        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 697
        [Docket No. 0812121592-81605-01]
        RIN 0648-AX40
        Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; American Lobster Fishery; Control Date for American Lobster

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

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; Consideration of a control date for the American lobster fishery.

          SUMMARY:

           NMFS announces that it is considering, and is seeking public comment on a proposed rulemaking that would limit or restrict future access to the American lobster (Homarus americanus) trap fishery in the Federal waters of Lobster Management Area 1 (Area 1), the inshore Gulf of Maine, based upon a permit holder's ability to document a history of fishing with lobster traps in Area 1 prior to the date of this notice . This notice should discourage American lobster non-trap vessels from entering the lobster trap fishery, and discourage American lobster trap vessels fishing in other lobster management areas from entering the Area 1 lobster trap fishery, based upon economic speculation while NMFS, in consultation with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission), considers whether and how access and effort should be controlled. This document, therefore, gives the public two-fold notification: first, that interested participants should locate and preserve records that substantiate and verify their past participation in the American lobster trap fishery in Federal waters; and second, that new participants to the Area 1 lobster trap fishery may be restricted from fishing in Area 1 with traps in the future depending upon the limited access criteria developed if, in fact, NMFS proceeds forward in this rulemaking.

          DATES:
           Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. eastern standard time on or before February 2, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by RIN number 0648-AX40, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Fax: (978) 281-9117, Attn: Bob Ross.
          • Mail: Harold Mears, Director, State, Federal and Constituent Programs Office, Northeast Regional Office, NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2276. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Lobster Control Date.”

          Instructions: All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted 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 fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted via Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           Bob Ross, Supervisory Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9234.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The American lobster fishery in the United States takes place from North Carolina to Maine. Over three-quarters of all American lobsters are landed in Maine, with most of the other landings occurring in or from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Long Island Sound, and Georges Bank. The majority of American lobsters are taken in state waters, which extend from the coast to 3 nautical miles (5.56 kilometers) from shore. The offshore trap fishery, which occurs primarily in the offshore canyon areas at the edge of the continental shelf, has developed in the past 25 years and accounts for most of the remaining landings. The American lobster fishery is a year-round fishery in the United States, including the summer and fall months when the lobsters are molting. Approximately 96 percent of lobsters are taken in lobster traps. The rest are taken in trawls, gillnets, dredges, and by divers.

        The Commission develops fishery conservation and management strategies for certain coastal species and coordinates the efforts of the states and Federal Government toward concerted sustainable ends. The Commission, under the provisions of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act), decides upon a management strategy and then forwards that strategy to the states and Federal Government, along with a recommendation that the states and Federal Government take action (e.g., enact regulations) in furtherance of this strategy. The Federal Government is obligated by statute to support the Commission's American Lobster Interstate Fishery Management Plan (ISFMP) and overall fishery management efforts. At its October 2008 Annual Meeting, the Commission voted to initiate an addendum to the ISFMP that includes options for a limited entry program for Area 1. In the same motion, the Commission voted to request the Secretary of Commerce publish a control date in the Federal Register that may be used to limit future participation in the Area 1 Federal American lobster trap fishery to those Federal permit holders who could document trap fishing history prior to the control date. The control date is the publication date of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register.

        There has been a dramatic increase in fishing effort since the 1970s and effort continues at historically high levels. NMFS estimates that each American lobster trap remains in the water about 30 percent longer than in 1970 before being hauled. Current fishing effort removes a large proportion of lobsters before they have had a chance to spawn even once, and the average size of lobsters landed continues to drop. The most recent peer-reviewed lobster stock assessment, completed in 2005, showed that the American lobster resource presents a mixed picture (see the Commission Stock Assessment Report No. 06-03, published January 2006 at www.asmfc.org). One theme throughout the assessment was the high fishing effort and high mortality rates in all three stock areas. The assessment indicated that there is stable abundance for the Georges Bank (GBK) stock and much of the Gulf of Maine (GOM) stock and decreased abundance and recruitment, yet continued high fishing mortality rates, for the Southern New England (SNE) stock and in Statistical Area 514 (Massachusetts Bay and Stellwagen Bank) in the GOM stock. Of particular concern in the 2005 stock assessment report is the SNE stock, where depleted stock abundance and recruitment coupled with high fishing mortality rates over the past few years led the stock assessment and peer review panel to recommend additional harvest restrictions. The SNE stock encompasses all of Areas 4, 5, and 6, and part of Areas 2 and 3. Overall, stock abundance in the GOM is relatively high with recent fishing mortality comparable to the past. The GOM stock encompasses all of Area 1, and part of both Area 3 and the Outer Cape Management Area. Currently, high lobster fishing effort levels in GOM continue in concert with high stock abundance, although high effort levels are not likely to be supportable if abundance returns to long-term median levels. The GBK stock seems stable, with current abundance and fishing mortality similar to the 20-year average. The GBK stock encompasses part of Areas 2, 3, and the Outer Cape Management Area. While the assessment noted the female proportion of the GBK stock is increasing slightly, it also cautioned that further increases in effort are not advisable, hence, the need for additional effort reduction and broodstock protection.
        NMFS is also aware that recent constraints on participation in several traditional otter trawl fisheries, including the Mid-Atlantic summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries and the New England multispecies fisheries, and broader use of area closures may result in a shift in non-trap lobster fishing effort to the lobster trap fishery by vessels that have traditionally harvested lobsters by non-trap methods. Further, limited access programs in other lobster management areas have the potential to cause fishermen who do not qualify in that area to shift trap fishing operations to Area 1, the last remaining open access area. An unchecked increase in effort in the lobster trap fishery, as a result of a shift from non-trap to trap gear and/or as a result of an influx of fishing operations from other areas to Area 1, may jeopardize current efforts to achieve the objectives of the ISFMP and rebuild stocks.
        For these reasons, NMFS, in consultation with the Commission, is considering proposed rulemaking to address whether and how to limit entry of vessels which have not fished with traps in Area 1 in the past from fishing in Area 1 with traps in the future, or which have not fished with traps in the past from fishing with traps in the future. The proposed rulemaking may include potential eligibility criteria that would prove trap fishing history or trap fishing history in Area 1 prior to the date of this notice. Such proof might include, but is not necessarily limited to documentation of fishing for lobster with traps, documentation of the purchase of lobster trap tags, and/or the election of Area 1 on their Federal lobster vessel permit. Further, proof may or may not be required for multiple years preceding the date of this notice, for example, proof of Area 1 trap fishing history for the 2008, 2007 and/or 2006 fishing seasons.
        Consideration of a control date does not commit the Commission or NMFS to any particular management regime or criteria for entry into the fishery. Fishermen would not be guaranteed future participation in the fishery regardless of their entry date or intensity of participation in the fishery before or after the control date under consideration. NMFS, in consultation with the Commission, may choose to use a different control date, or to give variably weighted consideration to fishermen active in the fishery before and after the control date. NMFS subsequently may choose a different control date or may choose a management regime that does not make use of a control date. Other qualifying criteria, such as, but not limited to, documentation of landings and sales, may be applied for entry. NMFS may also choose to take no further action to control entry or access into the lobster management areas or address the shift in effort from non-trap to trap gear, in which case the control date may be rescinded. Any action will be taken pursuant to the requirements established under the Atlantic Coastal Act. This document, therefore, gives the public notification that interested participants should locate and preserve records that substantiate and verify their participation in the American lobster fishery in Federal waters.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1851 note; 16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.

