        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Office of the Secretary
        49 CFR Part 37
        [Docket DOT-OST-2015-0075]
        Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities; Service Criteria for Complementary Paratransit Fares

          AGENCY:
          Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice of petition for rulemaking; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This document seeks public comments on a petition for rulemaking from Access Services concerning the Department's regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with respect to the method of determining the fare for a trip charged to an ADA paratransit eligible user. The petition asks the Department to revise its regulation to allow for a “coordinated” or two-tier fare structure. The current regulation provides that the fare shall not exceed twice the fare that would be charged to an individual paying full fare for a similar trip on the fixed route system.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by September 21, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          Please submit your comments by only one of the following methods:
          • Online: Use the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • U.S. Mail: Send your comments to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: Go to Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, U.S. Department of Transportation headquarters, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern-time, Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.
          • Telefax: Send your comments to 202-493-2251.

            Instructions: All comments must include the docket number for this rulemaking: DOT-OST-2015-0075. Submit two copies of your comments if you submit them by mail. For confirmation that DOT received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under “Supplementary Information,” below, for Privacy Act information pertinent to any submitted comments or materials, and you may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000, at 65 FR 19477.

            Docket Access: For access to background documents and comments received in the rulemaking docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jill Laptosky, Attorney-Advisor, Office of General Counsel, U.S. DOT, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, phone: (202) 493-0308, or email, Jill.Laptosky@dot.gov; or Bonnie Graves, Assistant Chief Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, same address, phone: (202) 366-4011, or email, Bonnie.Graves@dot.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On March 4, 2015, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) received a petition for rulemaking from Access Services, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit provider for 44 fixed route transit providers in Los Angeles County, California. Access Services uses a “coordinated” or two-tier fare structure where it generally charges $2.75 for one-way trips up to 19.9 miles, and $3.50 for one-way trips of 20 miles or more. In some cases, these fares exceed twice the fixed route fare. The DOT's ADA regulation at 49 CFR 37.131(c) provides that the fare for a trip charged to an ADA paratransit eligible user of the complementary paratransit service shall not exceed twice the fare that would be charged to an individual paying full fare for a trip of similar length, at a similar time of day, on the entity's fixed route system. In recent triennial reviews of some fixed route providers in Los Angeles County, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has made findings that the ADA paratransit fares exceed twice the fixed route fare. In other words, some paratransit riders are paying more for ADA paratransit fares than they should be under the Department's existing regulations.

        Access Services' petition for rulemaking has been placed in the docket. Access Services asserts in its petition that its two-tier fare structure is simple for riders to understand and easy for Access Services and its providers to implement. In its petition, Access Services requests that the Department propose amending its ADA regulations to allow for a coordinated fare structure as follows:
        Proposed Amendment to DOT ADA Regulations

          The Access Services proposes the following addition to 49 CFR 37.131(c) on service criteria for complementary paratransit:

        • Alternatively, the maximum fare that may be charged by an entity which administers a coordinated paratransit plan for 20 or more fixed route members pursuant to 49 CFR 37.141 and approved pursuant to 49 CFR 37.147 shall be no more than twice the regional average fixed-route fare determined as follows:
        ○ The entity may calculate a regional average fixed-route fare by obtaining a statistically-valid, random sample of its recent paratransit trips, calculating the applicable fixed-route fare for those trips and averaging the results. The sample may be subdivided by distance to determine the regional average fixed-route fares for trips of a certain mileage.
        The Department's regulations at 49 CFR 5.11 permit any person to petition the Secretary to amend a rule. It is solely within the discretion of the Secretary to grant or deny such a petition, and the Secretary has not yet decided whether or not to grant or deny the Access Services' petition. In order to supplement the information provided by Access Services in support of its petition for rulemaking, the Department is requesting public comments on the issue presented in the petition. The Department will use this collective information in the development of the technical review that will serve as the basis for determining whether to grant or deny the petition.

        The Department is especially interested in hearing from individuals who use ADA complementary paratransit services in order to better understand how they would be impacted if the Department adopted the Access Services' language or similar language. Would a more simplified tiered fare system, set by the local transit agencies, be beneficial to individuals with disabilities using public transportation in regions with multiple fixed route providers? Would any tiered system need to be capped at a certain amount (e.g., twice the fare on a comparable fixed route trip)? How many tiers would be unmanageable for individuals with disabilities?
        The Department is also interested to hear from ADA complementary paratransit providers throughout the country. How do these paratransit providers, particularly in regions with many fixed-route operators, currently determine fares in order to comply with the Department's current regulations? What procedures or best practices do they use? What challenges do ADA complementary paratransit providers face in setting fares under the current regulations? How many fixed-route providers do you coordinate with?

