        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 64
        [CG Docket No. 03-123; FCC 14-125]
        Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Waiver of iTRS Mandatory Minimum Standards

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Commission issues a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) seeking comment on amending the definition of Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) in the Commission's rules to conform to changes made to this definition by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), which allows compensation for TRS calls between two or more individuals with disabilities. The Commission also seeks comment on eliminating as a mandatory minimum standard the requirement that TRS providers provide voice-carry-over to voice-carry-over (VCO-to-VCO) and hearing-carry-over to hearing-carry-over (HCO-to-HCO), subject to exceptions for Captioned Telephone Service (CTS) and Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS), as HCO-to-HCO and VCO-to-VCO calls would not require a communications assistant (CA) to provide functionally equivalent communication. These proposals are made to ensure that the intent of Congress in enacting the CVAA is implemented and that the mandatory minimum standards imposed for TRS are applicable and appropriate for each type of TRS to which they are applied.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before November 20, 2014, and reply comments on or before December 22, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 03-123, by any of the following methods:

            Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and CG Docket No. 03-123.

          • Paper filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

          • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
          • Commercial Mail sent by 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, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

           In addition, parties must serve one copy of each pleading with the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, or via email to fcc@bcpiweb.com.

          For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Eliot Greenwald, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (202) 418-2235 or email Eliot.Greenwald@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Waiver of iTRS Mandatory Minimum Standards, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), document FCC 14-125, adopted on August 20, 2014, and released on August 22, 2014, in CG Docket No. 03-123. In document FCC 14-125, the Commission also adopted an accompanying Report and Order and Order, which are summarized in a separate Federal Register Publication. The full text of document FCC 14-125 will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (800) 378-3160, fax: (202) 488-5563, or Internet: www.bcpiweb.com. Document FCC 14-125 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/disability-rights-office-headlines. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

        This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule § 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
        Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

        Document FCC 14-125 does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
        Synopsis
        1. Telecommunications Relay Services. Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires the Commission to ensure that TRS is available to enable a person with a hearing or speech disability to communicate with other telephone users in a manner that is functionally equivalent to voice communications service to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner. In accordance with this directive, the Commission's rules contain functional requirements, operations procedures and mandatory minimum standards to ensure the provision of functionally equivalent relay service. See 47 CFR 64.604. Many of these standards were adopted in the 1990s, at a time when there was only one form of TRS transmitted over the public switched telephone network (PSTN)—TTY-to-voice relay service. A text telephone, or TTY, is a text device that employs graphic communication in the transmission of coded signals through a wire or radio communication system. In a TTY-to-voice relay call, a communications assistant (CA) relays the call between parties by converting everything that the text caller with a hearing or speech disability types into voice for the hearing party and typing everything that the voice user responds back to the person with a disability. From 2000 to 2007, in light of advancing communication technologies and Internet-based innovations, the Commission recognized other forms of TRS as eligible for compensation from the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund (TRS Fund or Fund), including three forms of Internet-based TRS (iTRS): Video Relay Service (VRS), Internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay), and Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS). Today iTRS account for more than 90% of the total relay service minutes reimbursed from the Fund.

        2. In this document, the Commission seeks comment on a proposed amendment to the definition of TRS contained in the Commission's rules, to conform to changes made to this definition in the CVAA, which allows compensation for TRS calls between two or more individuals with disabilities. The proposed amendment would allow such calls, including those whose handling may require more than one CA. The Commission's mandatory minimum standards are intended to ensure that the user experience when making TRS calls is comparable to a voice user's experience when making conventional telephone calls. The Commission also seeks comment on eliminating the mandatory minimum standard requiring TRS providers to provide HCO-to-HCO and VCO-to-VCO. With VCO, a deaf or hard of hearing person who is able to speak communicates by voice directly to the other party to the call without intervention by the CA, and the CA relays the other party's voice response as text or in sign language. See generally 47 CFR 64.601(a)(42) (defining VCO in the context of TTY-based relay service). With HCO, a person who has a speech disability, but who is able to hear, listens directly to the other party's voice without intervention by the CA, and in reply has the CA convert his or her typed or signed responses into voice See generally 47 CFR 64.601(a)(13) (defining HCO in the context of TTY-based relay service).
        3. Proposed amendment to the definition of TRS. As originally drafted, section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), defined TRS as a telecommunication service between a person with a hearing or speech disability and a “hearing” individual. This definition, adopted when there was only one type of relay service (TTY-to-voice), generally did not allow compensation for calls between and among two or more persons with a disability when no hearing person was a party to the call.
        4. Section 103(a)(3) of the CVAA amended section 225 of the Act to make clear that TRS are intended to enable people who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or who have a speech disability to communicate by telephone (wire or radio) with any individual, removing the specification that such individual be hearing. Specifically, the new definition states:

          The term “telecommunications relay services” means telephone transmission services that provide the ability for an individual who is deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or who has a speech disability to engage in communication by wire or radio with one or more individuals, in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of a hearing individual who does not have a speech disability to communicate using voice communication services by wire or radio.

        47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3).

        5. Congressional guidance on the amended definition recognizes that there are many different forms of relay services and that there may be times when two or more individuals using different types of TRS may need to communicate with each other, even when a hearing person is not a party to the call. Specifically, the Senate and House Reports on the CVAA explain that in addition to defining TRS as the ability of a person who is deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind or has a speech disability to use TRS to communicate with hearing individuals, these services may be used where individuals with disabilities need to communicate with other relay users with disabilities, where necessary to achieve functionally equivalent communication. This will be the case, for example, when two or more individuals to a call each have disabilities, but use different types of relay services, depending on their communication needs. In order for communication between or among such individuals to be achieved, more than one type of relay service may be needed to complete the call.
        6. In accordance with the CVAA and its legislative history, the Commission proposes to amend the definition of TRS in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR 64.601(a)(32) to conform to the definition adopted in the CVAA. Additionally, in accordance with the revised definition, the Commission tentatively concludes that the proposed new rule will allow compensation from the TRS Fund for relay calls involving two or more persons using different forms of relay services, including calls whose handling may require more than one CA. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.

