 1(a)-(b) will be updated with 2012 total allowable catch limits in the final rule. In section 26 of the annual domestic management measures, “Sport Fishing for Halibut” paragraph (8) is proposed to read as follows:
        (8) * * *
        (a) The area in Puget Sound and the U.S. waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, east of a line extending from 48°17.30′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long. north to 48°24.10′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long., is not managed in-season relative to its quota. This area is managed by setting a season that is projected to result in a catch of 57,393 lbs (26 mt).

        (i) The fishing season in eastern Puget Sound (east of 123°49.50′ W. long., Low Point) is (insert season dates), and the fishing season in western Puget Sound (west of 123°49.50′ W. long., Low Point) is (insert season dates), 5 days a week (Thursday through Monday).
        (ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
        (b) The quota for landings into ports in the area off the north Washington coast, west of the line described in paragraph (2)(a) of section 26 and north of the Queets River (47°31.70′ N. lat.), is (See Table 1 for range).
        (i) The fishing seasons are:
        (A) Commencing on May 9 and continuing 2 days a week (Thursday and Saturday) until 108,030 lbs (49 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission or until May 25.
        (B) If sufficient quota remains the fishery will reopen on June 6 in the entire north coast subarea, continuing 2 days per week (Thursday and Saturday) until there is not sufficient quota for another full day of fishing and the area is closed by the Commission. When there is insufficient quota remaining to reopen the entire north coast subarea for another day, then the nearshore areas described below will reopen for 2 days per week (Thursday and Saturday), until the overall quota of 108,030 lbs (49 mt) is estimated to have been taken and the area is closed by the Commission, or until September 30, whichever is earlier. After May 25, any fishery opening will be announced on the NMFS hotline at 800-662-9825. No halibut fishing will be allowed after May 25 unless the date is announced on the NMFS hotline. The nearshore areas for Washington's North Coast fishery are defined as follows:
        (1) WDFW Marine Catch Area 4B, which is all waters west of the Sekiu River mouth, as defined by a line extending from 48°17.30′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long. north to 48°24.10′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long., to the Bonilla-Tatoosh line, as defined by a line connecting the light on Tatoosh Island, WA, with the light on Bonilla Point on Vancouver Island, British Columbia (at 48°35.73′ N. lat., 124°43.00′ W. long.) south of the International Boundary between the U.S. and Canada (at 48°29.62′ N. lat., 124°43.55′ W. long.), and north of the point where that line intersects with the boundary of the U.S. territorial sea.
        (2) Shoreward of the recreational halibut 30-fm boundary line, a modified line approximating the 30-fm depth contour from the Bonilla-Tatoosh line south to the Queets River. The 30-fm depth contour is defined in groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.71(e).
        (ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
        (iii) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the North Coast Recreational Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA). It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the North Coast Recreational YRCA. A vessel fishing in the North Coast Recreational YRCA may not be in possession of any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the North Coast Recreational YRCA with or without halibut on board. The North Coast Recreational YRCA is a C-shaped area off the northern Washington coast intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. The North Coast Recreational YRCA is defined in groundfish regulations at § 660.70(a).
        (c) The quota for landings into ports in the area between the Queets River, WA (47°31.70′ N. lat.) and Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38.17′ N. lat.), is 42,739 lbs (19.3 mt).
        (i) This subarea is divided between the all-waters fishery (the Washington South coast primary fishery), and the incidental nearshore fishery in the area from 47°31.70′ N.  lat. south to 46°58.00′ N. lat. and east of a boundary line approximating the 30 fm depth contour. This area is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated as described by the following coordinates (the Washington South coast, northern nearshore area):
        (1) 47°31.70′ N. lat, 124°37.03′ W. long;
        (2) 47°25.67′ N. lat, 124°34.79′ W. long;
        (3) 47°12.82′ N. lat, 124°29.12′ W. long;
        (4) 46°58.00′ N. lat, 124°24.24′ W. long.