          Issued in Washington, DC, this 29th day of July 2015, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.27(a).
          Kathryn B. Thomson,
          General Counsel.

      [FR Doc. 2015-20467 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 210712-0146]
        RIN 0648-BH65
        Pacific Island Fisheries; Modifications to the American Samoa Longline Fishery Limited Entry Program

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to modify the American Samoa longline fishery limited entry program to consolidate vessel class sizes, modify permit eligibility requirements, and reduce the minimum harvest requirements for small vessels. The intent of this proposed rule is to reduce regulatory barriers that may be limiting small vessel participation in the fishery, and provide for sustained community and indigenous American Samoan participation in the fishery. This proposed rule also makes several administrative updates to remove outdated regulations.

          DATES:
          NMFS must receive comments by September 2, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this proposed rule, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0023, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-2018-0023 in the Search box, click the “Comment” 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 NMFS will generally post them 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) prepared Amendment 9, which includes a draft environmental assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact Review. Copies of Amendment 9 and other supporting documents are available at https://www.regulations.gov, or from the Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, www.wpcouncil.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kate Taylor, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5182.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Council and NMFS manage the American Samoa longline fishery under the FEP and implementing Federal regulations. The fishery primarily targets albacore, which are sold frozen to the fish processing industry in Pago Pago, American Samoa. During the 1980s and 1990s, the longline fleet was mainly comprised of alia, which are locally-built catamarans between 24 and 38 ft in length. Longline fishing from an alia is a small-scale operation; fishermen set about 350 hooks per set and haul the gear with hand-operated reels. Fishing trips usually last one day because alia vessels are not equipped to freeze catch onboard.
        In the early 2000s, the longline fishery expanded rapidly with the influx of large (over 50 ft) conventional monohull vessels similar to the type used in the Hawaii-based longline fishery, including some vessels from Hawaii. These vessels are able to travel farther from shore and stay out longer, deploy 30-40 miles of mainline and 20,000 hooks per set, and could freeze catch onboard. From 2000 to 2004 the number of large vessels increased from 4 to 29 while the number of active alia vessels decreased from 37 to 9.

        In 2004, in response to alia fishermen's concerns that a continued influx of large vessels could result in adverse impacts to local stocks and the small vessel fleet, the Council established, and NMFS implemented, a limited entry program for the fishery (70 FR 29646, May 24, 2005). Qualification for a longline fishery permit required an individual to document ownership of a vessel that was used to legally harvest and land pelagic management unit species (pelagic MUS) with longline gear in the U.S. EEZ around American Samoa prior to March 22, 2002. Initial permit holders were also required to be U.S. citizens or nationals. The longline fishery permits were divided into four vessel size categories: Class A (<40 ft), Class B (between 40 and 50 ft), Class C (>50 ft and <70 ft), and Class D (>70 ft). The limited entry program is limited to 60 permits annually (see Table 1).

          Table 1—Maximum Number of Available Permits, Number of Permits Issued in 2010 and 2019, and Number of Active Vessels in 2019

            Vessel size class
            Maximum available permits

            Permits issued in 2010
            Permits issued in 2019
            Active vessels in 2019

            A 40 ft or less
            16
            12
            4
            3

            B 40.1 ft-50 ft
            6
            0
            4
            0

            C 50.1 ft-70 ft
            12
            12
            12
            5

            D More than 70 ft
            26
            26
            26
            10

            Total
            60
            50
            46
            18

        An American Samoa longline limited access permit of any size class, except Class A, may be transferred to any person with documented participation in the pelagic longline fishery in the EEZ around American Samoa, or a western Pacific community located in American Samoa that meets the criteria under Section 305(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (Community Development Program). A Class A permit holder may transfer a permit to any person with documented participation in the pelagic longline fishery on a Class A size vessel in the EEZ around American Samoa before March 22, 2002, a western Pacific community located in American Samoa that meets the criteria under Section 305(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (Community Development Program), or a family member of the permit holder.
        Permits are valid for three years from the date of issue. Current regulations specify requirements to renew a limited access permit. Class A and B permit holders are required to land (in American Samoa) a minimum of 1,000 lb (454 kg) of pelagic MUS (harvested with longline gear in the U.S. EEZ around American Samoa) over three consecutive calendar years. Class C and D permit holders are required to land (in American Samoa) a minimum of 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) of pelagic MUS (harvested with longline gear in the U.S. EEZ around American Samoa) over three consecutive calendar years. In the event that a permit holder does not make the minimum landings within three consecutive years, the permit reverts to NMFS. NMFS may then announce the availability of a permit and issue the permit to a qualified applicant, with the priority given to the applicant with the earliest participation in the fishery onboard a Class A, B, C, or D vessel, in that order.
        Only a few small vessels have been active in the fishery since 2007. Participation by large vessels was somewhat stable from 2001 through 2010, but has declined and remained below 20 active vessels annually since then. This proposed rule would change the current American Samoa longline permit classifications, eligibility criteria, and minimum harvest requirements to reduce barriers to participation in the fishery by smaller vessels and to maintain small vessel participation in the fishery, as described below.
        Modification to Vessel Size Classification