        7. With the exception of CTS and IP CTS, the Commission emphasizes that the proposed changes, if adopted, will not permit compensation from the TRS Fund for relay calls involving two or more persons using the same type of relay service, which in effect would be a form of point-to-point communications. In other words, although multiple CA calls may be necessary to facilitate TRS communication between and among individuals using different forms of TRS, compensation is not appropriate for TRS calls in which a CA is not needed to relay service between users. The exceptions to this prohibition are calls between two CTS or two IP CTS users, or a CTS user to IP CTS user, because each CTS user currently must communicate through his or her own CA, who re-voices what the other party says to that user.
        8. HCO-to-HCO and VCO-to-VCO. The Commission's rules currently require all TRS providers to provide VCO-to-VCO and HCO-to-HCO. The Commission believes that it should not have minimum standards mandating the provision of HCO-to-HCO and VCO-to-VCO calls by TRS providers. Specifically, under the Commission's rules, in order for two individuals to use VCO or HCO on the same call, both people to the call would have to be able to speak and hear what the other party is saying. This means that a CA would not be necessary to provide functionally equivalent communication during either type of call. The exceptions to this are when a CTS or IP CTS user calls another CTS or IP CTS user, which is essentially a way of completing an enhanced VCO-to-VCO call, and for which the use of multiple CAs has been permitted (though not mandated) by the Commission for compensation because of its specific function. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to amend § 64.604(a)(3)(v) of its rules to remove as a mandatory minimum standard the requirement that TRS providers provide VCO-to-VCO and HCO-to-HCO, subject to the exceptions for CTS and IP CTS. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
        9. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in document FCC 14-125. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments in document FCC 14-125. The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 14-125, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

        10. In document FCC 14-125, the Commission initiates a further review relating to TRS in response to section 103(a)(3) of the CVAA, which amended the definition of TRS in section 225(a)(3) of the Act. The objective of this proceeding is to amend the Commission's rule defining TRS to conform to the statutory definition of TRS. The Commission also seeks comment on whether, under the revised definition of TRS, providers may be compensated from the TRS Fund for communication among TRS users using multiple forms of TRS.
        11. Document FCC 14-125 seeks comment on (1) whether the Commission should revise the definition of TRS found in § 64.601 of its rules to conform to the amended definition of TRS included in section 225 of the Act; (2) the compensability of calls between two or more individuals with disabilities using TRS, even when a hearing person is not on the call; (3) the compensability of TRS calls that require multiple CAs to provide functionally equivalent communication; and (4) whether the Commission should amend § 64.604(a)(3)(v) of the Commission's rules to remove the mandatory minimum standard requiring TRS providers to provide VCO-to-VCO and HCO-to-HCO.
        12. Legal Basis. The authority for this proposed rulemaking is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 225.
        13. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
        14. TRS Providers. These services can be included within the broad economic categories of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers and All Other Telecommunications. Nine providers currently receive compensation from the TRS Fund for providing VRS, IP Relay, IP CTS and CTS: ASL Services Holdings, LLC (ASL Services) (VRS); AT&T Inc. (AT&T) (CTS); CSDVRS, LLC (CSDVRS) (VRS); Convo Communications, LLC (Convo) (VRS); Hamilton Relay, Inc. (Hamilton) (IP CTS and CTS); Hancock, Jahn, Lee and Puckett, LLC d/b/a “Communications Axess Ability Group” (CAAG) (VRS); Kansas Relay Service, Inc. (Kansas Relay) (CTS); Purple Communications, Inc. (Purple) (VRS, IP Relay and IP CTS); Sorenson Communications, Inc. (Sorenson) (VRS and IP CTS); and Sprint Corporation (Sprint) (IP Relay, IP CTS and CTS).
        15. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.” In analyzing whether a substantial number of small entities would be affected by the requirements proposed in document FCC 14-125, the Commission notes that the SBA has developed the small business size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. TRS providers AT&T and Sprint can be included within the broad economic census category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers. Under this category and the associated small business size standard, AT&T and Sprint cannot be considered small.
        16. All Other Telecommunications. All Other Telecommunications is defined as follows: “This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services . . . . Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.” In analyzing whether a substantial number of small entities would be affected by the requirements proposed in document FCC 14-125, the Commission notes that the SBA has developed a small business size standard for All Other Telecommunications, which consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $30 million or less. TRS providers ASL Services, CSDVRS, Convo, Hamilton, CAAG, Kansas Relay, Purple, and Sorenson can be included within the broad economic census category of All Other Telecommunications. Under this category and the associated small business size standard, approximately half of these eight providers can be considered small.
        17. Certain rule changes proposed in document FCC 14-125, if adopted by the Commission, would modify rules or add requirements governing reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance obligations.
        18. If the Commission were to revise the definition of TRS found in § 64.601 of its rules to conform to the amended definition of TRS included in section 225 of the Act, such a rule may impose new compliance obligations on TRS providers. If the Commission were to conclude that the revised definition of TRS allowed for compensation from the TRS Fund of calls between two or more individuals with disabilities using TRS, even when a hearing person is not on the call and even when TRS calls require multiple CAs to provide functionally equivalent communication, the Commission notes that all providers potentially affected by the proposed rules, including those deemed to be small entities under the SBA's standard, would benefit because they would be eligible for compensation for additional types of TRS calls. If the Commission were to revise § 64.604(a)(3)(v) of its rules to remove the mandatory minimum standard requiring TRS providers to provide VCO-to-VCO and HCO-to-HCO, the Commission notes that all providers potentially affected by the proposed rule, including those deemed to be small entities under the SBA's standard, would benefit because they would no longer be required to provide VCO-to-VCO and HCO-to-HCO.
        19. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

        20. If the Commission were to revise the definition of TRS found in § 64.601 of its rules to conform to the amended definition of TRS included in section 225 of the Act and conclude that the revised definition of TRS allowed for compensation from the TRS Fund of calls between two or more individuals with disabilities using TRS, even when a hearing person is not on the call and even when TRS calls require multiple CAs to provide functionally equivalent communication, such regulations may impose new compliance obligations on TRS providers. However, allowing providers to be compensated for additional types of TRS calls may benefit certain small entities by increasing the types of TRS calls for which they may seek compensation. In determining whether to revise the definition of TRS in § 64.601 of the Commission's rules and the compensability of additional types of calls, the Commission will consider the costs and benefits of such a revision while keeping in mind the statutory requirements. Additionally, if the Commission were to amend § 64.604(a)(3)(v) of its rules to remove the mandatory minimum standard requiring TRS providers to provide VCO-to-VCO and HCO-to-HCO, such regulations would remove current compliance obligations and would not impose new compliance obligations on TRS providers.
        21. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the Commission's Proposals. None.
        Ordering Clauses

        Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 225, document FCC 14-125 is adopted.

        The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of document FCC 14-125 including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
          Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

          PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

        1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless otherwise noted.

        2. Amend § 64.601 by revising paragraph (a)(32) to read as follows:

          § 64.601
          Definitions and provisions of general applicability.
          (a) * * *
          (32) Telecommunications relay services (TRS). Telephone transmission services that provide the ability for an individual who is deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or who has a speech disability to engage in communication by wire or radio with one or more individuals, in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of a hearing individual who does not have a speech disability to communicate using voice communication services by wire or radio.

        3. Amend § 64.604 by revising paragraph (a)(3)(v) to read as follows:

          § 64.604
          Mandatory minimum standards.

          (a) * * *
          (3) * * *
          (v) TRS providers are required to provide the following types of TRS calls:
          (A) Text-to-voice and voice-to-text;
          (B) One-line VCO, two-line VCO, and VCO-to-TTY; and
          (C) One-line HCO, two-line HCO, and HCO-to-TTY. VRS providers are not required to provide text-to-voice and voice-to-text functionality. IP Relay providers are not required to provide one-line VCO and one-line HCO. IP Relay providers and VRS providers are not required to provide VCO-to-TTY and HCO-to-TTY. Captioned telephone service providers and IP CTS providers are not required to provide:
          (1) Text-to-voice functionality; and
          (2) One-line HCO, two-line HCO, and HCO-to-TTY. IP CTS providers are not required to provide one-line VCO.