        The south coast subarea quota will be allocated as follows: 40,739 lbs (18.4 mt) for the primary fishery and 2,000 lb (0.9 mt) for the nearshore fishery. The primary fishery commences on May 5 and continues 2 days a week (Sunday and Tuesday) until May 21. If the primary quota is projected to be obtained sooner than expected the management closure may occur earlier. Beginning on June 2 the primary fishery will be open 2 days per week (Sunday and/or Tuesday) until the quota for the south coast subarea primary fishery is taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or until September 30, whichever is earlier. The fishing season in the nearshore area commences on May 5 and continues seven days per week. Subsequent to closure of the primary fishery the nearshore fishery is open seven days per week, until 42,739 lbs (19.3 mt) is projected to be taken by the two fisheries combined and the fishery is closed by the Commission or September 30, whichever is earlier. If the fishery is closed prior to September 30, and there is insufficient quota remaining to reopen the northern nearshore area for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be transferred in-season to another Washington coastal subarea by NMFS via an update to the recreational halibut hotline.
        (ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
        (iii) Seaward of the boundary line approximating the 30-fm depth contour and during days open to the primary fishery, lingcod may be taken, retained and possessed when allowed by groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.360, Subpart G.
        (iv) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA. It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA. A vessel fishing in the South Coast Recreational YRCA and/or Westport Offshore YRCA may not be in possession of any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA with or without halibut on board. The South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA are areas off the southern Washington coast established to protect yelloweye rockfish. The South Coast Recreational YRCA is defined at 50 CFR 660.70(d). The Westport Offshore YRCA is defined at 50 CFR 660.70(e).
        (d) The quota for landings into ports in the area between Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38.17′ N. lat.) and Cape Falcon, OR (45°46.00′ N. lat.), is 11,895 lbs (5.39 mt).
        (i) The fishing season commences on May 3, and continues 3 days a week (Friday through Sunday) until 9,516 lbs (4.3 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission or until 11,895 lbs (5.39 mt) has been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or until September 30, whichever is earlier. Subsequent to this closure, if there is insufficient quota remaining in the Columbia River subarea for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be transferred in-season to another Washington and/or Oregon subarea by NMFS via an update to the recreational halibut hotline. Any remaining quota would be transferred to each state in proportion to its contribution.
        (ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
        (iii) Pacific Coast groundfish may not be taken and retained, possessed or landed, except sablefish and Pacific cod when allowed by Pacific Coast groundfish regulations, when halibut are on board the vessel.
        (e) The quota for landings into ports in the area off Oregon between Cape Falcon (45°46.00′ N. lat.) and Humbug Mountain (42°40.50′ N. lat.), is 191,979 lbs (87.8 mt).
        (i) The fishing seasons are:
        (A) The first season (the “inside 40-fm” fishery) commences May 2 and continues 3 days a week (Thursday through Saturday) through October 31, in the area shoreward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour, or until the sub-quota for the central Oregon “inside 40-fm” fishery 23,038 lbs (10.4 mt) or any in-season revised subquota is estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, whichever is earlier. The boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour between 45°46.00′ N. lat. and 42°40.50′ N. lat. is defined at § 660.71(k).

        (B) The second season (spring season), which is for the “all-depth” fishery, is open from May 9, 2013, to (insert dates). The projected catch for this season is 120,947 lbs (54.8 mt). If sufficient unharvested catch remains for additional fishing days, the season will re-open. Depending on the amount of unharvested catch available, the potential season re-opening dates will be: (insert dates no later than July 31). If NMFS decides in-season to allow fishing on any of these re-opening dates, notice of the re-opening will be announced on the NMFS hotline (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825. No halibut fishing will be allowed on the re-opening dates unless the date is announced on the NMFS hotline.