        This proposed rule would reduce the number of vessel size classes from four to two. Class A and B vessels (less than 50 ft) would be classified as Small Vessels and Class C and D vessels (equal to or greater than 50 ft) would be classified as Large Vessels. NMFS would convert all current permits into one of the two new classes, initially resulting in 21 small vessel permits and 39 large vessel permits. The program would continue to be limited to 60 permits. Consolidation of the permit classes is intended to simplify administration of the limited entry program.

        Modification to Permit Eligibility Criteria

        This proposed rule would restrict permit eligibility to U.S. citizens and nationals only. This would apply to current permits holders, future applicants, or in the case of permit transfers. This proposed rule would also eliminate the criteria for having documented fishery participation to be eligible for a permit. However, it would not change the priority ranking system if there is competition between two or more applicants for a permit (i.e., priority given to the smallest vessel and then determined by documented participation in the fishery).
        Currently, there are likely younger fishermen in American Samoa who own vessels in the small vessel class, but are restricted from participating in the fishery because they do not have prior history. For example, it has been 12 years since NMFS implemented the longline limited entry program, and some of the fishermen who had documented participation in the fishery have since passed away. Their children may be interested in joining the fishery, but regulations may be excluding them from the fishery because they do not have documented participation. The Council and NMFS expect that removing the requirement for permit holders to document history in the fishery will expand opportunities for citizens and U.S. nationals to enter the fishery. Such opportunities would be greatest for small vessel owners in American Samoa.
        Modification to Minimum Harvest Size Requirements
        This proposed rule would reduce the minimum harvest requirement for small vessels to 500 lb (227 kg) of pelagic MUS within a 3-year period. The 5,000 lb (2,268 kg). Harvest for the large vessels would not be modified. However, this proposed rule would eliminate the requirement that the minimum harvests be caught within the U.S. EEZ around American Samoa. The requirement for the minimum harvest amounts to be landed in American Samoa would not be modified.
        In the event of a permit transfer, if the minimum harvest amount has not been caught at the time of transfer, the minimum harvest period would not restart. Instead, the new permit holder would be required to meet the harvest requirement based on the following formula: The product of percentage of time left within the three-year permit period and the minimum harvest amount.
        For example, the original permit holder, Person A, has 1.5 years left on the three-year permit (50% of the total time) at the time of transfer to Person B. Person A has harvested 300 lb (136 kg) of the 500 lb (new, 227 kg) minimum harvest amount. Under this proposed rule, the minimum harvest amount applied to Person B at time of transfer is computed as:

        50 percent (or 0.5) × 500 lb (227 kg) = 250 lb (113 kg)

        Therefore, Person B would need to catch 250 lb (113 kg) within the remaining 1.5 years. The catch required by Person B is independent from the amount Person A caught.
        Reducing the three-year minimum harvest requirement could result in higher permit retention rates over time for those small vessels that may be having some economic or other difficulty to meet the minimum harvest requirements and allow those permit holders to renew their permits when they otherwise would have to forfeit them. Additionally, reducing the minimum harvest requirement could provide additional encouragement for those thinking about entering the small boat fleet.
        The proposed rule would also make several administrative updates to remove outdated American Samoa longline limited entry program regulations. Specifically, this proposed rule removes regulations describing the original application process and the issuance of permits by vessel class in the first three years of the program. All other management measures will continue to apply in the American Samoa Limited entry Longline fishery.