      [FR Doc. 2014-24533 Filed 10-20-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 120416010-2119-01]
        RIN 0648-BB84
        Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; Revised Limits on Sea Turtle Interactions in the Hawaii Shallow-Set Longline Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to revise the annual number of allowable incidental interactions that may occur between the Hawaii-based shallow-set pelagic longline fishery and leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles. NMFS also proposes administrative housekeeping changes to the regulations relating to the shallow-set longline fishery. The proposed rule would implement terms and conditions of the current biological opinion on this fishery, and clarify the regulations.

          DATES:
          NMFS must receive comments on the proposed rule by July 11, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may send comments on the proposed rule, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0068, to either of the following addresses:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov; or
          • Mail: Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700.

            Instructions: You must send any comments to one of the above two addresses to ensure that NMFS receives, documents, and considers the comments. Comments sent to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and NMFS will generally post them to www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the commenter may 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 name and organization fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          A biological opinion issued under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and a regulatory impact review issued under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) provide background information on this proposed rule. You may view these documents and other supporting documentation at www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Adam Bailey, Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2248.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Hawaii-based shallow-set pelagic longline fishery (the “shallow-set fishery”) primarily targets swordfish on the high seas of the North Pacific Ocean. The fishery is governed by a limited access program, vessel and gear marking requirements, vessel length restrictions, Federal catch and effort logbooks, 100-percent observer coverage, large longline restricted areas around the Hawaiian Archipelago, vessel monitoring system, annual protected species workshops, and the use of sea turtle, seabird, and marine mammal handling and mitigation gear and techniques. NMFS may issue a maximum of 164 longline permits, and about 25-30 vessels are active in the shallow-set fishery in any given year.
        The fishery interacts incidentally with protected species, primarily leatherback and North Pacific loggerhead sea turtles. Pelagic fisheries in the U.S. western Pacific are managed under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. NMFS established sea turtle conservation and management measures for the shallow-set fishery in 2004 (69 FR 17329, April 2, 2004), as recommended by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council). NMFS allowed the fishery to interact with (hook or entangle) up to 16 leatherback and 17 loggerhead sea turtles. The annual interaction limits directly reduce the impacts of the fishery on sea turtles.
        NMFS has modified the annual interaction limits several times in response to new information or by court order. Most recently, in 2009, three environmental groups filed a lawsuit against NMFS (Turtle Island Restoration Network, et al., v. Department of Commerce, et al., and Hawaii Longline Association, Civil No. 09-00598 DAE (D. HI)) challenging a 2008 biological opinion that changed the interaction limit for loggerhead sea turtles. Under a consent decree approving settlement in 2011, the U.S. District Court (among other directions) ordered NMFS to issue a new biological opinion for the shallow-set fishery. The District Court also ordered NMFS, pending completion of the biological opinion, to reinstate the annual interaction limit for loggerhead turtles to the 2004 limits established under the regulations published at 69 FR 17329 (April 2, 2004). NMFS revised the limit, and the current regulations reflect the Court-ordered annual interaction limits of 16 leatherbacks and 17 loggerheads (76 FR 13297, March 11, 2011). If the fishery reaches either limit, NMFS closes the fishery for the remainder of the calendar year.

        As required by the January 2011 Court order, NMFS completed an evaluation of the impacts of the continued operation of the shallow-set fishery, as governed under the current suite of management measures, on marine species protected by the ESA (humpback whales, North Pacific loggerhead sea turtle distinct population segment (DPS), leatherback sea turtles, olive ridley sea turtles, and green sea turtles), and issued a biological opinion on January 30, 2012 (2012 biological opinion). In this opinion, NMFS concluded that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence (survival and recovery) of these five species, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. The 2012 biological opinion, including the incidental take statement, reasonable and prudent management measures, and terms and conditions are available for review at www.regulations.gov.

        The 2012 biological opinion is an integral component to managing the shallow-set fishery because the one-year incidental take statement forms the basis for regulations that specify the annual limit on leatherback and North Pacific loggerhead sea turtle interactions with the shallow-set fishery.
        Proposed Action

        Based on the best available information and analyses of impacts to protected species in the 2012 biological opinion, NMFS proposes to revise the annual limit on incidental interactions that may occur between the Hawaii-based shallow-set pelagic longline fishery and leatherback and North Pacific loggerhead sea turtles to 26 and 34 interactions, respectively. If the fishery reaches either of the interaction limits in a given year, NMFS would close the fishery for the remainder of that year. The revised limits are consistent with the anticipated and authorized interactions identified in the 2012 biological opinion, and are necessary to manage the impacts of the fishery on sea turtles.
        Administrative Housekeeping Changes
        NMFS also proposes to make minor housekeeping changes to the shallow-set longline regulations for clarity and consistency in terminology. NMFS would revise all references to the “shallow-set component of the longline fishery” to read more simply the “shallow-set longline fishery.” The sections of Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations that contain the proposed change include § 665.802 paragraphs (ss) and (tt), and § 665.813 paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii), and paragraph (i).
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Pelagics FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        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 action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and not repeated here.
        The proposed rule would revise the annual number of incidental interactions that may occur between the Hawaii-based shallow-set pelagic longline fishery (shallow-set fishery) and leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles. The proposed rule would also make administrative housekeeping changes to the longline regulations for clarity and consistency of terminology. The intent of the proposed rule is to implement terms and conditions of the current biological opinion on this fishery, and clarify the regulations.
        On January 30, 2012, NMFS issued a no-jeopardy biological opinion (2012 biological opinion) after evaluating the best available scientific and commercial information. The biological opinion's incidental take statement (ITS) anticipates that the fishery will take up to 26 leatherback and 34 North Pacific loggerhead sea turtles. These incidental interaction limits are higher than the current allowable interaction limits established pursuant to a court order at 16 leatherback and 17 loggerhead sea turtles, and NMFS proposes to revise the applicable annual interaction limits in regulations to be consistent with the 2012 biological opinion. If the shallow-set fishery reaches either limit, NMFS would close the fishery for the remainder of the year as required by current regulations.
        NMFS believes that all potential shallow-set fishery participants are considered small entities. As of March 2012, 132 vessels held Hawaii longline limited entry permits and each is considered a potential participant in the shallow-set fishery. The number of vessels participating in the shallow-set fishery each year from 2006-2011 varied from 20 to the mid-30s; these vessels may participate in the deep-set fishery each year, too. In 2011, fishermen made about 82 shallow-set trips, about 32 fewer trips than in 2010. Preliminary data for 2011, based on the date fishing gear was retrieved, show that shallow-set fishermen conducted 1,468 sets, and retained 14,476 swordfish, weighing 2,046,906 pounds. They also kept 2,480 albacore, 5,681 mahimahi, and 1,999 oilfish.
        By raising the sea turtle interaction limits consistent with determinations based on the best available scientific and commercial data in the 2012 biological opinion, the shallow-set fishery would be less likely to reach the annual limit on interactions during the fishing year and more likely to be able to continue fishing using shallow-set gear throughout the year. Compared with current sea turtle interaction limits, the proposed action provides greater fishing opportunities for longline fishermen participating or potentially participating in the shallow-set fishery. There could be increased likelihood of fishing with shallow-set gear throughout the year and, thereby, increasing swordfish and other landings for those fishermen who predominately fish using shallow-set gear. The proposed action would also allow fishermen who primarily fish using deep-set gear greater flexibility to opt into the shallow-set fishery for a greater part of the year. In addition, the proposed action would reduce the uncertainty regarding the potential for an earlier closure of the shallow-set fishery, and allow more operational certainty regarding where, when, and how to fish, especially in the presence of other unforeseen operational issues such as fluctuating fuel costs.
        The proposed action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, either through a significant loss in landings or expenses incurred, as it potentially expands the opportunity for longline fishermen to participate in the shallow-set fishery through a greater part of the year.
        Because this proposed action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        In 2008, as part of the process to develop Amendment 18 to the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region, Modifications for the Hawaii-based Shallow-set Longline Swordfish Fishery, the Council developed several recommendations for management measures that, consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), would enable the shallow-set fishery to achieve optimum yield in the North Pacific swordfish fishery, without jeopardizing protected species, including sea turtles. These recommendations included, among other proposed actions, revising the loggerhead turtle interaction limit to 46, and maintaining the leatherback turtle interaction limit of 16 (74 FR 65460, December 10, 2019), corrected at 75 FR 1023, January 8, 2010).
        Amendment 18 included a final supplemental environmental impact statement (2009 FSEIS) that analyzed, among other proposed actions, the potential environmental impact of increasing the number of allowable incidental interactions between the shallow-set fishery and leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles. Based on that analysis, NMFS determined in a Record of Decision on June 17, 2009, that Amendment 18 provided additional opportunities for Hawaii-based shallow-set longline fishermen to fish for swordfish, while not creating adverse conservation and recovery impacts on leatherback or loggerhead sea turtles.