        (C) If sufficient unharvested catch remains, the third season (summer season), which is for the “all-depth” fishery, will be open from August 2, 2013 to (insert dates) or until the combined spring season and summer season quotas in the area between Cape Falcon and Humbug Mountain, OR, totaling 191,979 lbs (87.8 mt), are estimated to have been taken and the area is closed by the Commission, or October 31, whichever is earlier. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline in July whether the fishery will re-open for the summer season in August. No halibut fishing will be allowed in the summer season fishery unless the dates are announced on the NMFS hotline. Additional fishing days may be opened if sufficient quota remains after the last day of the first scheduled open period (insert date following establishment of season dates). If, after this date, an amount greater than or equal to 60,000 lb (27.2 mt) remains in the combined all-depth and inside 40-fm (73-m) quota, the fishery may re-open every Friday and Saturday, beginning (insert dates of next possible open period as established preseason), and ending October 31. If after September 2, an amount greater than or equal to 30,000 lb (13.6 mt) remains in the combined all-depth and inside 40-fm (73-m) quota, and the fishery is not already open every Friday and Saturday, the fishery may re-open every Friday and Saturday, beginning September 6 and 7, and ending October 31. After September 2, the bag limit may be increased to two fish of any size per person, per day. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline whether the summer all-depth fishery will be open on such additional fishing days, what days the fishery will be open and what the bag limit is.
        (ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person, unless otherwise specified. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline any bag limit changes.
        (iii) During days open to all-depth halibut fishing, no Pacific Coast groundfish may be taken and retained, possessed or landed, except sablefish and Pacific cod, when allowed by Pacific Coast groundfish regulations, if halibut are on board the vessel.
        (iv) When the all-depth halibut fishery is closed and halibut fishing is permitted only shoreward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour, halibut possession and retention by vessels operating seaward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour is prohibited.
        (v) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the Stonewall Bank YRCA. It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the Stonewall Bank YRCA. A vessel fishing in the Stonewall Bank YRCA may not possess any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the Stonewall Bank YRCA with or without halibut on board. The Stonewall Bank YRCA is an area off central Oregon, near Stonewall Bank, intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. The Stonewall Bank YRCA is defined at § 660.70(f).