          Dated: December 24, 2008.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E8-31235 Filed 12-31-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 538
        [Docket No.: NHTSA-2000-7087]
        Automotive Fuel Economy Manufacturing Incentives for Alternative Fuel Vehicles

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

          ACTION:
          Request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This document seeks comments to assist the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the study of the success of the policy of providing corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) incentives for “dual-fuel” alternative fuel and gaseous dual-fuel vehicles and whether the agency should extend the incentive program for four years beyond MY 2004. Comments received in response to this document will be used to assist NHTSA in completing a study and issuing a report to Congress on or before September 30, 2000.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments to this document must refer to the docket number and notice number set forth above and be submitted (preferably two copies) to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Docket hours are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          The following persons at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590: For non-legal issues: Mr. Lawrence Fleming, Consumer Programs Division, Office of Planning and Consumer Programs, NPS-32, Room 5320, telephone (202) 366-4936, facsimile (202) 493-2290. For legal issues: Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-20, Room 5219, telephone (202) 366-5263, facsimile (202) 366-3820.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) is the fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon, of a manufacturer's fleet of: (1) Passenger cars, or (2) light trucks under 8,500 lbs. gross vehicle weight rating. Each manufacturer's average fuel economy is determined by the Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with procedures set forth in 49 U.S.C. 32904 and is calculated by computing the weighted fuel economy average of various model types of a manufacturer in a particular model year. The MY 2000 CAFE standard is 27.5 mpg for passenger cars and 20.7 mpg for light trucks. Failure to comply with the standard for either passenger car or light truck fleets in any given model year results in civil penalties of $5.50 for each tenth of a mile per gallon per vehicle. (49 U.S.C. 32912(b)).
        Manufacturers can earn “credits” to offset deficiencies in their CAFE performance. Specifically, when the average fuel economy of the vehicles manufactured by a manufacturer in a particular model year exceeds the average fuel economy standard, the manufacturer earns credits. The number of credits a manufacturer earns is determined by multiplying the number of tenths of a mile per gallon by which the manufacturer exceeded the fuel economy standard in that model year times the number of vehicles they manufactured in that model year. These credits can be applied to any of the three consecutive model years immediately after, or if a carry-back plan is approved under 32903(b), before the model year for which the credits are earned. For a variety of reasons, credits are highly valued by manufacturers and provide a significant incentive to exceed the applicable standards for a given model year.
        The Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988 (“AMFA'; Pub. L. 100-94, October 14, 1988) was enacted with the primary purpose of encouraging the development and use of methanol, ethanol and natural gas as transportation fuels and to promote the production of alternate fuel vehicles (AFVs) by auto manufacturers. To this end, AMFA contains provisions that allow for special treatment of vehicle fuel economy calculations for dedicated alternative fuel vehicles and dual-fuel vehicles that meet specified requirements. Passenger automobiles and light trucks that are eligible for special fuel economy calculations are “dedicated” and designed to operate exclusively on methanol or ethanol in composition of 70 percent or more or on natural gas; or “flexible fuel” vehicles that have the capability to operate on either conventional petroleum or a blend of alcohols in conjunction with either gasoline or diesel; or on natural gas. These vehicles also must meet energy efficiency and minimum driving range requirements. A manufacturer producing alternative fuel vehicles that meet energy efficiency and minimum driving range requirements may be able to raise their overall fleet fuel economy performance by manufacturing these vehicles.
        AMFA directs the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study and issue a report on the success of the policy of providing CAFE incentives for alternative dual-fuel vehicles by assessing alternative fuel use; cost and availability; the availability and affordability of vehicles capable of operating on either alternative or conventional fuel; the effect these vehicles have on the environment; energy conservation; and other relevant factors. This document seeks information and data that will assist the agency in conducting its assessment.
        1. Statutory Background
        Section 6 of AMFA amended the fuel economy provisions of Title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act by adding a new section 513 that contains incentives for the manufacture of vehicles designed to operate on alternative fuels, including dual-fuel vehicles. Dual-fuel vehicles are generally defined as one of two classes that operate on either alternative fuel and gasoline or diesel fuel, or those capable of operating on natural gas or either gasoline or diesel fuel. Section 513(h) specifically defined a “dual energy@ automobile as one that meets a minimum driving range and:

          (i) Which is capable of operating on alcohol and on gasoline or diesel fuel;
          (ii) Which provides equal or superior energy efficiency, as calculated for the applicable model year during fuel economy testing for the Federal Government, while operating on alcohol as it does while operating on gasoline or diesel fuel; [and]
          (iii) Which* * * provides equal or superior energy efficiency, as calculated for the applicable model year during fuel economy testing for the Federal Government, while operating on a mixture of alcohol and gasoline or diesel fuel containing exactly 50 percent gasoline or diesel fuel as it does while operating on gasoline or diesel fuel as those vehicles capable of operating on alcohol and on either gasoline or diesel fuel, or those capable of operating on natural gas and on either gasoline or diesel fuel [.].

        A “natural gas dual energy” automobile was defined as a vehicle that met specified minimum driving range, and:

          (i) Which is capable of operating on natural gas and on gasoline or diesel fuel; [and]
          (ii) Which provides equal or superior energy efficiency, as calculated for the applicable model year during fuel economy testing for the Federal Government, while operating on natural gas as it does while operating on gasoline or diesel fuel [.].

        The Energy and Policy Act of 1992 added new provisions of Section 513 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. In addition, the definition of alternative fuel was expanded to include liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen, liquid fuels derived from coal and biological materials, electricity and any other fuel that the Secretary of Transportation determines to be substantially non-petroleum based and have environmental and energy security benefits. The law also revised terminology by replacing “dual energy” and “natural gas dual energy” with “alternative fueled vehicles” in order to more appropriately reflect the expanded list of fuels.
        Beginning in MY 1993, manufacturers of AFVs that met the minimum driving range and energy efficiency criteria could qualify for special treatment in the calculation of their CAFE by computing the weighted average of fuel economy while operating on gasoline or diesel fuel and when operating on the alcohol after dividing the alcohol fuel economy by a factor of 0.15. For instance, a dedicated AFV that would achieve 15 mpg fuel economy while operating on alcohol would have a CAFE calculated as follows:

        FE=(1/0.15)(15)=100 miles per gallon

        For alternative dual-fuel vehicles, an assumption is made that the vehicles would operate 50% of the time on the alternative fuel and 50% of the time operating on conventional fuel, resulting in a fuel economy that is based on a harmonic average of alternative and conventional fuel. The fuel economy for an alternative dual-fuel model is calculated by dividing 1.0 by the sum of 0.5 divided by the fuel economy as measured on the conventional fuel and 0.5 divided by the fuel economy as measured on the alternative fuel, using the 0.15 volumetric conversion factor. For example, for an alternative dual-fueled model that achieves 15 miles per gallon operating on an alcohol fuel and 25 mpg on the conventional fuel, the resulting CAFE value would be:

        1/((0.5/ 25)+(0.5/100))=40 miles per gallon

        The CAFE calculated values for a natural gas alternative fuel vehicle are arrived at in similar fashion. For the purposes of this calculation, the fuel economy is equal to the weighted average of the vehicle fuel economy while operating on natural gas and while operated on either gasoline or diesel fuel. Section 32905(c) specifies the energy equivalency of 100 cubic feet of natural gas to be equal to 0.823 gallons of gasoline, with the gallon equivalent of natural gas to be considered to have a fuel content equal to 0.15 gallons of fuel. The applicability of these special mileage calculation procedures is for vehicles manufactured for sale in MY 1993 through MY 2004, and the maximum allowable increase in a manufacturer's fleet average fuel economy attributed to these dual-fuel vehicles is 1.2 miles per gallon.
        Section 32905(g) stipulates that the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary), in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall submit a report to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives, a report containing the results of the study of the success of this alternative fuel vehicle mileage credit incentive policy and make recommendations whether to extend the program for up to an additional four (4) model years, with a maximum allowable increase in average fuel economy for a manufacturer attributed to dual-fuel vehicles of 0.9 miles per gallon. In preparation of this study and report, the Secretary is to consider the following factors:

          (i) [T]he availability to the public of alternative fueled automobiles, and alternative fuels;
          (ii) energy conservation and energy security;
          (iii) environmental considerations; and
          (iv) other relevant factors.

        Upon completion of the study and report, the Secretary shall either promulgate a final rule that extends the incentive program for up to four additional model years, or issue public notice of the decision to terminate the incentive program with appropriate justification. The final rule or regulatory decision must be issued no later than December 31, 2001.
        2. The Intent of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988 and the Basis for Evaluation of the Study and Report
        It is clear that in creating special CAFE incentives for alternative fuel vehicles in AMFA and EPACT amendments, Congress intended to foster the commercialization of alternative fuels used for transportation and to further the development of the alternative fuel production, supply and distribution infrastructure. While AMFA has provisions for special CAFE calculations for both dedicated and dual-fuel vehicles, the statutory language directs that the study and report to Congress only assess the policy of providing CAFE incentives for dual-fuel vehicles and not dedicated AFVs. Accordingly, information on dedicated AFVs will be included in the study only as it pertains to evaluating the policy of providing CAFE mileage credits for dual-fuel vehicles.
        It should be noted that while the Energy Policy Act of 1992 expanded the definition of alternative fuels to include liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen, electrically powered and others, the rulemaking procedures for implementing the provisions of AMFA were already in process by the time these other energy source fuels were classified as “alternative” fuels, and the final rule implementing the related provisions of AMFA has procedures for CAFE credit calculations for alcohol and compressed natural gas powered vehicles only (ref: 59 FR 39368; August 3, 1994).

        In executing the study and preparing the report, NHTSA will specifically attempt to evaluate the effect of the incentives upon the acceptance of alternative fuels as measured by the change in fuel use for light vehicle transportation. NHTSA will also examine the change in the number of vehicles that operate on alternative fuels manufactured since the 1993 model year and evidence, if any, that associates the design, development and production of these vehicles to the incentives offered in fuel economy calculations. Wherever possible, the costs and benefits to both consumers and industry will be analyzed as well as the impact upon energy security and the environment.
        3. Questions and Comments
        To assess the impacts of the CAFE incentives program as described above, NHTSA, in coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, seeks specific information and relevant comments. Set forth below are questions organized under three categories to facilitate collection of data and relevant information: (1) The automobile industry; (2) the fuel industry; and (3) general interest. NHTSA invites comments and input from all interested parties on any of the questions listed in this document. The information sought by the agency will assist in the preparation of the study and report to Congress on the effect of CAFE incentives for dual-fuel and gaseous dual-fuel vehicles and the agency's determination on whether to continue the program with a reduced maximum attributed allowance through the 2008 model year. In providing a comment on a particular matter or in responding to a particular question, interested parties are requested to provide any relevant factual information to support their conclusions or opinions, including but not limited to statistical and cost data or marketing studies, and the source of such information. Wherever used, the terms “sale”, “production” and “design” pertain to passenger cars and light trucks up to 8,500 lbs. gross vehicle weight rating that are manufactured either domestically or imported for sale in the United States and U.S. Territories and possessions, including lease sales, fleet sales, etc.
        NHTSA requests information and comments to the following questions:
        (A) Questions/Issues Primarily Related to Automobile Manufacturers
        1. How and to what extent has the AMFA CAFE incentives program affected manufacturers' decisions to design, manufacture and sell dual-fuel alcohol and natural gas powered vehicles and other alternative fuel vehicles? Specifically for MY 1993 through MY 2000, list all the alternative fuel vehicles that are offered for sale and for each vehicle line, indicate whether credits were a major factor, a minor factor, or of little or no consideration to the company's decision to offer an alternative fuel vehicle.
        2. What was/is the price differential for offering alcohol and compressed natural gas powered dual-fuel vehicles and other alternative fuel vehicles versus conventionally fueled models? Please provide examples of manufacturers' suggested retail price of applicable alternative fuel vehicle models versus the retail price of their conventional fuel counterpart models.
        3. Using the response to Question 2, what was/is the “dollar value” of each AMFA qualifying vehicle, defined as the savings generated by avoiding CAFE penalties less the expenses associated with design and manufacturing of these alternative fuel vehicles?
        4. What was/is the cost differential (on a per vehicle basis) to produce alcohol and compressed natural gas powered dual-fuel vehicles and other alternative fuel vehicles versus conventionally fueled models?
        5. What new technologies have been specifically developed and implemented in order to accommodate the use of methanol/ethanol or natural gas to qualify for the fuel economy calculation benefit? What is the attributed cost of each of the technologies?
        6. Have there been performance or durability problems associated with operating vehicles on methanol/ethanol or natural gas? If yes, please specify the nature (e.g., materials degradation due to incompatibility of oxygenated fuels, cold start and driveability issues, etc.) and the extent of the problems.
        7. What efforts have manufacturers taken, or plan to take, to market dual-fuel or other alternative fuel vehicles to fleet operators? What information relative to performance or durability has been or will be provided by the fleet operators to the automobile manufacturer?
        8. What initiatives have manufacturers and dealers taken to educate consumers about vehicles' capability to operate on an alternative fuel? Please provide any available owner's manual information, dealer bulletins, or other point of sale literature that is relevant.
        9. What are the auto manufacturers' plans for MY 2001 through MY 2008 relative to the AMFA CAFE incentive program? How would the decision to extend the maximum allowable mileage increase at 0.9 mpg as prescribed by AMFA effect manufacturers' product strategy? Conversely, what effect would a decision not to extend the provision beyond MY 2004 have on manufacturers' product plans?
        (B) Questions/Issues Primarily Related to Fuel Producers, Distributors and Retailers
        1. How has the AMFA CAFE program affected the fuel industry's production and sales of alternative fuels from 1993 through 2000?
        2. How has the AMFA CAFE program directly affected the number of alternative fuel refueling sites from 1993 through the present time?
        3. How will the fuel industry's projected plans for production and distribution be affected by the decision to either continue or discontinue a vehicle-specific incentive program beyond 2004?
        4. Does the fuel industry believe that changes to the infrastructure as a result of considerations other than/in addition to the AMFA CAFE credits program would be warranted in order to improve an alternative fuels infrastructure? Please recommend any possible changes other than AMFA CAFE incentives that would facilitate further development of that infrastructure.
        5. What efforts have been made by the fuel industry and other groups to educate consumers and promote the use of methanol/ethanol or compressed natural gas as an alternative fuel?
        (C) Questions/Issues of General Interest
        1. How difficult is it for consumers to find fueling locations for, and availability information on, alternative fuels? How do they seek alternative fuel locations?
        2. What are the most common consumer complaints regarding problems or concerns related to the use of the dual-fuel vehicles or availability of the alternative fuels?
        3. Assuming an ample supply of alternative fuels and vehicles, would consumers be willing to use alternative fuels over conventional ones? Please provide the basis for this response.
        4. What changes would be necessary to improve consumer awareness and acceptance of alternative fuel vehicles?
        5. What other efforts could government or industry take to increase the use of alternative fuels?
        6. Is there any information available on the approximate percentage of vehicle mileage for which a owner/driver of a dual-fuel vehicle uses the alternative fuel versus gasoline or diesel fuel? If so, should the “50/50 split” used in the credit calculation formula be revised to a value that more closely represents actual alternative fuel use?
        7. Are there companion programs necessary to ensure that vehicles manufactured for purposes of complying with the CAFE requirement are actually using alternative fuels?
        8. Has the AMFA CAFE program affected the total use of methanol/ethanol and compressed natural gas use? If so, how?