        Since completion of the 2009 FSEIS, there is new information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on Amendment 18 and its impacts, including (1) the classification and listing of the North Pacific loggerhead sea turtle DPS as endangered, and the no-jeopardy 2012 biological opinion, (2) a scientific paper on two population viability assessment models for leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles, (3) four interactions with green sea turtles in 2011, (4) a scientific paper on the spillover effect for sea turtles resulting from the regulatory measures for the shallow-set fishery, and (5) a no-jeopardy biological opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the impacts of the shallow-set fishery on short-tailed albatross.

        In light of this new information, NMFS has evaluated whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires supplementation of the 2009 FSEIS. NMFS has determined that this proposed rule does not represent a substantial change to the action as previously analyzed. NMFS has further determined that there are no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the implementation of revised incidental interaction limits. A supplement to the 2009 FSEIS is, therefore, not required under NEPA. You may view the Record of Environmental Consideration at www.regulations.gov (see ADDRESSES).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665
          Administrative practice and procedure, Fisheries, Fishing, Hawaii, Longline, Sea turtles.

          Dated: June 5, 2012.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 665 is proposed to be amended 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 § 665.802, revise paragraphs (ss) and (tt) to read as follows:

            § 665.802
            Prohibitions.

            (ss) Engage in shallow-setting from a vessel registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit after the shallow-set longline fishery has been closed pursuant to § 665.813(b), in violation of § 665.813(i).
            (tt) Fail to immediately retrieve longline fishing gear upon receipt of actual notice that the shallow-set longline fishery has been closed pursuant to § 665.813(b), in violation of § 665.813(i).

            3. In § 665.813, revise paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii), and paragraph (i) to read as follows:

            § 665.813
            Western Pacific longline fishing restrictions.

            (b) * * *

            (1) Maximum annual limits are established on the number of physical interactions that occur each calendar year between leatherback and North Pacific loggerhead sea turtles and vessels registered for use under Hawaii longline limited access permits while shallow-setting. The annual limit for leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) is 26, and the annual limit for North Pacific loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) is 34.
            (2) Upon determination by the Regional Administrator that, based on data from NMFS observers, the fishery has reached either of the two sea turtle interaction limits during a given calendar year:
            (i) As soon as practicable, the Regional Administrator will file for publication at the Office of the Federal Register a notification that the fishery reached a sea turtle interaction limit. The notification will include an advisement that the shallow-set longline fishery shall be closed, and that shallow-set longline fishing north of the Equator by vessels registered for use under Hawaii longline limited access permits will be prohibited beginning at a specified date until the end of the calendar year in which the sea turtle interaction limit was reached. Coincidental with the filing of the notification, the Regional Administrator will also provide actual notice that the shallow-set longline fishery shall be closed, and that shallow-set longline fishing north of the Equator by vessels registered for use under Hawaii longline limited access permits will be prohibited beginning at a specified date, to all holders of Hawaii longline limited access permits via telephone, satellite telephone, radio, electronic mail, facsimile transmission, or post.

            (ii) Beginning on the fishery closure date indicated by the Regional Administrator in the notification provided to vessel operators and permit holders and published in the Federal Register under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, until the end of the calendar year in which the sea turtle interaction limit was reached, the Hawaii-based shallow-set longline fishery shall be closed.

            (i) Vessels registered for use under Hawaii longline limited access permits may not be used to engage in shallow-setting north of the Equator (0° lat.) any time during which the shallow-set longline fishery is closed pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section.

      [FR Doc. 2012-14136 Filed 6-8-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 170713663-7663-01]
        RIN 0648-BH04
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes revised longfin squid, Illex squid, and butterfish specifications for the 2018 fishing year and projected specifications for fishing years 2019 and 2020. NMFS previously set specifications for Atlantic mackerel for three years in 2016 (2016-2018) and, therefore, new Atlantic mackerel specifications will not be included in this year's specification rulemaking. This action is necessary to specify catch levels for the squid and butterfish fisheries based upon updated information on stock status. These proposed and projected specifications are intended to promote the sustainable utilization and conservation of the squid and butterfish resources.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received by January 12, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, including the Environmental Assessment (EA), the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis are available from: Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901, telephone (302) 674-2331. The EA/RIR/RFA analysis is also accessible via the internet at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0089.

          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0089, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0089, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on 2018 MSB Specifications.”
          • Fax: 978-281-9135; Attn: Douglas Christel.

            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:
          Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9141, fax (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        This rule proposes specifications, which are the combined suite of commercial and recreational catch levels established for one or more fishing years. Section 302(g)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act states that the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) for each regional fishery management council shall provide its Council ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for acceptable biological catch (ABC), preventing overfishing, ensuring maximum sustainable yield, and achieving rebuilding targets. The ABC is a level of catch that accounts for the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of the stock's defined overfishing level (OFL).
        The regulations implementing the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) require the Council's Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Monitoring Committee to develop specification recommendations for each species based upon the ABC advice of the Council's SSC. The FMP regulations also require the specification of annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measure (AM) provisions for butterfish. Both squid species are exempt from the ACL/AM requirements because they have a life cycle of less than one year. In addition, the regulations require the specification of domestic annual harvest (DAH), domestic annual processing (DAP), total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF), joint venture processing (JVP), commercial and recreational annual catch targets (ACT), the butterfish mortality cap in the longfin squid fishery, and initial optimum yield (IOY) for both squid species.