        (f) The area south of Humbug Mountain, Oregon (42°40.50' N. lat.) and off the California coast is not managed in-season relative to its quota. This area is managed on a season that is projected to result in a catch of 6,063 lbs (2.75 mt).
        (i) The fishing season will commence on May 1 and continue 7 days a week until October 31.
        (ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
        Classification
        Regulations governing the U.S. fisheries for Pacific halibut are developed by the IPHC, the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), and the Secretary of Commerce. Section 5 of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773c) provides the Secretary of Commerce with the general responsibility to carry out the Convention between Canada and the United States for the management of Pacific halibut, including the authority to adopt regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Convention and Halibut Act. This proposed rule is consistent with the Secretary of Commerce's authority under the Halibut Act.
        This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS has prepared an RIR/IRFA on the proposed changes to the Plan and the annual domestic Area 2A halibut management measures. Copies of these documents are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). NMFS prepared an IRFA that 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. The IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows:
        A fish-harvesting business is considered a “small” business by the Small Business Administration (SBA) if it has annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 million. For related fish-processing businesses, a small business is one that employs 500 or fewer persons. For wholesale businesses, a small business is one that employs not more than 100 people. For marinas and charter/party boats, a small business is one with annual receipts not in excess of $6.5 million. All of the businesses that would be affected by this action are considered small businesses under Small Business Administration guidance.
        In 2012, 604 vessels were issued IPHC licenses to retain halibut. IPHC issues licenses for: the directed commercial fishery in Area 2A (147 licenses in 2012); incidental halibut caught in the salmon troll fishery (316 licenses in 2012); and the charterboat fleet (141 licenses in 2012). No vessel may participate in more than one of these three fisheries per year. However, only 227 of the commercial licensed vessels landed halibut in 2012 according to PacFIN. A similar situation may occur for charterboat vessels. The number of charter boats in Northern California, Oregon, and Washington that were involved in groundfish trips including halibut during 2010 was 161. Of these, 89 vessels fished in either the Columbia River or Central Oregon fisheries. This suggests that 60 percent of the IPHC charterboat license holders may be affected by these regulations.
        The IRFA analyzed the impacts of the changes to the Plan and regulations. The following are the Council's proposed changes to the Plan::
        1. In the Plan, sections (e)(1)and (e)(1)(iii), incidental halibut catch in the salmon troll fishery, adjust the months for the incidental take fishery from May-June to April-June. The goals of these changes are to allow salmon fishers access to the incidental halibut allocation earlier in the year.
        2. In the Plan, section (f)(1)(iv) Columbia River subarea, adjust the spring season schedule from Thursday-Saturdays to Fridays-Sundays and remove the automatic regulatory closure for the spring fishery. The goal of the days of the week change is to allow better access to the spring fishery and to make the spring and summer season open days consistent. The goal of removing the regulatory closure is to allow the spring fishery to stay open longer when effort is higher. The summer season has often underutilized the allocation, therefore allowing the spring fishery to stay open longer is designed to better utilize the allocation for the whole subarea. Since 2008 the summer fishery has harvested less than 20 percent of the subarea quota even though the allocation was 30 percent, leaving a portion of the allocation unharvested that could be harvested in the spring since the summer fishery occurs after the spring fishery.
        3. In the Plan, section (f)(1)(v), Oregon Central Coast subarea, several changes are proposed. This subarea consists of three fisheries, nearshore, spring and, summer. Changes are proposed to all three fisheries. The goal is to better align the allocations for the nearshore and spring fisheries with recent increasing effort. The proposed changes to each fisheries allocation changes the allocations from fixed percentages to amounts based on the 2A TAC. This change is proposed to maximize the number of days the entire subarea can be open. The effort in the nearshore fishery has increased in recent years requiring the fishery to close early. Therefore eliminating the summer fishery and increasing the nearshore and spring allocations will allow more fishing days overall. The elimination of the summer fishery below 700,000 lbs is necessary because if the 2A TAC is at that level the resulting summer fishery allocation is not enough to allow one day of fishing.
        a. For the nearshore fishery, adjust the open days from daily to 3 days per week Thursday-Saturday and adjust the allocation to this fishery from 12 percent of the subarea quota to 12 percent of the subarea quota if the 2A TAC is above 700,000 lbs or greater and 25 percent of the subarea quota if the 2A TAC is less than 700,000 lbs.
        b. For the spring fishery, adjust the allocation from 63 percent of the subarea allocation to 63 percent of the subarea quota if the 2A TAC is above 700,000 lbs or greater and 75 percent of the subarea quota if the 2A TAC is less than 700,000 lbs. Also, adjust the closure date for this fishery if the TAC is less than 700,000 lbs from July 31st to October 31st or attainment of the fishery allocation.
        c. For the summer fishery, adjust the allocation from 25 percent of the subarea allocation to 25 percent of the subarea quota if the 2A TAC is above 700,000 lbs or greater and 0 percent of the subarea quota if the 2A TAC is less than 700,000 lbs. This closes the summer fishery if the TAC is less than 700,000 lbs.