        9. What changes could be made to this program, either from the vehicle production aspect or the fuel industry aspect, that would be perceived as an even greater incentive to produce, distribute and market alternative fuels in the future?
        10. In addition to energy conservation, energy security, environmental considerations, and the availability of alternative fuel vehicles and alternative fuels to the public, what other factors should be considered in the evaluation of the policy of providing additional CAFE credits for dual-fuel vehicles?
        11. Do you believe the policy of providing additional CAFE credits for dual-fuel vehicles should be continued? Please explain the basis for your position.
        NHTSA solicits public comments on this document. It is requested but not required that two copies be submitted.
        How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
        Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket number of this document in your comments.
        Your primary comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). However, you may attach additional documents to your primary comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

        Please send two paper copies of your comments to Docket Management or submit them electronically. The mailing address is: U. S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. If you submit your comments electronically, log onto the Dockets Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov and click on “Help and Information” or “Help/Info” to obtain instructions.
        How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
        If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
        How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?
        If you wish to submit any information under claim of confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NCC-01, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5219, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
        In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
        Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
        NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, NHTSA will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
        Please note that even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
        How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?
        You may read the comments by visiting Docket Management in person at Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
        You may also see the comments on the Internet by taking the following steps:

        (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/search/)
        (2) On that page, click on “search”.
        (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/) type in the four digit Docket number shown at the beginning of this Notice. Click on “search”.
        (4) On the next page, which contains Docket summary information for the Docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may also download the comments.

          Authority:
          (49 U.S.C. 32905(g); delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8)

          Issued on: April 27, 2000.
          Stephen R. Kratzke,
          Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

      [FR Doc. 00-11046 Filed 5-8-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 032900C]
        RIN 0648-AN25
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocation of Pacific Cod among Vessels Using Hook-and-line or Pot Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 64 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP). This amendment would apportion the hook-and-line or pot gear (fixed gear) allocation of total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) among hook-and-line catcher-processor vessels, hook-and-line catcher vessels, and pot gear vessels. This action responds to socio-economic needs of the fishing industry that have been identified by the Council and intends to promote the goals and objectives of the FMP.

          NMFS is requesting comments from the public on the proposed amendment, copies of which may be obtained from the Council (see ADDRESSES).

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 64 must be submitted by June 12, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments must be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori Gravel. Hand- or courier-delivered comments may be sent to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Room 453, Juneau, AK 99801. Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to 907-586-7465. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet. Copies of Amendment 64 and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for the amendments are available from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council at 605 West 4th Ave. Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501, telephone 907-271-2809.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          James Hale, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan or plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, after receiving a fishery management plan or amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register that the fishery management plan or amendment is available for public review and comment. This action constitutes such notice for Amendment 64 to the BSAI FMP. NMFS will consider the public comments received during the comment period in determining whether to approve this amendment.
        The groundfish fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (3 to 200 miles offshore) of the BSAI are managed by NMFS under the BSAI groundfish FMP, which was prepared by the Council under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Pub. L. 94-265, 16 U.S.C. 1801, and approved and implemented by NMFS in 1981.
        Amendment 64, if approved, would establish separate Pacific cod directed fishing allowances for different sectors of vessels using hook-and-line or pot gear. These allowances are intended to reflect relative Pacific cod harvest shares since the mid 1990s. Under the proposed amendment, the Regional Administrator, NMFS, Alaska Region, annually would estimate the amount of Pacific cod taken as incidental catch in directed fisheries for groundfish other than Pacific cod by vessels using hook-and-line or pot gear and deduct that amount from the portion of Pacific cod TAC annually allocated to hook-and-line or pot gear (51 percent of the TAC). The remainder would be further allocated as directed fishing allowances for the different hook-and-line and pot gear users (sectors) as follows:
        (a) Catcher/processor vessels using hook-and-line gear-80 percent;
        (b) Catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear-0.3 percent;
        (c) Vessels using pot gear-18.3 percent; and
        (d) Catcher vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 meters) length overall (LOA) that use either hook-and-line or pot gear-1.4 percent.
        Specific provisions for the accounting of these directed fishing allowances and the transfer of unharvested amounts of these allowances to other vessels using hook-and-line or pot gear would be set forth in regulations implementing the proposed amendment.
        Amendment 64 would expire December 31, 2003. Continuing the proposed allocations of Pacific cod or selecting new allocation percentages after this date would require Council adoption and NMFS' approval of a new FMP amendment. In adopting an expiration date for the proposed amendment, the Council reasoned that 3 years would be sufficient time for the hook-and-line or pot gear sector allocations of Pacific cod to address the issue of increasing competition for BSAI Pacific cod before reconsidering the issue in light of other proposed changes impending for the BSAI Pacific cod groundfish fisheries, including proposed gear or species endorsements on permits issued under the license limitation program.

        Public comments are being solicited on this proposed amendment through the end of the comment period specified in this notice. A proposed rule that would implement the amendment may be published in the Federal Register for public comment following NMFS' evaluation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period of the amendment to be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove the amendment. All comments received by the end of the comment period, whether specifically directed to the amendment or to the proposed rule, will be considered in the decision.

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

          Dated: April 4, 2000.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-8872 Filed 4-10-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 040506142-4142-01; I.D. 042204B]
        RIN 0648-AS07
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fisheries; Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) Requirement; Effective Date for Atlantic Shark Fisheries

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to establish an effective date for the requirement to have a NOAA-approved VMS unit installed and operating on vessels with directed shark limited access permits (LAPs) and with gillnet or bottom longline gear on board.  VMS will aid in the enforcement of time/area closures.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received by July 2, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by  Docket Number 040506142-4142-01 or RIN Number 0648-AS07, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: 042204B.issues@noaa.gov. Include the following document identifier: “RIN 0648-AS07 and I.D. 042204B” in the subject line of the message.
          • Fax: 301-713-1917.
          • Mail: HMS Management Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Proposed VMS Requirement”.