        NMFS invites public comments on the proposed action, and specifically invites comments that address the impact of this proposed action on cultural fishing in American Samoa. NMFS must receive any comments by the date provided in the DATES section. In addition, NMFS is soliciting comments on proposed Amendment 9, as stated in the Notice of Availability (NOA) published on June 30, 2021 (86 FR 34711). NMFS must receive comments on the NOA by August 30, 2021. NMFS may not consider any comments not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date. NMFS will consider public comments received in response to the request for comments on the NOA and to the request for comments in this proposed rule in the decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 9.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed action is consistent with the FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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.
        This proposed action would directly apply to longline vessels federally permitted under the Pelagics FEP, specifically American Samoa longline permit holders. The longline fishery based in American Samoa is a limited access fishery with a maximum of 60 vessels under the federal permit program. Vessels range in size from under 40 to over 70 ft. long. In 2019, NMFS issued 50 American Samoa longline permits, with 17 of these vessels actively participating in the fishery. Only three of the active vessels were Class A or B vessels. The total longline fleet revenue (estimated landed value) in 2019 was $3.9 million, and albacore composed of over 89% of the total landed value. Other main species included yellowfin, bigeye, skipjack, and wahoo. With 17 active longline vessels in 2019, the ex-vessel value of pelagic fish caught by the American Samoa fishery averaged almost $230,000 per vessel.

        NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all vessels subject to the proposed action are small entities, i.e., they are engaged in the business of finfish harvesting (NAICS code 114111), are independently owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $11 million. Even though this proposed action would apply to a substantial number of vessels, the implementation of this action would not result in significant adverse economic impact 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 small entities (as discussed above), organizations or government jurisdictions. There does not appear to be disproportionate adverse economic impacts from the proposed rule based on home port, gear type, or relative vessel size. The proposed rule will not place a substantial number of small entities, or any segment of small entities, at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665
          Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, longline, Pacific Islands, Permits.

          Dated: July 13, 2021.
          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 § 665.12, add the definition of “Small vessel” in alphabetical order, to read as follows:

          § 665.12
          Definitions.

            Small vessel means, as used in this part, any vessel less than 50 ft (15.2 m) in length overall.

        3. In § 665.19, revise paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

          § 665.19
          Vessel Monitoring System.
          (a) * * *
          (2) American Samoa Large Vessel longline limited entry permit issued pursuant to § 665.801(c);

        4. In § 665.802, revise paragraph (x) to read as follows:

          § 665.802
          Prohibitions.

          (x) Fail to comply with a term or condition governing the observer program established in § 665.808, if using a vessel registered for use with a Hawaii longline limited access permit, or a large vessel registered for use with an American Samoa longline limited access permit to fish for western Pacific pelagic MUS using longline gear.

        5. Revise § 665.816 to read as follows:

          § 665.816
          American Samoa longline limited entry program.
          (a) General. Under § 665.801(c), certain U.S. vessels are required to be registered for use under a valid American Samoa longline limited access permit. Under the American Samoa Longline Limited Entry Program, the maximum number of longline fishing permits available is limited to 60 permits annually.
          (b) Terminology. For purposes of this section, the following terms have these meanings:
          (1) Documented participation means participation proved by, but not necessarily limited to, a properly submitted NMFS or American Samoa logbook, an American Samoa creel survey record, a delivery or payment record from an American Samoa-based cannery, retailer or wholesaler, an American Samoa tax record, an individual wage record, ownership title, vessel registration, or other official documents showing:
          (i) Ownership of a vessel that was used to fish in the EEZ around American Samoa, or

          (ii) Evidence of work on a fishing trip during which longline gear was used to harvest western Pacific pelagic MUS in the EEZ around American Samoa. If the applicant does not possess the necessary documentation of evidence of work on a fishing trip based on records available only from NMFS or the Government of American Samoa (e.g., creel survey record or logbook), the applicant may issue a request to PIRO to obtain such records from the appropriate agencies, if available. The applicant should provide sufficient information on the fishing trip to allow PIRO to retrieve the records.
          (2) Family means those people related by blood, marriage, and formal or informal adoption.
          (c) Vessel size classes. The Regional Administrator shall issue American Samoa longline limited access permits in the following size classes:
          (1) Small vessel, which is less than 50 ft (15.2 m) LOA.
          (2) Large vessel, which is equal to or over 50 ft (15.2 m) LOA.
          (d) Permit eligibility. Any U.S. national or U.S. citizen or company, partnership, or corporation is eligible for an American Samoa longline limited access permit.
          (e) Permit issuance. (1) If the number of permits issued falls below the maximum number of permits allowed, the Regional Administrator shall publish a notice in the Federal Register and use other means to notify prospective applicants of any available permit(s) in each class. Any application for issuance of a permit must be submitted to PIRO no later than 120 days after the date of publication of the notice on the availability of additional permits in the Federal Register. The Regional Administrator shall issue permits to persons according to the following priority standard:
          (i) Priority accrues to the person with the earliest documented participation in the pelagic longline fishery in the EEZ around American Samoa from smallest to largest vessel.
          (ii) In the event of a tie in the priority ranking between two or more applicants, the applicant whose second documented participation in the pelagic longline fishery in the EEZ around American Samoa is first in time will be ranked first in priority. If there is still a tie between two or more applicants, the Regional Administrator will select the successful applicant by an impartial lottery.
          (2) Applications must be made, and application fees paid, in accordance with §§ 665.13(c)(1), 665.13(d), and 665.13(f)(2). If the applicant is any entity other than a sole owner, the application must be accompanied by a supplementary information sheet, obtained from the Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, containing the names and mailing addresses of all owners, partners, and corporate officers that comprise ownership of the vessel for which the permit application is prepared.