        The Council's SSC met on May 17 and 18, 2017, and the Monitoring Committee met on June 7, 2017, to recommend revised longfin squid, Illex squid, and butterfish specifications for the 2018 and projected specifications for the 2019 and 2020 fishing years. The Council considered the recommendations of the SSC, the Monitoring Committee, and public comments at its June 6-8, 2017, meeting. The Council submitted its recommendations, as summarized below, along with the required analyses, for agency review on August 24, 2017. NMFS must review the Council's recommendations for compliance with the FMP and applicable law, and conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking to propose and implement the final specifications.
        This action does not consider revisions to existing specifications for Atlantic mackerel. On April 26, 2016, we implemented Atlantic mackerel specifications for fishing years 2016-2018 (81 FR 24504). That action implemented a 2018 mackerel ABC of 19,898 mt, an ACL of 11,009 mt, a commercial ACT of 9,294 mt, a commercial DAH of 9,177 mt, and a recreational ACT of 614 mt. A new stock assessment for Atlantic mackerel is expected to be completed as part of Stock Assessment Workshop 64 in November 2017. This will inform updated mackerel specifications starting in fishing year 2019.
        Proposed 2018 and Projected 2019-2020 Illex Squid Specifications

          Table 1—Proposed 2018 and Projected 2019 and 2020 Illex Squid Specifications in Metric Ton (mt)

            OFL
            Unknown

            ABC
            24,000

            IOY
            22,915

            DAH/DAP
            22,915

        The Illex squid stock was most recently assessed at the 42nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop in late 2005. The assessment did not generate reliable estimates of stock biomass or fishing mortality. The Northeast Fisheries Science Center conducted a data update for Illex squid in April 2017. The update indicated that abundance continues to be highly variable, but that relative abundance was near the long-term median during 2014-2016. The SSC considered the results of this data update in recommending revised 2018 and projected 2019 and 2020 ABCs. In the absence of an updated stock assessment and the inadequacy of information to determine an OFL and assess the probability of overfishing, the SSC recommended maintaining the status quo ABC of 24,000 mt for 2018 and continuing that for 2019 and 2020. The SSC concluded that landings of 24,000-26,000 mt do not appear to have caused harm to the Illex stock based on trawl survey indices and landings following years in which the fishery landed 24,000-26,000 mt of Illex squid.

        The Council recommended that the ABC be reduced by the status quo discard rate of 4.52 percent, which results in an IOY, DAH, and DAP of 22,915 mt for 2018 that would be maintained for the 2019 and 2020 fishing years. These are the same specifications for the Illex fishery since 2012. The Council will review this decision during its annual specifications process following annual data updates each spring, and may change its recommendations for 2019 or 2020 if new information is available. Consistent with the Council's recommendation, NMFS proposes to specify the Illex ABC as 24,000 mt, and to specify IOY, DAH, and DAP as 22,915 mt for the 2015-2017 fishing years.
        Proposed 2018 and Projected 2019-2020 Longfin Squid Specifications

          Table 2—Proposed 2018 and Projected 2019 and 2020 Longfin Squid Specifications in Metric Tons (mt)

            OFL
            Unknown

            ABC
            23,400

            IOY
            22,932

            DAH/DAP
            22,932

        The most recent longfin squid assessment, the 51st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop published in January 2011, found that the longfin squid stock was not overfished in 2009 based on recent biomass estimates from NMFS surveys. The Workshop concluded that the overfishing status was unknown in 2009 because the short lifespan of longfin squid and the lack of evidence correlating fishing effort with changes in biomass prevented the estimation of a fishing mortality reference point. The SSC considered the results of an April 2017 assessment update for longfin squid, which included more recent fishery dependent and independent information on longfin catch and abundance. Based on that update, the longfin squid stock was not overfished in 2016 because the average swept-area biomass estimates derived from recent surveys were much higher (73,762 mt) than the threshold biomass proxy (21,203 mt) for determining overfished status and the target biomass proxy at maximum sustainable yield (42,205 mt). Thus, the current stock biomass is estimated to be approximately 174 percent of the biomass target. The assessment concluded that the stock is likely lightly exploited because annual catches since 1987 were less than annual biomass and did not result in a multi-year decrease in biomass. Based on the above, the SSC recommended maintaining current levels for another three years, subject to annual review, resulting in a proposed ABC of 23,400 mt for 2018 and projected ABCs for 2019 and 2020. This recommendation corresponds to catch in the year with the highest observed exploitation fraction (catch divided by estimated biomass) during a period of light exploitation (1976-2009), interpreting this level of exploitation to be sustainable over the long term.
        The Council recommended reducing the ABC by an updated discard rate of 2.0 percent derived from the April 2017 assessment update. This discard rate is lower than previous discard rates estimated at 4.08 percent, and reflects the discards observed since 2007, the year in which the current trimester management approach was implemented. Using this updated discard estimate results in a recommended IOY, DAH, and DAP of 22,932 mt for 2018 and the same projected catch levels for 2019 and 2020. Consistent with the Council's recommendation, NMFS proposes an ABC of 23,400 mt, and an IOY, DAH, and DAP of 22,932 mt for 2018 and projects the same catch levels for 2019 and 2020.
        Distribution of the Longfin DAH
        The Council did not recommend any changes to the trimester allocation of the 2018-2020 longfin DAH. Therefore, allocations would remain consistent with the distribution implemented since 2007 according to percentages specified in the FMP, as follows:

          Table 3—Proposed 2018 and Projected 2019-2020 Longfin Quota Trimester Allocations

            Trimester
            Percent
            Metric tons

            I (Jan-Apr)
            43
            9,861

            II (May-Aug)
            17
            3,898

            III (Sep-Dec)
            40
            9,173

        Proposed 2018 and Projected 2019-2020 Butterfish Specifications

          Table 4—Proposed 2018 and Projected 2019-2020 Butterfish Specifications in Metric Tons (mt)

            2018
            2019
            2020

            OFL
            28,628
            37,637
            39,592

            ABC
            17,801
            27,108
            32,063

            Commercial ACT (ABC—management uncertainty buffers for each year)
            16,911
            25,075
            28,857

            DAH (ACT minus butterfish cap and discards)
            12,093
            20,061
            23,752

            Directed Fishery closure limit (DAH—1,000 mt incidental landings buffer)
            11,093
            19,061
            22,752

            Butterfish Cap (in the longfin squid fishery)
            3,884
            3,884
            3,884