          Comments regarding the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule should be sent to the HMS Management Division at the address noted above and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202) 395-7285.
          To obtain copies of the list of NOAA-approved VMS mobile transmitting units and NOAA-approved VMS communications service providers, write to the NMFS Office for Law Enforcement (OLE), 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 415, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

          For copies of Amendment 1 to the Fisheries Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks or of its implementing regulations please write to Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Management Division (F/SF1), Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.  Copies are also available on the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For additional information regarding the proposed effective date specified in this document, contact Mike Clark, Chris Rilling, or Karyl Brewster-Geisz, phone 301-713-2347 or fax 301-713-1917.
          For a current listing of NOAA-approved VMS units, contact Mark Oswell, phone 301-427-2300, fax 301-427-2055.
          For questions regarding VMS installation and activation checklists, contact Jonathan Pinkerton, phone 301-427-2300, fax 301-427-2055.

          An installation checklist, and relevant updates are available at the OLE website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/vms.html.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On December 24, 2003, NMFS issued a final rule (68 FR 74746) requiring the installation of a NOAA- approved VMS unit on: (1) all commercial vessels issued a directed shark LAP with bottom longline gear on board that are located between 33°00′ and 36°30′ N. latitudes between January 1 and July 31 and (2) all commercial vessels issued a directed shark LAP with gillnet gear on board during the right whale calving season (November 15 - March 31), regardless of location.  As specified in the final rule, the requirement to have VMS on board coincides with the start of time/area closures for the right whale calving season (effective as of November 15, 2004, for § 635.69(a)(3)) and the mid-Atlantic time/area closure (effective as of January 1, 2005, for § 635.69(a)(2)) for shark gillnet and bottom longline vessels, respectively.

        The December 24, 2003, (68 FR 74746) VMS requirements were stayed pending the publication of a type-approval notice which was published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2004 (69 FR 19979).  The type-approval notice describes the relevant features of each unit for use by vessels engaged in HMS fisheries.  The units may be used by vessels participating in any HMS fishery including vessels with pelagic longline gear on board.
        This proposed rule does not revise any other requirement or management measure published in the December 24, 2003, final rule, but would establish the effective date for the VMS requirement as 30 days after publication of any final rule associated with this rulemaking.
        Classification
        This action is published under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.  The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries previously determined that the implementation of a VMS program in the shark gillnet and bottom longline fisheries is necessary to monitor and enforce closed areas implemented to reduce bycatch.

        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 action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  This proposed rule would impact approximately 13 vessels, all of which are considered small entities.  As required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for the VMS requirement in draft Amendment 1 and its proposed rule (68 FR 45196, August 1, 2003) and prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for the final rule, (68 FR 74746, December 24, 2003).  Economic impacts of the VMS requirement were addressed in those analyses.  Establishing an effective date will not result in any further economic impacts.  NMFS has certified that the preparation of an IRFA, specific to this proposed rule was not necessary.
        Pursuant to the procedures established to implement Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.
        NMFS notified all states, consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act, of the VMS requirement during the rulemaking for Amendment 1 of the HMS FMP.  No states indicated that the VMS requirement is inconsistent with their coastal zone management programs.  Thus, this proposed action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of those Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean states and territories that have approved coastal zone management programs.

        VMS are intended to aid in the enforcement of time/area closures and thereby reduce interactions with endangered species.  The environmental impacts of the VMS requirement were analyzed during the development of Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP and the December 24, 2003 (68 FR 74746) final rule.  Establishing an effective date for this requirement is not expected to increase endangered species or marine mammal interaction rates beyond that considered permissible in the October 29, 2003, Biological Opinion on the continued operation of Atlantic shark fisheries under the FMP and Draft Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP issued by NMFS Office of Protected Resources.
        This proposed rule establishing the effective date on the VMS requirement refers to collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) which have been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0483.  The public's reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated at: 4 hours for the installation of a VMS, 5 minutes for the completion of a VMS certification statement, 2 hours per year for VMS maintenance, and < 1 second for an automated position report from a VMS.

        These estimates include the time for:  reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information requirements.  Written comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of these data collection requirements, including suggestions for reducing the burden must be sent to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).
        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 requirement of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
          Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

          Dated: May 12, 2004.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

        1.  The authority citation for 50 CFR 635 continues to read as follows:

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

        2.  In § 635.69, paragraphs(a)(2) and (a)(3) are revised to read as follows:

          § 635.69
          Vessel monitoring systems.
          (a) * * *
          (2) As of January 1, 2005, whenever a vessel issued a directed shark LAP, is away from port with bottom longline gear on board, is located between 33°00′ N. lat. and 36°30′ N. lat., and the mid-Atlantic shark closed area is closed as specified in 635.21(d)(1); or
          (3) As of November 15, 2004, whenever a vessel, issued a directed shark LAP, is away from port with a gillnet on board during the right whale calving season specified in the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan in § 229.32(f) of this title.

      [FR Doc. 04-11226 Filed 5-17-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 050510127-5127-01;  I.D. 050305D]
        RIN 0648-AS35
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery; Framework Adjustment 1 to the Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery Management Plan

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement Framework Adjustment 1 to the Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab (Red Crab) Fishery Management Plan (FMP).  This proposed rule would modify the existing annual review and specification process to allow specifications to be set for up to a 3-year timeframe.  The proposed action would allocate for fishing year (FY) 2006 and FY2007 the current (FY2005) target total allowable catch (TAC) and fleet days-at-sea (DAS) of 5.928 million lb (2.69 million kg) and 780 fleet DAS, respectively.  The primary purpose of this proposed action is to conserve and manage the red crab resource, reduce the staff resources necessary to effectively manage this fishery by reducing the frequency with which Stock Evaluation and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Reports, specification packages, and rule-making documents need to be prepared and processed, and provide consistency and predictability to the industry.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received (see ADDRESSES) on or before 5 p.m., local time, on June 20, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on the proposed framework adjustment may be submitted by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: RC2005@noaa.gov.  Include in the subject line the following identifier:   “Comments on Fr Adj 1 to the Red Crab FMP.”
          • Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Mail:  Comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Mark the outside of the envelope:   “Comments on Fr Adj 1 to the Red Crab FMP.”
          • Fax:  (978) 281-9135.

          Copies of supporting documents, including the Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.  The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          E. Martin Jaffe, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9272.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Red Crab FMP was implemented on October 21, 2002.  Regulations implementing the Red Crab FMP require the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) to review annually the red crab specifications.  The Council's Red Crab Plan Development Team (PDT) meets at least annually to review the status of the stock and the fishery.  Based on this review, the PDT reports to the Council's Red Crab Committee any necessary adjustments to the management measures and recommendations for the specifications.  Specifications may include the specification of optimum yield (OY), the setting of a target TAC, allocation of DAS, and/or adjustments to trip/possession limits.  In developing the management measures and recommendations for the annual specifications, the PDT reviews the following data, if available:  Commercial catch data; current estimates of fishing mortality and catch-per-unit-effort; stock status; recent estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis results and other estimates of stock size; sea sampling, port sampling, and survey data or, if sea sampling data are unavailable, length frequency information from port sampling and/or surveys; impact of other fisheries on the mortality of red crabs; and any other relevant information.  The regulations also require the Council to prepare a biennial SAFE Report.  Recommended specifications are subsequently presented to the Council for adoption and recommendation to NMFS.