        As mentioned in the preamble, WDFW and ODFW held public meetings and crafted alternative changes to the Plan to adjust management of the sport halibut fisheries in their states to maximize angler participation given the TAC. The states then narrowed the alternatives under consideration and brought the resulting subset of alternatives to the Council at the Council's September and November 2012 meetings. The range of alternatives that were rejected includes alternate fishery structures, such as opening the sport fisheries on different days of the week than the final preferred alternative. Generally, by the time the alternatives reach the Council, because they have been through the state public review process, there is not a large number of alternatives. Rather, the range of alternatives has generally been reduced to the proposed action and the status quo. However, the Council and the States still considered a range of alternatives that could have similarly improved angler enjoyment of participation in the fisheries while simultaneously protecting halibut and co-occurring groundfish species from overharvest. In 2010, 202 non-trawl vessels landed 1.6 million lbs of Pacific halibut and earned $6.5 million in ex-vessel revenues from prices that averaged just over $4.00 per pound. In 2011, the non-tribal commercial fleet (excluding trawlers), landed about 1.1 million lbs, earning $6.0 million in ex-vessel revenues, from prices that averaged $5.30 per pound. Preliminary data, complete through November of 2012, shows 234 vessels landing 1.0 million lbs, earning $5.0 million in ex-vessel revenues, and an average price of $4.70 per pound. Total ex-vessel revenues including tribal revenues were $7.8 million in 2010, $8.0 million in 2011, and through November 2012, $7.0 million.
        The Pacific Fishery Management Council analyzed 2006-2010 recreational activity. (See discussion under 3.2.1.4 Recreational Fisheries-Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Proposed Harvest Specifications and Management Measures for the 2013-2014 Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery and Amendment 21-2 to the Pacific Coast Fishery Management Plan). The data that underlie the Council's analysis indicates that the years, the total number of directed charter and private halibut trips has ranged from 19,000 (2009) to 26,000 trips (2007 & 2008). (This data are trips are based on recreational activity from Northern California to the Canadian border.) Anglers also take halibut in conjunction with salmon and bottomfish recreational trips. Over the 2006-2010 period, the total number of directed and private recreational trips including directed halibut trips has ranged from 216,000 trips (2008) to 354,000 trips (2009). Over these years, directed halibut trips had averaged about 8% of all trips, but have been as high as 12% in 2008 when there was a significant decline in salmon trips. In 2010, charterboat vessels undertook about 5500 directed halibut trips. The highest charterboat rate found on the internet was $285 per angler trip. Using this rate suggests that charterboat halibut rate revenues were on the order of $1.6 million. This estimate does not include revenues associated with halibut caught in conjunction with salmon, bottomfish, or other recreational trips.
        The FEIS provides information to project amount of economic impact generated from halibut fisheries. Estimates of groundfish revenues and recreational trips can be related to personal income projections. Based these relationships, $8 million in halibut ex-vessel revenues and 26,000 in recreational trips lead to an estimate of $14 million in personal income. Personal income is considered a key indicator of economic activity, and is used in economic analysis to evaluate distributional effects on local and regional economies associated with changes in regulations. Income impacts include the amount of employee salaries and benefits, business owner (proprietor) income, and property-related income (rents, dividends, interest, royalties, etc.) that result from commercial fishing and recreational expenditures. The proposed changes to the Plan and regulations do not include any reporting or recordkeeping requirements. These changes will not duplicate, overlap or conflict with other laws or regulations. These changes to the Plan and annual domestic Area 2A halibut management measures are not expected to meet any of the RFA tests of having a “significant” economic impact on a “substantial number” of small entities because the changes will not affect overall allocations. They are designed to provide the best fishing opportunities within the overall TAC. The major effect of halibut management on small entities will be from the internationally set TAC decisions made by IPHC. Based on the recommendations of the states, the Council and NMFS propose minor changes to the Plan to provide increased recreational and commercial opportunities under the allocations that result from the TAC. There are no large entities involved in the halibut fisheries; therefore, none of these changes will have a disproportionate negative effect on small entities versus large entities. Based on the economic dimensions of the fishery, these minor proposed changes to the Plan are not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Nonetheless, NMFS has prepared an IRFA. Because the goal of the proposed action is to maximize angler participation, and thus to maximize the economic benefits of the fishery, and the action is not expected to have a significant economic impact, NMFS did not analyze alternatives other than the proposed changes and the status quo for purposes of the IRFA. Through this proposed rule, NMFS requests comments on this conclusion.
        Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, the Secretary recognizes the sovereign status and co-manager role of Indian tribes over shared Federal and tribal fishery resources. Section 302(b)(5) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act establishes a seat on the Pacific Council for a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from California, Oregon, Washington, or Idaho.
        The U.S. Government formally recognizes that 13 Washington Tribes have treaty rights to fish for Pacific halibut. In general terms, the quantification of those rights is 50 percent of the harvestable surplus of Pacific halibut available in the tribes' usual and accustomed (U and A) fishing areas. Under the Plan, the tribal fishery is allocated a percentage of the Area 2A TAC. Tribal fishing areas for purposes of the halibut fishery are described at 50 CFR 300.64. Each of the treaty tribes has the discretion to administer their fisheries and to establish their own policies to achieve program objectives. Accordingly, tribal allocations and regulations, including the proposed changes to the Plan, have been developed in consultation with the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with tribal consensus.
        NMFS NWR initiated consultation on the halibut fishery under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) following the listing of yelloweye, canary, and bocaccio rockfish of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. Area 2A partially overlaps with the Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) for listed rockfish. At this time the consultation is not completed. NMFS has prepared a 7(a)(2)/7(d) determination memo under the (ESA) finding that bycatch in the 2013 fishery is not likely to result in a significant impact on listed species, that direct effects of the fishery (e.g. direct takes) are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species, and that in no way will the 2013 fishery make an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources by the agency.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.