          (3) Within 30 days of receipt of a completed application, the Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries shall make a decision on whether the applicant qualifies for a permit and will notify the successful applicant by a dated letter. The successful applicant must register a vessel of appropriate size to the permit within 120 days of the date of the letter of notification. The successful applicant must also submit a supplementary information sheet, obtained from the Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, containing the name and mailing address of the owner of the vessel to which the permit is registered. If the registered vessel is owned by any entity other than a sole owner, the names and mailing addresses of all owners, partners, and corporate officers must be included. If the successful applicant fails to register a vessel to the permit within 120 days of the date of the letter of notification, the Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries shall issue a letter of notification to the next person on the priority list or, in the event that there are no more prospective applicants on the priority list, re-start the issuance process pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of this section. Any person who fails to register the permit to a vessel under this paragraph (e)(3) within 120 days shall not be eligible to apply for a permit for 6 months from the date those 120 days expired.
          (4) An appeal of a denial of an application for a permit shall be processed in accordance with § 665.801(o).
          (f) Permit transfer. The holder of an American Samoa longline limited access permit may transfer the permit to another individual, partnership, corporation, or other entity as described in this section. Applications for permit transfers must be submitted to the Regional Administrator within 30 days of the transfer date. If the applicant is any entity other than a sole owner, the application must be accompanied by a supplementary information sheet, obtained from the Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, containing the names and mailing addresses of all owners, partners, and corporate officers. After such an application has been made, the permit is not valid for use by the new permit holder until the Regional Administrator has issued the permit in the new permit holder's name under § 665.13(c).
          (1) An American Samoa longline limited access permit may be transferred (by sale, gift, bequest, intestate succession, barter, or trade) to only the following persons:
          (i) A western Pacific community located in American Samoa that meets the criteria set forth in § 3 05(I)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1855(I)(2), and its implementing regulations, or
          (ii) Any U.S. citizens or national.
          (2) Additionally, an American Samoa longline limited access small vessel permit may also be transferred (by sale, gift, bequest, intestate succession, barter, or trade) to a family member of the permit holder.
          (g) Permit renewal. (1) An American Samoa longline limited access permit will not be renewed following 3 consecutive calendar years (beginning with the year after the permit was issued in the name of the current permit holder) in which the vessel(s) to which it is registered landed less than:
          (i) Small vessel: A total of 500 lb (227 kg) of western Pacific pelagic MUS harvested using longline gear, or
          (ii) Large vessel: A total of 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) of western Pacific pelagic MUS harvested using longline gear.
          (2) For all vessels, the minimum harvest amount must be landed in American Samoa.
          (3) In the event of a transfer, the new permit holder would be required to meet the harvest requirement based on the following formula: Remaining harvest amount = product of percentage of time left within the 3-year permit period and the minimum harvest amount for that size vessel.
          (h) Concentration of permits. No more than 10 percent of the maximum number of permits, of both size classes combined, may be held by the same permit holder. Fractional interest will be counted as a full permit for calculating whether the 10-percent standard has been reached.

      [FR Doc. 2021-15171 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D.  091301C]
        RIN 00648-AL98
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Revision of Overfishing Definitions for the Salmon Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted for Secretarial review Amendment 6 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the Coast of Alaska (Salmon FMP).  This amendment is necessary to revise the overfishing definitions for the salmon fishery authorized under the Salmon FMP.  This action is intended to ensure that conservation and management measures continue to be based on the best scientific information available and to advance the Council’s ability to achieve, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from the salmon fisheries under its jurisdiction.