        The status of the butterfish stock was last assessed in the 58th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (March 2014), and updated through a March 2017 assessment update. The 2017 assessment update concluded that the stock was neither overfished, nor subject to overfishing. The butterfish stock biomass is estimated to be 64,376 mt, well above the target stock biomass at maximum sustainable yield (45,616 mt). In addition, the fishing mortality rate was estimated to be very low (0.05), well below the overfishing reference point of 0.81. However, trawl survey information suggests that recruitment has been declining in recent years. Due to reduced recruitment, biomass is expected to decline below target levels (45,616 mt) in 2017, but remain above the overfishing threshold (22,808 mt). If recruitment returns to average levels, then the stock is predicted to rebound above the biomass target by 2020.
        The SSC derived OFLs for 2018 and projected OFLs for 2019-2020 by applying estimated natural and fishing mortality to the size of the existing stock, assuming the ABCs are fully harvested each year (see Table 4). However, the SSC noted that the estimated uncertainties from the OFLs derived from the assessment make them unrealistic for setting ABCs. In addition, the SSC was concerned about the declining trend in recruitment from recent trawl surveys, suggesting that catch projections may be overly optimistic. As a result, the SSC recommended an ABC of 17,801 mt in 2018, 27,108 mt in 2019, and 32,063 mt in 2020. The low 2018 ABC is 42 percent below the 2017 ABC and reflects projections using low recruitment estimates from 2016. In contrast, the 2019 and 2020 ABC recommendations are based upon long-term average recruitment. The SSC admitted that these catch levels are very conservative, estimating that the probability of overfishing is very low (8 percent).
        At its June 2017 meeting, the Council adopted the SSC's butterfish ABC recommendations subject to annual review, as required by existing regulations. The Monitoring Committee indicated that discards and landings are adequately controlled under existing measures. Accordingly, the Monitoring Committee and the Council recommended using a lower estimate of management uncertainty when setting ACTs, adopting a 5-percent management uncertainty buffer in 2018, a 7.5-percent buffer in 2019, and maintaining the current 10-percent buffer for 2020. The Council reasoned that there is a lower likelihood of an unexpected change in butterfish discarding in the directed fishery with lower catch levels, allowing for a smaller ACT buffer in 2018 and 2019. This results in a proposed commercial ACT of 12,093 mt in 2018, and proposed ACTs of 25,075 mt in 2019 and 28,857 in 2020.

        To prevent butterfish catch from exceeding the ACT, the Council subtracts butterfish catch in the longfin squid fishery, catch in other fisheries, and discards in the directed fishery. The Council recommended maintaining the butterfish cap for the longfin squid fishery at the 2014 level of 3,884 mt for 2018 and projected maintaining that level for 2019 and 2020. This cap is not constraining on the longfin fishery and reserves most of the available butterfish quota for the directed butterfish fishery. The maximum amount of butterfish discards in non-longfin fisheries from 2011-2013 was 637 mt. The Council did not indicate that there is a need to revise this estimate. Therefore, 4,521 mt (the 3,884-mt butterfish cap plus 637 mt of discards) would be subtracted from the ACT, as recommended. Next, the Council deducts an estimate of butterfish discards in the directed fishery to calculate the DAH (i.e., commercial landings). Previous analysis used an assumed discard rate of 11.4 percent. However, updated analysis using more recent observed trips targeting butterfish (trips that landed over 25,000 lb (9.33 mt) of butterfish) suggests that a discard rate of 2.4 percent is more accurate. Using this updated discard estimate results in a Council-recommended DAH of 12,093 mt in 2018, 20,061 mt in 2019, and 23,752 mt in 2020.
        Current regulations require butterfish specifications to establish a buffer to account for butterfish landings once the directed fishery is closed and a 5,000-lb (2,268-kg) incidental limit is imposed. Based on previous analysis, if such an incidental limit is implemented, less than 700 mt of butterfish would be landed after the directed fishery is closed. Therefore, the Council recommended closing the directed butterfish fishery once 11,093 mt is caught in 2018, 19,061 mt is caught in 2019, and 22,752 is caught in 2020. This would provide a 1,000-mt set aside in each year to account for incidental landings of butterfish after a closure of the directed fishery.
        NMFS proposes specifications, consistent with the Council's recommendations, as outlined in Table 4. Because the Council did not recommend any changes to the allocation of the butterfish mortality cap on the longfin squid fishery, we also propose that the 2018-2020 butterfish mortality cap be allocated to Trimesters as follows:

          Table 5—Proposed Trimester Allocation of Butterfish Mortality Cap on the Longfin Squid Fishery for 2018 and Projected Allocations for 2019 and 2020

            Trimester
            Percent
            Metric tons

            I (Jan-Apr)
            43
            1,670

            II (May-Aug)
            17
            660

            III (Sep-Dec)
            40
            1,554

            Total
            100
            3,844

        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule is not expected to be an Executiver Order 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

        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. The purpose, context, and statutory basis for this action is described above and not repeated here. Business entities affected by this action include vessels that are issued limited access longfin squid/butterfish and Illex squid permits. Although vessels issued open access incidental catch permits for these species are also potentially affected by this action, because these vessels land only small amounts of squid and butterfish and this action would not revise the amount of squid and butterfish that these vessels can land, these entities would not be affected by this proposed rule.

        Any entity with combined annual fishery landing receipts less than $11 million is considered a small entity based on standards published in the Federal Register (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015). In 2016, 298 separate vessels were issued longfin squid/butterfish and Illex squid limited access permits. These vessels were owned by 222 entities, of which 214 earned less and 8 earned more than $11 million in revenue. Average revenue among all entities was $2.1 million in 2016. Therefore, 214 entities affected by this action are classified as small businesses based on current definitions.
        The existing Illex squid commercial landing limit would not be changed by this proposed action, while the commercial longfin squid landing limit would be slightly increased by 2 percent (487 mt). Fishing revenue and, therefore, economic impacts of yearly squid specifications depend upon species availability. In 2016, the longfin squid fishery landed 81 percent of the 2016 commercial landing limit, resulting in nearly $50 million in fishing revenue. The Illex squid fishery landed just 29 percent of the 2016 commercial landing limit, resulting in a value of $7.2 million, but landed 100 percent of the 2017 commercial limit as of September 15, 2017. If both fisheries fully harvested proposed 2018 commercial landing limits, the longfin and Illex squid fisheries could generate approximately $63 and $25 million in fishing revenue, respectively, based on 2016 prices. Because this action would essentially maintain existing landing limits, it imposes no costs and is not expected to alter fishing behavior or resulting revenues.
        This action would reduce current commercial butterfish landing limits in 2018 and 2019. Compared to the 2017 commercial butterfish landing limit (20,652 mt), the proposed 2018 and projected 2019 commercial landing limits are 41 and 3 percent lower (12,093 mt and 20,061 mt, respectively), while the projected 2020 landing limit (23,752 mt) is 15 percent higher. Since 2014, the butterfish fishery has not landed more than 3,135 mt in any year. Recent landings peaked at 4,435 mt in 2001, representing only 37 percent of the proposed quota for 2018. Even at its peak, domestic landings reached 11,715 mt in 1984, which is still 3 percent shy of the proposed 2018 commercial quota. It is possible for the fishery to substantially increase butterfish landings compared to recent years without approaching the reduced limits proposed in this action. Therefore, although the proposed action would substantially reduce commercial butterfish landing limits in 2018, such a reduction is unlikely to impede commercial operations or reduce domestic butterfish landings from recent levels. Based on 2016 prices, if the fishery fully harvested the proposed 2018 commercial limit, it may generate nearly $17 million in fishery revenue, which would be a 41-percent reduction from potential revenue under landing limits consistent with 2017 landing limits. However, because we expect the fishery to land much less than the landing limit, these potential revenues are not realistic. Instead, we expect that the fishery would maintain recent catch levels, which would produce $2.3 million in fishing revenue based on average landings since 2012 and 2016 price estimates.
        In determining the significance of the economic impacts of the proposed action, we considered the following two criteria outlined in applicable National Marine Fisheries Service guidance: Disproportionality and profitability. The proposed measures would not place a substantial number of small entities at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities; all entities affected by this action would be equally affected. Accordingly, there are no distributional economic effects from this action between small and large entities. Proposed measures would not reduce fishing opportunities based on recent squid and butterfish landings, change any entity's access to these resources, or impose any costs to affected entities. Therefore, it is unlikely that this action would reduce revenues or profit for affected entities. Based on the above justification, the proposed action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