        This process has proven to be administratively burdensome given that the overall specifications have not changed since the FMP was implemented.
        Proposed Action
        This action includes two basic determinations by the Council.  First, the Council decided that the annual review and specification process should be modified (Decision 1).  Second, since the Council elected to modify the annual review and specification process, it determined the proposed specifications for FY2006 and FY2007 (Decision 2).
        Multi-year Specifications
        This proposed rule would establish multi-year specifications.  Three years was identified as an appropriate length of time to reduce the administrative burden associated with an annual review cycle without increasing the risk of over-harvesting the red crab resource.  The appropriate environmental and regulatory reviews required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Magnuson Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other applicable laws would be completed during the year in which 3-year specifications are set.  The Red Crab PDT would accomplish an updated SAFE Report every 3 years, as well as recommend specifications for the following 3 fishing years, provided that it continues to undertake an annual evaluation of the red crab stock and fishery status.  The PDT would not evaluate other aspects of the fishery every year, but would concentrate on the most recent fishery-dependent information including, but not limited to, DAS used and red crab landings.  More comprehensive analyses would be conducted in the SAFE Report every 3 years.  The Council would retain the flexibility to set specifications for less than 3 years based on new information and/or recommendations from the PDT.
        Multi-year specifications would provide the industry with greater regulatory consistency and predictability and would simplify the overall process by reducing the frequency of Council decision-making and NMFS rulemaking.  However, the maximum 3-year specification process would not curtail the Council from setting specifications during the interim years if information obtained during the annual review indicates that the red crab specifications warrant a change, e.g., to comply fully with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        This action, which is primarily administrative in terms of the frequency with which specifications are set, would not be expected to have any substantial direct social or economic impact on the red crab fishery.  All potential impacts on the resources associated with this fishery would derive from the additional level of risk to these resources that could occur if the specifications were set at too high a level.  If specifications were set too high, then there could be a greater risk of overfishing.  However, the annual review required under the proposed action would reduce the risk of specifications being set at an inappropriate level.
        FY2006 and FY2007 Specifications
        The proposed action would maintain, for FY2006 and FY2007, the current (FY2005) TAC and fleet DAS of 5.928 million lb (2.69 million kg) and 780 fleet DAS, respectively.  Because the fleet, which is small and closely-managed, has neither exceeded the TAC nor used all its allocated DAS since implementation of the FMP, its landings would not be expected to exceed predicted amounts.
        The Council previously decided to recommend maintaining the status quo specifications for FY2005, which maintained the same TAC and DAS allocation as implemented in FY2003 and FY2004.  The impact of maintaining these specifications would not be expected to negatively impact the resource in FY2006 and FY2007, provided there are no major unforeseen  environmental changes that cause the red crab resource to dramatically decrease or increase. Further, the measures implemented under the FMP are expected to continue to protect the resource from overexploitation and maintain a sustainable fishery.  Because this action proposes to maintain the status quo, it would be expected to have the same effect.
        The only measure evaluated in this action that could vary from the impacts already assessed in the FMP would be DAS limits.  The FMP describes that singularly, DAS allocation is unlikely to have any direct effects on the red crab resource.  However, because there are only a certain number of vessels that participate in the directed red crab fishery, the amount of red crab harvested is constrained.  Therefore, by limiting the amount of time a red crab vessel may harvest red crab, the DAS program is the principal fishing effort control program.
        Because the FMP is managed under a target TAC, rather than a hard TAC, there is no guarantee that the fishery will not exceed the quota; however, the DAS management program implemented under the FMP was designed to manage the red crab resource at a level that produces the maximum sustainable yield, while harvesting the target TAC.  Therefore, if DAS are adjusted, the level of red crab harvest would be expected to adjust accordingly, assuming a constant harvest rate.  For example, under the proposed alternative 780 DAS would be allocated compared to 741 DAS as considered under another of the alternatives.  If a constant harvest rate is assumed, then the subject non-preferred alternative would result in an approximate 5 percent decrease in red crab landings, relative to the proposed alternative.  Therefore, the difference between the alternatives in terms of biological impacts is very small.
        In terms of the biological impacts on other non-target species and the ecosystem, based on analysis in the FMP/EIS, it is unlikely that any of the alternatives in the EA/RIR/IRFA would have an impact.  There is very little known about the interactions of the deep-sea red crab with other species and their associated communities.  The FMP explains that initial reports from industry members indicate that there is very little, if any, bycatch of other species in the directed red crab fishery.  According to the recent SAFE Report (October 2004), there are no records of observed red crab trips in the observer database, and the trips that are recorded in the Vessel Trip Report (VTR) database have very little bycatch information.  The FMP did identify that the bycatch of red crab in other fisheries may be a more significant issue.  Section 3.1.2.1 of the SAFE Report describes the bycatch of red crab in other fisheries from the data available.  There is some anecdotal information that there may be considerable bycatch of red crab in the offshore monkfish fishery, but there are not sufficient data to conclude that red crab bycatch is a significant concern for that fishery at this time.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        The Council prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which has been adopted by NMFS and that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.  A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble.  There are no new recordkeeping or reporting requirements proposed in this rule.  It would not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.  All of the affected vessels are considered small entities under the standards described by the Small Business Administration because they have annual returns (revenues) that do not exceed $3.5 million annually and, therefore, there are no disproportionate impacts between large and small entities.  A summary of the analysis follows:
        As stated in the preamble, this action includes two basic decisions of the Council.  First, the Council determined whether the annual review and specification process should be modified (Decision 1), as opposed to the No Action alternative, which, if selected, would maintain the status quo and require that specifications be set annually.  Since the Council elected to modify the annual review and specification process, it then decided to propose the specifications for FY2006 and FY2007 (Decision 2).
        Decision 1 of the proposed action, which deals primarily with the 3-year review and specification cycle for the alternatives considered, has two options.  Option 1 would not require an annual review of the status of the red crab resource and fishery, while Option 2 (the proposed action) would require such review.
        Decision 1 of the proposed action would not be expected to have a direct economic impact on the four active vessels in the fishery and/or associated businesses and port communities.
        Multi-year specifications could improve business planning for the red crab industry.  For example, vessel owners and processors could plan better when they know their minimum individual DAS allocation several years in advance.  The single red crab processor involved in the red crab industry explained that multi-year specifications could improve its ability to sell red crab.  Because there is only one processor in this fishery, if the TAC and fleet DAS are specified for several years, instead of only one, buyers could have more confidence in the supply of this product.  Red crab vessels, in general, have lower crew turnover than in most other fisheries.  The improved business planning that could occur under multi-year specifications could have indirect benefits to crew members as well, offering more confidence in the future of the industry.
        Decision 2 of the proposed action, which deals with the specifications for FY2006 and FY2007, originally identified three alternatives.  Two of these essentially became the same alternative so that the remaining two are considered in the economic analysis.  The preferred alternative would maintain the same TAC (5.928 million lb/2.69 million kg) and fleet DAS allocation (780) as proposed under the FMP in FY2004 and FY2005.  The non-preferred alternative would continue the same TAC but would allocate a total fleet DAS allocation 5 percent less than the DAS allocation proposed for FY2005.  This allocation would be the same for FY2006 and FY2007.  Therefore, under the non-preferred alternative, the DAS allocation for both fishing years would be 741.  A complete description and discussion of the alternatives may be seen in Section 5.0 of the EA/RIR/IRFA.
        The continuing requirement that a vessel must declare its intent to participate in the fishery 6 months prior to the start of the next FY means that, because of the small number of vessels in the fishery, each vessel's participation has a large impact on the appropriate number of DAS that the fleet could utilize in catching the target TAC.  The advance knowledge and planning for efficient harvest have economic benefits from harvesting to processing to marketing.
        Given the proposed action of 780 fleet DAS for FY2006 and FY2007, the economic impacts would not be expected to differ from those identified in the FMP or from the FY2005 specifications.  If one vessel continues to opt out of the fishery, as one did in FY2004 and FY2005, the four remaining vessels would receive more individual DAS than originally allocated under the FMP.  Therefore, the economic impacts of this action would be expected to be positive for the vessels declaring their intent to remain in the fishery, assuming they utilize the additional individual DAS awarded, as compared to the DAS allocated to each vessel under the FMP.
        There would be no adverse impacts associated with a fleet allocation of 780 DAS.  Since the implementation of the FMP, the fleet has not utilized its full allocation, so that no barriers have existed to prevent vessels from increasing their landings and revenue.  The potential exists for vessels to increase their profitability over and above that which existed under the FMP.
        Aside from the number of DAS that each vessel would be allocated, there are other recent developments that could alter the efficiency of the industry.  During 2004, all vessels began landing in Fall River, Massachusetts, and the processor reported that though it is more convenient, overall costs are probably the same.  Generally, the processor sends one or two trucks to Fall River to pick up the red crab product after each trip.  Since implementation of the FMP, the processor has worked with the industry and its clients to reduce costs.  For example, it has developed a creative way to change the packing of red crab, which has reduced costs and enabled the processor to pay the vessels approximately 10 cents more per lb.
        Industry reported that fishing costs have increased during the past FY.  Fuel- and oil-based products are more expensive, and insurance rates have increased by about 50 percent.  These increases have been somewhat offset by an increase in price paid for red crab.  The average price is about 10 cents per lb higher this FY than in 2003.  Vessel owners reported that they are receiving about 94 cents per lb for red crab (whole and butchered product) versus approximately 84 cents per lb during FY2003.
        It is not possible to quantify the net benefits of each of the alternatives, but it is possible to determine the comparable net benefits of each of these two alternatives.  The most important issue with which to evaluate the alternatives is the number of DAS allocated to limited access vessels.  The higher number of DAS of 780 (Alternative 2.1) would allow the industry the potential to generate greater economic benefits than the alternative of 741 DAS (Alternative 2.3).
        Costs are expected to continue to increase in FY2006 and FY2007, as has been the pattern in the past.  The industry has managed to adjust to changing cost conditions in the past, and adjustments are expected to continue.  The close relationship between the harvest sector and the processing sector contributes to the industry's ability to adjust to changing price structures.  Employment is not expected to be affected by the alternative selected.
        The analysis in the IRFA indicates that there are no significant alternatives considered that would increase economic benefits relative to the proposed alternative in this proposed rule.  This action is not expected to alter the fishing practices of the four vessels participating in the fishery.  Thus, this action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated:  May 16, 2005.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. Section 648.260 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraphs (a) introductory text, (b) introductory text, and (b)(1) to read as follows:

          § 648.260
          Specifications.
          (a) Process for setting specifications.  The Council's Red Crab Plan Development Team (PDT) will prepare a Stock Evaluation and Assessment (SAFE) Report at least every 3 years.  Upon completion of, and based on, the SAFE Report, the PDT will develop and present to the Council recommended specifications for up to 3 fishing years.  The PDT will meet at least once annually during the intervening years to review the status of the stock and the fishery.  Based on such review, the PDT will provide a brief report to the Council on any changes or new information about the red crab stock and/or fishery, and it will recommend whether the specifications for the upcoming years need to be modified.  The annual review will be limited in scope and will concentrate on the most recent fishery-dependent information including, but not limited to, days-at-sea (DAS) used and red crab landings.  In the event that the PDT recommends an adjustment to the specifications, the PDT will prepare a supplemental specifications package for a specific time duration up to 3 years.  Specifications include the specification of OY, the setting of any target TACs, allocation of DAS, and/or adjustments to trip/possession limits.

          (b) Development of specifications.  In developing the management measures and specifications, the PDT will review the following data, if available:   Commercial catch data; current estimates of fishing mortality and catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE); stock status; recent estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis results and other estimates of stock size; sea sampling, port sampling, and survey data or, if sea sampling data are unavailable, length frequency information from port sampling and/or surveys; impact of other fisheries on the mortality of red crabs; and any other relevant information.
          (1) The Red Crab PDT, after its review of the available information on the status of the stock and the fishery, may recommend to the Council any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded, as well as changes to the appropriate specifications.

      [FR Doc. 05-10130 Filed 5-19-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        RIN 0648-XF852
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Halibut Bycatch Management in the Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement; request for written comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS, in consultation with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a new halibut bycatch management program for groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI), in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The proposed action would create a new method of managing halibut bycatch that links halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) limits for the groundfish fisheries to data on halibut abundance. The proposed action is intended to provide a responsive approach for managing halibut bycatch at varying levels of halibut abundance. The new program would minimize halibut bycatch to the extent practicable while achieving, on a continuing basis, optimum yield from the groundfish fisheries. The new management program also could provide additional opportunity for the directed halibut fishery at low levels of halibut abundance compared to the status quo and promote conservation of the halibut spawning stock biomass, particularly at low levels of abundance. The EIS will analyze the impacts to the human environment resulting from the proposed bycatch management program. NMFS will accept written comments from the public to identify the issues of concern and assist the Council in determining the appropriate range of management alternatives for the EIS.

          DATES:
          Written comments will be accepted through February 16, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0144, 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-2017-0144, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

            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), 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).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Glenn Merrill, (907) 586-7228 or email glenn.merrill@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Authority for Action
        Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the United States has exclusive fishery management authority over all living marine resources found within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The management of these marine resources, with the exception of marine mammals and birds, is vested in the Secretary of Commerce. The Council has the responsibility to prepare fishery management plans for the fishery resources that require conservation and management in the EEZ off Alaska. Management of the Federal groundfish fisheries in the BSAI is carried out under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP). The FMP, its amendments, and implementing regulations (found at 50 CFR part 679) are developed in accordance with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable Federal laws and executive orders, notably the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
        The Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) resource is fully utilized in Alaska and is a target species in subsistence, personal use, recreational (sport), and commercial fisheries. Halibut have significant social, cultural, and economic importance to fishery participants and fishing communities throughout the geographical range of the resource. Halibut are also incidentally taken as bycatch in groundfish fisheries. The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines bycatch as fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold or kept for personal use, and includes economic discards and regulatory discards. The term does not include fish released alive under a recreational catch and release fishery management program. 16 U.S.C. 1802 3(2).