          DATES:
          Comments on the amendments must be submitted on or before December 4, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on this amendment should be submitted to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK  99802-1668, Attn:  Lori Gravel, or delivered to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK.  NMFS will not accept comments by e-mail or internet.  Copies of Amendment 6 to the Salmon FMP, and the Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the amendment are available from NMFS.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Gretchen Harrington, 907-586-7228 or gretchen.harrington@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit each fishery management plan (FMP) or FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval.  The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS immediately announce a submitted FMP or FMP amendment is available for public review and comment.  This action constitutes such notice for Amendment 6 to the Salmon FMP.  NMFS will consider the public comments received during the comment period in determining whether to approve this FMP amendment.
        On October 11, 1996, the President signed into law the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Pub. L.  104-297) which made numerous amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  Section 3(29) of the amended Magnuson-Stevens Act defines the terms “overfishing” and “overfished” to mean a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) on a continuing basis (Section 3(29)), and requires that all fishery management plans:

          “specify objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the fishery to which the plan applies is overfished (with an analysis of how the criteria were determined and the relationship of the criteria to the reproductive potential of stocks of fish in that fishery) and, in the case of a fishery which the Council or NMFS has determined is approaching an overfished condition or is overfished, contain conservation and management measures to prevent overfishing or end overfishing and rebuild the fishery” (Section 303(a)(10)).

        Section 301(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act establishes national standards for fishery conservation and management, and requires that all FMPs create management measures consistent with those standards.  National standard 1 requires that conservation and management measures shall “prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.”  Pursuant to section 301(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS issued national standard guidelines to provide comprehensive guidance for the development of FMPs and FMP amendments that comply with the national standards (May 1, 1998, 63 FR 24212).  These guidelines are codified in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, part 600 (50 CFR 600.305-600.355).
        The Salmon FMP allows a commercial troll fishery in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off southeast Alaska (SEAK EEZ), and closes the remaining EEZ in central and western Alaska to commercial salmon fishing.  All other salmon fishing occurs either in waters of the State of Alaska (State) or in one of three historical State-managed net fishing areas that extend into the EEZ.  The fisheries in these three historical fishing areas are not covered by the Salmon FMP.  The Salmon FMP defers management of the commercial troll fishery to the State and the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC).
        In June 1998, the Council adopted Amendment 6 to the Salmon FMP.  In October 1998, the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) stated it could not certify that the overfishing definitions comply with the national standard guidelines (50 CFR 600.310) without a considerably more explicit analysis.  NMFS worked with scientists from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to analyze how the State’s policies comport with the national standard guidelines.

        In consultation with the Council and the State, NMFS revised the preferred alternative to include the status determination criteria recommended by the national standard guidelines.  Using the State’s sustainable salmon fisheries policy and salmon escapement goal policy and the June 1999 Amendment to the Pacific Salmon Treaty, NMFS developed an MSY control rule, fishing mortality rate, maximum fishing mortality threshold, and minimum stock size threshold for the chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho salmon (O. kisutch) stocks caught in the troll fishery in the SEAK EEZ.  The chinook and coho stocks serve as indicator stocks for the stock complex of salmon caught in this fishery.  These status determination criteria specify objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the fishery to which the plan applies is overfished or when overfishing is occurring.  This analysis is presented in the EA for Amendment 6 (see ADDRESSES).
        In June 2001, the Council and its Scientific and Statistical Committee reviewed the revised preferred alternative.  The Council concurred that the revised preferred alternative is consistent with the alternative recommended by the Council in June 1998 in that it is consistent with State policies.
        The Director of the AFSC, NMFS, has certified without reservation that the proposed definitions of overfishing: (1) Have sufficient scientific merit; (2) contain the criteria for stock determination specified in 50 CFR 600.305 (d)(2);  (3) provide a basis for objective measurement of the status of the stock against the criteria; and (4) are operationally feasible.
        Through the Salmon FMP, the Council intends to conserve and manage the salmon resources in the North Pacific Ocean and to allow the fisheries in State and EEZ waters to be managed as one fishery.  Regulations for the Alaska salmon fishery are made by the Alaska Board of Fisheries (Board) consistent with State and Federal laws and with negotiated agreements of the PSC.  ADF&G manages the fishery inseason and issues emergency regulations to achieve conservation objectives and to implement allocation policies established by the Board.