          Dated: February 4, 2013.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-02978 Filed 2-8-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 150908833-6479-01]
        RIN 0648-BF37
        Mariana Archipelago Fisheries; Remove the CNMI Medium and Large Vessel Bottomfish Prohibited Areas

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule would remove the medium and large vessel bottomfish prohibited fishing areas in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Conditions in the fishery that led to establishing the prohibited areas are no longer present, and the restriction is no longer necessary. The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council recommended Amendment 4 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Mariana Archipelago (FEP) to remove these prohibited areas, and this proposed rule would implement the recommended change. The intent of the proposed rule is to improve the viability of the CNMI bottomfish fishery and promote optimum yield while preventing overfishing. This proposed rule would also make an administrative housekeeping change to the regulations for the CNMI management subarea crustacean fishing.

          DATES:
          NMFS must receive comments by July 28, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0115, by either 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-2015-0115, 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 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 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS prepared an environmental analysis that describes the potential impacts on the human environment that could result from the proposed rule. The environmental analysis and other supporting documents are available at www.regulations.gov.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        In 2008, the Council recommended establishing, and NMFS implemented, prohibited areas for commercial fishing for Mariana bottomfish management unit species (BMUS) in the CNMI. Federal regulations currently prohibit medium and large vessels (40 ft and greater) from commercial fishing for BMUS in certain Federal waters around the CNMI. The prohibited areas include waters within approximately 50 nm of the Southern Islands (i.e., Rota, Aguigan (alt. Aguijan), Tinian, Saipan, and Farallon de Medinilla) and within 10 nm of Alamagan Island. The Council established the prohibited areas to prevent large bottomfish vessels based in Guam from traveling to CNMI fishing grounds. At the time, the Council was concerned that the Guam vessels could negatively affect fish stocks and local fisheries through stock depletion, catch competition, and gear conflicts. You may read more about the establishment of the prohibited areas in the 2008 proposed rule (73 FR 51992, September 8, 2008) and final rule (73 FR 75615, December 12, 2008).
        The CNMI bottomfish fishery has changed since 2008, and the conditions that led the Council and NMFS to establish the prohibited areas are no longer present. Large vessels from Guam have not shown interest in fishing for CNMI bottomfish. The prohibited areas may also be negatively impacting the CNMI bottomfish fishery. Only a few small vessels have been operating on a regular basis, and the few medium and large vessels have faced declining participation, possibly resulting from higher fuel costs that prevent them from traveling beyond the prohibited areas. The prohibited areas may be contributing to the potential under-utilization of the bottomfish resource in CNMI and removing them may promote optimum yield.
        To address fishery conditions resulting from the CNMI prohibited areas, the Council recommended that NMFS remove them. The Council and NMFS would continue to manage the fishery under a suite of management requirements that include the specification of annual catch limits and accountability measures, post-season review of catches and effort including against ACLs, requirements for vessel markings, Federal catch and sales reporting, and the vessel monitoring system. The fishing requirements for the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument would also remain unchanged. Figure 1 shows the current prohibited areas.