          Dated: December 7, 2017.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2017-26840 Filed 12-12-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 070207026-7026-01; I.D. 012207A]
        RIN 0648-AS29
        Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Optional Use of Electronic Logbook Forms

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule would allow fishery participants in U.S. domestic pelagics, crustaceans, bottomfish and seamount groundfish, precious corals, and coral reef fisheries of the western Pacific the optional use of NMFS-approved electronic logbook forms in lieu of paper logbooks. The intended effects of this action are to enhance the efficiency of fish catch and effort data reporting and recordkeeping by fishermen, reduce human error, and improve data accuracy.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received by March 23, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by AS29elog by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: AS29elog@noaa.gov. Include “AS29elog” in the subject line of the message.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: William L. Robinson, Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd. 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814.

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES), or by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or faxed to 202-395-7285.

          Copies of the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) and the regulatory amendment document that describes the proposed changes may be obtained from Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813 or via the World Wide Web at www.wpcouncil.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Bob Harman, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2271.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access
        This Federal Register document is also accessible via the World Wide Web at the Office of the Federal Register: www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
        Background
        The NMFS Pacific Islands region encompasses western Pacific Federal waters, i.e., the 200 nautical mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), around the Territories of Guam and American Samoa, the State of Hawaii, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. island possessions in the Pacific. Western Pacific fisheries are currently managed under five Fishery Management Plans (FMPs)—Pelagics, Crustaceans, Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, Precious Corals, and Coral Reef Ecosystems.
        Current regulations (50 CFR 665.14) require that permit holders, who fish for western Pacific management unit species subject to Federal reporting requirements, record their catch and effort information on paper logbook forms and submit them to NMFS. Maintaining paper logbook forms, and the interpretation of such forms, is subject to potential errors due to illegible handwriting and missed data entry. The availability and capacity of personal computers offer benefits to fishery participants and NMFS data collection programs. The proposed optional use of electronic logbook data collection systems would utilize existing and emerging technologies to enhance the efficiency of fish catch and effort data reporting and recordkeeping by fishermen, reduce human error, and improve data accuracy. Furthermore, if transmitted through a remote communication system such as electronic mail or vessel monitoring system, electronic reporting provides a near real-time catch reporting system.
        At its 123rd meeting in June 2004, the Council took final action to recommend amending the western Pacific regulations to provide fishermen an alternative to the currently-required paper logbook forms. Specifically, fishermen would be allowed to submit logbook data to NMFS on removable non-paper media (such as diskette, CD-ROM, memory stick, etc.), and would also be allowed to transmit the data to NMFS via e-mail or other remote communication systems, where such remote transmission was appropriate and feasible. The option to use electronic logbook forms would be available to fishermen who are subject to Federal reporting requirements under all western Pacific FMPs, as well as those participants in fisheries that may become subject to Federal reporting requirements.
        This action does not establish the technical requirements or protocols for the electronic logbook program. The technical and legal specifications and operational details for the electronic logbook software program and hardware requirements will be developed and published by NMFS subsequent to this proposed rule.

        Using the information contained in the Council's proposed regulatory amendment, a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) was prepared for this proposed rule. Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) may be obtained from William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES).
        Classification

        NMFS has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the western Pacific FMPs and preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.

        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        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. The factual basis for the certification is as follows:

          The basis and purpose of this rulemaking are discussed in the preamble to this rule. Nearly 200 vessels, all of which are considered to be small entities under the Small Business Administration definitions, will be impacted by this rule. All vessels are considered small entities because their annual gross receipts are less than $4.0 million, so there will be no disproportionate economic impact between small and large vessels resulting from this proposed rulemaking. In addition, there are no disproportionate economic impacts among vessels resulting from different vessel length, gear type, or location of home port. Considering the positive and minor nature of economic impacts under the preferred alternative, NMFS has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities because: (1) the rule does not require the use of electronic reporting, and firms choosing to commit to electronic reporting will do so only if this mode of reporting is economically beneficial to them relative to the use of the paper logbooks currently required, and (2) NMFS anticipates that the costs of electronic reporting, for those who choose to adopt it, would only represent a small fraction of the firm's cost of doing business. While this rule could affect a substantial number of vessels, depending on the number of operations opting to choose electronic reporting, it will not have a significant economic impact. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

        This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), i.e., the optional use of electronic media for logbook data submissions currently required under OMB Control No. 0648-0214. A request to collect this information has been submitted to OMB for approval. The public reporting burden for this collection-of-information is estimated to average five minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

        Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES), or by email to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202)395-7285.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665
          Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaii, Hawaiian Natives, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Remote Island Areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: February 14, 2007.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 665 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

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

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

        2. In § 665.14, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

          § 665.14
          Reporting and recordkeeping.
          (a) Fishing record forms. The operator of any fishing vessel subject to the requirements of §§ 665.21, 665.41, 665.61(a)(4), 665.81, or 665.602 must maintain on board the vessel an accurate and complete record of catch, effort, and other data on paper report forms provided by the Regional Administrator, or electronically as specified and approved by the Regional Administrator. All information specified by the Regional Administrator must be recorded on paper or electronically within 24 hours after the completion of each fishing day. The logbook information, reported on paper or electronically, for each day of the fishing trip must be signed and dated or otherwise authenticated by the vessel operator in the manner determined by the Regional Administrator, and be submitted or transmitted via an approved method as specified by the Regional Administrator, and as required by this paragraph (a). The operator of any vessel subject to the requirements of §§ 665.21, 665.41, 665.61(a)(4), or 665.81 must submit the original logbook information for each day of the fishing trip to the Regional Administrator within 72 hours of each landing of management unit species, unless the fishing was authorized under a PRIA troll and handline permit, a PRIA crustaceans fishing permit, a PRIA bottomfish permit, or a PRIA precious corals fishing permit, in which case the original logbook form for each day of fishing within the PRIA EEZ waters must be submitted to the Regional Administrator within 30 days of each landing of management unit species. For fisheries managed under § 665.602, the original logbook information for each day of the fishing trip must be submitted to the Regional Administrator within 30 days of each landing of management unit species.