        The SEAK troll fishery is a mixed-stock, mixed-species fishery that primarily targets chinook and coho salmon, with pink salmon (O. gorbuscha), chum salmon (O. keta), and sockeye salmon (O. nerka) taken incidentally.  The catch in this fishery represents approximately 6 percent of the total chinook and coho salmon landed by all salmon fisheries in Southeast Alaska (1991-1996 average).  This fishery harvests less than 1 percent of the total harvest of pink, chum, and sockeye salmon occurring in Southeast waters.  The chinook salmon originate in the waters of British Columbia and the coho salmon originate mainly in Alaska waters.  The chinook salmon stocks that originate in Canada or pass through U.S-Canada boundaries are managed by the PSC under the Pacific Salmon Treaty.
        Amendment 6 would amend the Salmon FMP by providing overfishing definitions, consistent with the national standard guidelines and the FMP’s policy of Federal/State coordination.  The overfishing definitions are based on State salmon management and the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

        The State manages Alaska's salmon fisheries to achieve MSY, to the extent possible, by maintaining a constant level of escapement on an annual basis regardless of run strength.  The achievement of MSY requires a high degree of management precision and scientific information regarding the relationship between escapement and subsequent return.  Escapement targets for major stocks of Alaska salmon are continuously evaluated based on new data and improved spawner-recruit databases.  To this end, the State aggressively pursues the further development of escapement enumeration programs, inseason fishery management programs, and scientific methods to determine escapement levels that produce MSY.  In situations where the State lacks the necessary management program and scientific information to manage for MSY, fishery management measures are adopted to ensure that harvests are sustainable.
        The Pacific Salmon Treaty defines overfishing as fishing patterns that result in escapements significantly less than those required to produce MSY.  The overfishing definition notwithstanding, management agencies recognize that failure to meet spawner escapements also may result from mortality unrelated to fishing and that fishery management actions alone may not adequately address the situation.
        The overfishing definitions proposed in Amendment 6 separate the salmon stocks caught in the SEAK EEZ into three tiers.  The status determination criteria that are specified for the chinook and coho stocks serve as the criteria for the stock complex caught by the fishery.  Tier 1 is chinook salmon stocks covered by the Pacific Salmon Treaty.  The Pacific Salmon Treaty specifies a harvest based on a relationship between a pre-season abundance index generated by the PSC’s Chinook Technical Committee and a harvest control rule specified in the Treaty.  The Pacific Salmon Treaty also provides for an inseason adjustment to the harvest level based on an assessment of inseason data.  In addition, decreases in the allowable catch are triggered by conservation concerns of specific stock groups.  This abundance-based system reduces the risk of overharvest at low stock abundance while allowing increases in harvest with increases in abundance, as with the management of the other salmon fisheries in Alaska.
        Tier 2 and Tier 3 are salmon stocks that originate mainly in Alaska waters managed by the Board and ADF&G.  Tier 2 are coho salmon stocks.  Tier 3 stocks are coho, pink, chum, and sockeye salmon stocks managed as mixed-species complexes, with coho salmon stocks as indicator stocks.
        The overfishing definitions for Tiers 2 and 3 are based on the State’s escapement goal policy.  The coho salmon catch is managed to provide sustained yield of the many Alaska coho salmon stocks present in the area while minimizing the catch of chinook salmon during chinook salmon non-retention periods.  ADF&G monitors all coho salmon fisheries to determine if the number of coho salmon reaching inside areas will be adequate to provide for spawning requirements.  ADF&G closes the fisheries by emergency order if the escapement goals are not being met.  Management of coho salmon is based on aggregate abundance because information on the status of the many coho salmon stocks in Southeast Alaska is limited and the lack of a general coho salmon stock identification technique prevents the assessment of run strength of individual stock groups contributing to these mixed-stock fisheries.  Therefore, information available on individual coho salmon indicator stocks is considered in management actions.

        The Council and NMFS prepared an EA for Amendment 6 that describes the management background, the purpose and need for action, the management action alternatives, and the environmental and the socio-economic impacts of the alternatives.  A copy of the EA can be obtained from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

        NMFS will consider the public comments received during the comment period in determining whether to approve Amendment 6 to the Salmon FMP.  To be considered, a comment must be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period (see DATES), regardless of the comment’s postmark or transmission date.

          Dated:  Dated: September 28, 2001.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-25038 Filed 10-4-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0080]
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear Impact Guards, Rear Impact Protection

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

          ACTION:
          Grant of petition for rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          By initiating rulemaking to consider enhancing related safety standards, this notice grants the part of the petition for rulemaking submitted by Ms. Marianne Karth and the Truck Safety Coalition (Petitioners) requesting that the agency improve the safety of rear impact (underride) guards on trailers and single unit trucks. Based on the petition, available information, and the agency's analysis in progress, NHTSA has decided that the Petitioners' request related to rear impact guards merits further consideration. Therefore, the agency grants the Petitioners' request to initiate rulemaking on rear impact guards. NHTSA is planning on issuing two separate notices—an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking pertaining to rear impact guards and other safety strategies for single unit trucks, and a notice of proposed rulemaking focusing on rear impact guards on trailers and semitrailers. NHTSA is still evaluating the Petitioners' request to improve side guards and front override guards and will issue a separate decision on those aspects of the petition at a later date.