          EP13JN16.015

        This proposed rule is intended to improve the efficiency and economic viability of the CNMI bottomfish fishery. The Council and NMFS would annually review the effects of the proposed action. Any proposed changes would be subject to additional environmental review and opportunity for public review and comment.
        This proposed rule would also include two administrative housekeeping changes: Corrections to the description of the CNMI management subarea and to the CNMI permit area designation for crustacean fishing. First, prior to 2013, the CNMI management subarea was divided into an inshore area (the EEZ within 3 nm of the shoreline) and an offshore area (the EEZ seaward of 3 nm from the shoreline). In 2013, under Public Law 113-34 (which amended Public Law 94-435) the United States transferred nearshore waters (0-3 nm) to the CNMI, so this distinction is no longer necessary. Second, the regulations at § 665.442(a)(1) currently incorrectly refer to Permit Area 3, which is associated with American Samoa. The correct reference for the CNMI is Crustacean Permit Area 5.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 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.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act: Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has 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. A description of the proposed action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for it are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule.

        The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council recommended a prohibited area in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone around the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands (CNMI), among other requirements, for medium and large (i.e., vessels 40 ft and greater) vessels commercially fishing for bottomfish to separate the fishing activity of these vessels from that of smaller vessels. NMFS implemented the Council's recommendation in 2008 (73 FR 75615; December 12, 2008).
        The Council established the prohibited area as a precaution in response to concerns expressed by CNMI fishermen that Guam bottomfish fishermen would travel to fish in CNMI waters after establishment of the large vessel prohibited fishing area in Guam. CNMI fishermen were concerned that such additional fishing by the vessels from Guam would create localized depletion of bottomfish, gear conflicts, and catch competition. Few medium and large vessels, however, are capable of bottomfish fishing, and it appears that few medium and large vessels would enter the CNMI bottomfish fishery. Recent CNMI bottomfish harvests are far below recent Annual Catch Limits set for the fishery. Therefore, the current prohibited area may not be needed to ensure the sustainability of the CNMI bottomfish fishery and, in fact, may be constraining it.
        This proposed rule would provide economic relief to the CNMI medium and large bottomfish vessel fleet, through removing the prohibition from commercial fishing for BMUS within the prohibited areas. The proposed action would allow the medium and large longline vessels to fish within additional areas within Federal waters. The proposed action would improve the efficiency and economic viability of the CNMI bottomfish longline fleet.
        The proposed action would directly apply to operators of medium and large bottomfish vessels that would potentially fish within CNMI currently prohibited areas, in particular, CNMI and Guam bottomfish permit holders. This permit is required of all vessels commercially fishing for, landing, or transshipping BMUS in the EEZ around the CNMI.