      [FR Doc. E7-2893 Filed 2-20-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 571 and 585
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162]
        RIN 2127-AK43
        Rear Visibility; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Rearview Mirrors; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Low-Speed Vehicles; Phase-in Reporting Requirements

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking; corrections.

          SUMMARY:

          In December 2010, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to amend the agency's Federal motor vehicle safety standard on rearview mirrors to improve the ability of a driver of a vehicle to detect pedestrians in the area immediately behind the vehicle and thereby minimize the likelihood of the vehicle's striking a pedestrian while the vehicle is moving backward. This document corrects various minor errors regarding metric conversions, section cross references and other matters. In a separate document appearing in today's edition of the Federal Register, the agency reopens the comment period for the proposal and announces plans for holding two public meetings regarding the proposal.

          DATES:
          The corrections made in this document are effective upon publication.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. Markus Price, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (Phone: 202-366-0098; Fax: 202-366-7002). For legal issues, you may call Mr. Steve Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel for Vehicle Rulemaking and Harmonization, (Phone: 202-366-2992; FAX: 202-366-3820). You may send mail to these officials at: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On December 7, 2010, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (75 FR 76186) a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to expand the required field of view for all passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, and low-speed vehicles rated at 10,000 pounds or less, gross vehicle weight. Specifically, NHTSA proposed to specify an area immediately behind each vehicle that the driver must be able to see when the vehicle's transmission is in reverse. It appears that, in the near term, the only technology available with the ability to comply with this proposal would be a rear visibility system that includes a rear-mounted video camera and an in-vehicle visual display. Adoption of this proposal would significantly reduce fatalities and injuries caused by backover crashes involving children, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and other pedestrians. This proposal was issued in response to the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007, which directs NHTSA to issue a final rule amending the agency's Federal motor vehicle safety standard on rearview mirrors to improve the ability of a driver to detect pedestrians in the area immediately behind his or her vehicle and thereby minimize the likelihood of a vehicle striking a pedestrian while its driver is backing the vehicle.

        We provided a 60-day comment period that ended February 7, 2011. In a separate document appearing elsewhere in today's edition of the Federal Register, the agency reopens the comment period for the proposal and announces plans for holding two public meetings regarding the proposal.
        Correction of Errors
        In FR Doc. 2010-30353, beginning on page 76186 in the Federal Register of Tuesday, December 7, 2010, the following corrections are made:
        1. On page 76187, in the first column, Section VII of the Table of Contents references a subsection “Potential Alternatives”. There is no such subsection; all discussion of alternatives appears in the subsection “Comparison of Regulatory Alternatives”. Correct version of VII of the Table of Contents is:

          VII. Proposal to Mandate Improved Rear Visibility
          A. Proposed Specifications
          i. Improved Rear Field of View
          ii. Visual Display Requirements
          a. Rearview Image Size
          b. Image Response Time
          c. Image Linger Time
          d. Visual Display Luminance
          e. Other Aspects of Visual Display
          iii. Requirements for External System Components
          B. Proposed Compliance Tests
          i. Ambient Lighting Conditions
          ii. Rear Visibility Test Object
          iii. Rear Visibility Compliance Test Procedures
          a. Rear Field of View Test Procedure
          b. Rearview Image Size Test Procedure
          C. Proposed Effective Date and Phase-In Schedule
          D. Summary of Estimated Effectiveness, Costs and Benefits of Available Technologies
          E. Comparison of Regulatory Alternatives
          i. System Effectiveness
          ii. Costs
          iii. Benefits
          iv. Net Benefits
          v. Cost Effectiveness

        2. On page 76234, figure 6 is corrected to read as follows:
        BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

          EP02MR11.017

        BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

        3. On page 76244, in the third column, the introductory language of S5.5.1.1 references “S14.1 through S14.2.3”. The correct reference is to “S14.1 through S14.3.3”.
        4. On page 76245, in the first column, the introductory language of S5.5.1.2 references “S14.1 through S14.2.3”. The correct reference is to “S14.1 through S14.3.3”.
        5. On page 76245, in the first column, the introductory language of S5.5.2 references “S14.2.1 through S14.2.3”. The correct reference is to “S14.3.1 through S14.3.3”.
        6. On page 76245, in the third column, the third line of S6.2(a) contains the weight figure of “4.536 kg”. The correct weight figure is “4,536 kg”.
        7. On page 76245, in the third column, the third line of S6.2(b) contains the weight figure of “4.536 kg”. The correct weight figure is “4,536 kg”.
        8. On page 76246, in the first column, the sixth line of S6.2.3.2 contains the weight figure of “4.536 kg”. The correct weight figure is “4,536 kg”.
        9. On page 76246, in the first column, the sixth line of S6.2.3.3 contains the weight figure of “4.536 kg”. The correct weight figure is “4,536 kg”.
        10. On page 76245, in the third column, the introductory language of S6.2.1.1 references “S14.1 through S14.2.3”. The correct reference is to “S14.1 through S14.3.3”.
        11. On page 76245, in the third column, the introductory language of S6.2.1.2 references “S14.1 through S14.2.3”. The correct reference is to “S14.1 through S14.3.3”.
        12. On page 76246, in the first column, the introductory language of S6.2.2 references “S14.2.1 through S14.2.3”. The correct reference is to “S14.3.1 through S14.3.3”.
        13. On page 76246, in the first column, the introductory language of S6.2.3.2 contains the percentage figure of “33 percent”. The correct percentage is “10 percent”.
        14. On page 76246, in the first column, the introductory language of S6.2.3.3 contains the percentage figure of “67 percent”. The correct percentage is “40 percent”.
        15. On page 76246, in the third column, the third line of S14.1.4 references “S14.1.5(a) through (d)”. The correct reference is to “S14.1.4(a) through (d)”.
        16. On page 76246, in the third column, the first line of S14.1.4(a) references “cylinders G and F”. The correct reference is to “cylinders F and G”.
        17. On page 76246, in the third column, the sixth line of S14.1.4(a) references “cylinders E and D”. The correct reference is to “cylinders D and E”.
        18. On page 76247, in the first column, the eighth line of S14.1.4(a) contains the distance figure of “0.9 m”. The correct distance figure is “3.05 m”.
        19. On page 76247, in the first column, the third line of S14.1.4(c) contains the distance figure “1.5 m”. The correct distance figure is “1.52 m”.
        20. On page 76247, in the first column, the fourth line of S14.1.4(c) contains the direction “left”. The correct direction is “right”.
        21. On page 76247, in the first column, the third line of S14.1.4(d) contains the distance figure “1.5 m”. The correct distance figure is “1.52 m”.
        22. On page 76247, in the first column, the fourth line of S14.1.4(d) contains the direction “right”. The correct direction is “left”.
        23. On page 76247, in the third column, the sixth and seventh lines of S14.3.3 contain the temperature range “176° ± 5° F (60° ± 3° C)”. The correct temperature range is “176° ± 5° F (80° ± 3° C)”.
        24. On page 76248, Figure 5 is corrected to read as follows:

          EP02MR11.018

          Issued on: February 24, 2011.
          Joseph S. Carra,
          Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 2011-4737 Filed 2-28-11; 11:15 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-C