          DATES:
          The Petitioners' request to initiate rulemaking on rear impact guards on trailers and single unit trucks is granted on July 10, 2014.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            For non-legal issues: Mr. Robert Mazurowski, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-1012). Mr. Mazurowski's fax number is: (202) 493-2990.

            For legal issues: Mr. Ryan Hagen, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-2992). Mr. Hagen's fax number is: (202) 366-3820.
          Background and Summary of Petition
          On September 12, 2013, Ms. Karth and members of the Truck Safety Coalition (Petitioners) met with the Secretary of Transportation to discuss their petition for rulemaking on truck safety issues. The Petitioners requested a standard requiring improved underride guards be issued, and that the Department of Transportation begin studies and rulemakings for side guards and front override guards.
          In additional correspondence from the Petitioners to the Department of Transportation following the meeting, the Petitioners stated that if the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for rear underride guards were amended to be equivalent to Canadian motor vehicle safety standards, injuries and fatalities could be avoided. Moreover, the Petitioners stated that all trucks and trailers should be required to be equipped with energy absorbing rear impact guards mounted 16 inches from the ground with vertical supports mounted 18 inches from the side edges.
          On May 5, 2014, the Petitioners presented the Secretary of Transportation with more than 11,000 identical petitions from members of the public, again requesting the initiation of a rulemaking on rear impact guards. In particular, the Petitioners requested that the Department adopt a requirement for improved rear impact guards and that the Department begin the process of improving side guards and front override guards.1

              1 In their petition, the Petitioners also requested that the Department raise the minimum insurance liability limits that truck drivers are required to carry and take certain actions to improve enforcement of hours of service limits and reduce truck driver fatigue, both of which are actions under the jurisdiction of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), not NHTSA. Consequently, these two requests are not addressed in this notice, which is not intended to either grant or deny the petitioners request on these two actions.

          Documents exchanged between the Petitioners and NHTSA in regard to this petition can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by entering docket number NHTSA-2014-0063.
           Agency Analysis and Decision
          The aspects of the petition that fall within NHTSA's authority relate to U.S. rear impact guards, side guards, and front override guards.2
             NHTSA is granting the Petitioners' request with respect to rear impact guards and will initiate rulemakings on this issue. NHTSA is still evaluating the Petitioners' request to improve side guards and front override guards and will issue a separate decision on those aspects of the petitions at a later date.

              2 We note that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the National Transportation Safety Board requested some of the same amendments to rear impact guards as the Petitioners.

          The standards for rear impact protection that NHTSA will consider in its rulemaking are FMVSS No. 223, Rear Impact Guards, and FMVSS No. 224, Rear Impact Protection.
            3
             FMVSS No. 223 specifies equipment requirements for rear impact guards for trailers and semitrailers. FMVSS No. 224 specifies requirements for the installation of rear impact guards for trailers and semitrailers.

              3 49 CFR 571.223; 571.224.

          The major difference between the Canadian motor vehicle safety standard for rear impact protection (No. 223) on trailers and the relevant FMVSSs is that Canadian underride guards are required to meet higher strength and energy absorption requirements than U.S. underride guards.
          As part of its analysis of the petition, NHTSA reviewed recent research it conducted on rear impact protection and rear underride occurrences. Specifically, NHTSA considered a 2013 University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) report, a 2012 UMTRI report, a 2011 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety report on rear impact protection, and a 2002 Transport Canada report. The data and analysis in these reports indicate that amending the FMVSSs pertaining to rear impact protection could potentially improve the safety of light duty vehicles underriding trailers in rear end crashes.
          As part of its rulemaking effort, NHTSA will take into account currently available data and seek additional information from the public, including Canadian officials. The agency plans to pursue rulemaking through two separate notices on distinct applications of rear impact protection. The first notice would be an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking pertaining to rear impact guards for single unit trucks and other safety strategies not currently applicable to single unit trucks. The second notice would be a notice of proposed rulemaking focusing on rear impact guards for trailers and semitrailers.
          The agency notes that its granting of the petition submitted by Ms. Karth and the Truck Safety Coalition does not prejudge the outcome of the rulemaking or necessarily mean that a final rule will be issued. The determination of whether to issue a rule will be made after study of the requested action and the various alternatives in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30162, 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95, 49 CFR Part 552.

            David M. Hines,
            Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 2014-16018 Filed 7-9-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P