        Based on information presented below, NMFS has determined that all affected entities are small entities under the SBA definition of a small entity, i.e., they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, are independently owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have gross annual receipts below $20.5 million (NAICS code: 114111). Since 2012, NMFS has issued fewer than five CNMI and Guam bottomfish permits to medium or large vessels annually. Between 2012 and 2014 NMFS issued an average of eight CNMI Bottomfish permits with less than one classified as CNMI medium or large bottomfish vessel. In Guam, only large bottomfish vessels (50 ft or greater) are required to have a permit. Between 2012 and 2014, NMFS issued an average of two Guam bottomfish permits. During that same time, annual revenue from all bottomfish species landed by the CNMI bottomfish fishery ranged from $23,947-$85,294, and ranged from $13,650-$65,676 when only considering BMUS catch. For Guam based bottomfish boats, revenue earned from bottomfish catch ranged from $18,433-$36,635. Therefore, NMFS estimates that this action would potentially affect up to five medium to large bottomfish vessels directly, at least initially before the potential for expansion of the larger boat sector is realized.
        This proposed action would lift restrictions for the directly affected entities without imposing obligations. Bottomfish vessel owners could choose to upgrade to larger vessels or continue fishing with their current vessels. NMFS does not expect the rule to have disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities directly affected by this rule, although the small vessels currently allowed to fish throughout the prohibited areas may be indirectly affected by the potential increase in the number of medium and large bottomfish vessels fishing within a portion of the prohibited areas. There would be no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of potentially affected vessels based on gear, or vessel length. However, due to their proximity to the prohibited areas, vessels based in CNMI would stand to see greater benefit from this action, relative to those based in Guam.
        The implementation of this action will not result in significant adverse economic impacts to individual vessels. The proposed action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules and is not expected to have significant impact on a substantial number of small entities (as discussed above), organizations, or government jurisdictions. As such, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        Executive Order 12866
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665
          Administrative practice and procedure, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Mariana Archipelago Fisheries, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: June 7, 2016.
          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 § 665.402, revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:

          § 665.402
          Management subareas.

          (b) CNMI Management Subarea means the EEZ seaward of the CNMI, with the inner boundary defined as a line coterminous with the seaward boundary of the CNMI.
          (c) The outer boundary of each fishery management area is a line drawn in such a manner that each point on it is 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured, or is coterminous with adjacent international maritime boundaries. The boundary between the fishery management areas of Guam and the CNMI extends to those points which are equidistant between Guam and the island of Rota in the CNMI. CNMI and Guam management subareas are divided by a line intersecting these two points: 148° E. long., 12° N. lat., and 142° E. long., 16° N. lat.

          § 665.403
          [Amended]

        3. In § 665.403, remove and reserve paragraph (b).
        4. In § 665.405, revise paragraphs (e) and (f), and remove paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows:

          § 665.405
          Prohibitions.

          (e) Use a vessel to fish commercially for Mariana bottomfish MUS in the CNMI management subarea without a valid CNMI commercial bottomfish permit registered for use with that vessel, in violation of § 665.404(a)(2).
          (f) Falsify or fail to make, keep, maintain, or submit a Federal logbook as required under § 665.14(b) when using a vessel to engage in commercial fishing for Mariana bottomfish MUS in the CNMI management subarea in violation of § 665.14(b).

        6. In § 665.442, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

          § 665.442
          Permits.
          (a)  * * *
          (1) The owner of any vessel used to fish for lobster in Permit Area 5 must have a permit issued for such a vessel.

      [FR Doc. 2016-13852 Filed 6-10-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket No. 14-139, RM-11732; DA 14-1273]
        Television Broadcasting Services; Mount Vernon, Illinois; Correction

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          This document corrects the preamble to a proposed rule published in the Federal Register of September 12, 2014, requesting the substitution of channel 11 for channel 21 at Mount Vernon, Illinois. This correction clarifies that the proposed rule applies prospectively to plans submitted for approval from the effective date for the final rule.

          DATES:
          September 30, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Office of Secretary, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Robert L. Olender, Esq., Koerner & Olender, P.C., 11913 Grey Court, North Bethesda, MD 20852.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joyce Bernstein, 202-418-1600.
          Correction
          In proposed rule FR Doc. 14-1273, beginning on page 54675 in the issue of September 12, 2014, make the following correction, in the Addresses section. On page 54675 in the 3rd paragraph, replace the listed paragraph with the following:
          “Federal Communications Commission, Office of Secretary, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Robert L. Olender, Esq., Koerner & Olender, P.C., 11913 Grey Court, North Bethesda, MD 20852.”

            Dated: September 22, 2014.
            Barbara A. Kreisman,
            Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2014-23134 Filed 9-29-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P