        The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage Pacific halibut fisheries through regulations established under the authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act) (16 U.S.C. 773-773k). The IPHC adopts regulations governing the target fishery for Pacific halibut under the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention (signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979). For the United States, regulations governing the fishery for Pacific halibut developed by the IPHC are subject to acceptance by the Secretary of State with concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce. After acceptance by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce, NMFS publishes the IPHC regulations in the Federal Register as annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62. The final rule implementing IPHC regulations for 2017 published on March 7, 2017 (82 FR 12730).
        Section 773c(c) of the Halibut Act also provides the Council with authority to develop regulations that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations. The Council has exercised this authority in the development of Federal regulations for the halibut fishery such as (1) subsistence halibut fishery management measures, codified at § 300.65; (2) the limited access program for charter vessels in the guided sport fishery, codified at § 300.67; and (3) the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program for the commercial halibut and sablefish fisheries, codified at 50 CFR part 679, under the authority of section 773 of the Halibut Act and section 303(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Background
        The Council is examining abundance-based approaches for halibut PSC limits in the BSAI groundfish fisheries. Currently, halibut PSC limits are a fixed amount of halibut mortality in metric tons. When halibut abundance declines, halibut PSC becomes a larger proportion of total halibut removals and can result in lower catch limits for directed halibut fisheries. Both the Council and the IPHC have expressed concern about the impacts of lower catch limits on directed halibut fisheries at low levels of halibut abundance under the status quo. The Council identified abundance-based halibut PSC limits as a potential management approach to address this concern by linking halibut PSC limits to halibut abundance and potentially providing additional opportunity for the directed halibut fisheries compared to the status quo at low levels of halibut abundance.
        NMFS and the Council have determined the preparation of an EIS may be required for this action because abundance-based halibut PSC limits may have effects on target and bycatch species and their users that are uncertain or unknown and may result in significant impacts on the human environment not previously analyzed. Thus, NMFS and the Council are initiating scoping for an EIS in the event an EIS is needed.
        NMFS and the Council are seeking information from the public through the EIS scoping process on the range of alternatives to be analyzed, and on the environmental, social, and economic issues to be considered in the analysis. Written comments generated during this scoping process will be provided to the Council and incorporated into the EIS for the proposed action.
        Halibut Bycatch Management in the BSAI Groundfish Fisheries
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes the Council and NMFS to manage groundfish fisheries in the Alaska EEZ that take halibut as bycatch. The groundfish fisheries cannot be prosecuted without some level of halibut bycatch because groundfish and halibut occur in the same areas at the same times, and no fishing gear or technique has been developed that can avoid all halibut bycatch. However, the Council and NMFS have taken a number of management actions over the past several decades to minimize halibut bycatch in the BSAI groundfish fisheries. Most importantly, the Council has designated Pacific halibut and several other species (herring, salmon and steelhead, king crab, and Tanner crab) as “prohibited species” (Section 3.6.1 of the FMP). By regulation, the operator of any vessel fishing for groundfish in the BSAI must minimize the catch of prohibited species (§ 679.21(b)(2)(i)).
        Although halibut is taken as bycatch by vessels using all types of gear (trawl, hook-and-line, pot, and jig gear), halibut bycatch primarily occurs in the trawl and hook-and-line groundfish fisheries. NMFS manages halibut bycatch in the BSAI by (1) establishing halibut PSC limits for trawl and non-trawl fisheries; (2) apportioning those halibut PSC limits to groundfish sectors, fishery categories, and seasons; and (3) managing groundfish fisheries to prevent PSC from exceeding the established limits.

        Consistent with National Standard 1 and National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council and NMFS use halibut PSC limits in the BSAI groundfish fisheries to minimize bycatch to the extent practicable while achieving, on a continuing basis, optimum yield from the groundfish fisheries. Halibut PSC limits in the groundfish fisheries provide an additional constraint on halibut PSC mortality and promote conservation of the halibut resource. With one limited exception for the Bering Sea midwater pollock fishery described in § 679.21(e)(3)(ii)(C), groundfish fishing is prohibited once a halibut PSC limit has been reached for a particular sector or season. Therefore, halibut PSC limits must be set to balance the needs of fishermen, fishing communities, and U.S. consumers that depend on both halibut and groundfish resources.
        In 2015, the Council revised halibut PSC management in the BSAI groundfish fisheries by recommending Amendment 111 to the FMP. Amendment 111 reduced halibut PSC limits for the BSAI groundfish fisheries by 21 percent. NMFS implemented Amendment 111 on May 27, 2016 (81 FR 24714). In February 2015, in conjunction with review of the analysis prepared for Amendment 111, the Council also requested an initial evaluation of possible approaches to link BSAI halibut PSC limits to data or model-based abundance estimates of halibut. The Council reviewed this initial evaluation at its December 2015 meeting and requested additional information on appropriate indices for use in indexing halibut abundance to PSC limits in the BSAI.
        In April 2016, the Council reviewed additional information on abundance-based approaches for halibut PSC limits and unanimously adopted a purpose and need statement to establish abundance-based halibut PSC limits for the BSAI groundfish fisheries. The Council refined the purpose and need statement at subsequent meetings in 2016 and 2017:

          The current fixed yield based halibut PSC caps are inconsistent with management of the directed halibut fisheries and Council management of groundfish fisheries, which are managed based on abundance. When halibut abundance declines, PSC becomes a larger proportion of total halibut removals and thereby further reduces the proportion and amount of halibut available for harvest in directed halibut fisheries. Conversely, if halibut abundance increases, halibut PSC limits could be unnecessarily constraining. The Council is considering linking PSC limits to halibut abundance to provide a responsive management approach at varying levels of halibut abundance. The Council is considering abundance-based PSC limits to control total halibut mortality, provide an opportunity for the directed halibut fishery, and protect the halibut spawning stock biomass, particularly at low levels of abundance. The Council recognizes that abundance-based halibut PSC limits may increase and decrease with changes in halibut abundance.

        In October 2016, the Council identified the following objectives for establishing abundance-based halibut PSC limits to guide the development of appropriate management measures and the tradeoffs among them:
        1. Halibut PSC limits should be indexed to halibut abundance.
        2. Halibut spawning stock biomass should be protected especially at lower levels of abundance.
        3. There should be flexibility provided to avoid unnecessarily constraining the groundfish fishery particularly when halibut abundance is high.
        4. Provide for directed halibut fishing operations in the Bering Sea.
        5. Provide for some stability in PSC limits on an inter-annual basis.

        In October 2017, the Council requested a preliminary analysis using specific elements and options it intends to consider in developing alternatives for abundance-based halibut PSC limits. The Council and NMFS also agreed to initiate scoping to prepare an EIS for the proposed action to establish abundance-based halibut PSC limits in the BSAI groundfish fisheries. Additional information on the Council's development of abundance-based halibut PSC limits is available on the Council's website at http://www.npfmc.org/.

        Proposed Action
        The EIS will analyze the proposed action to establish halibut PSC limits for the BSAI groundfish fisheries that can vary with changes in halibut abundance. Abundance-based halibut PSC limits would replace current PSC limits that establish a fixed amount of halibut PSC as the limit for each groundfish sector in the BSAI. The proposed action would apply to participants in Federal groundfish fisheries prosecuted in the BSAI using trawl and non-trawl (fixed) gear. This area is defined at § 679.2 and shown in Figure 1 to 50 CFR part 679.
        Alternative Elements and Options for Abundance-Based Halibut PSC Limits
        NMFS, in coordination with the Council, will evaluate a range of alternative methods for establishing abundance-based halibut annual PSC limits for the groundfish fisheries in the BSAI. NMFS and the Council recognize that implementation of abundance-based halibut PSC limits could result in substantial changes to many of the current management measures for halibut PSC in the groundfish fisheries. The EIS will analyze these changes and the likely impacts of those changes on groundfish stocks and participants in the groundfish fisheries. The EIS also will analyze the likely impacts of an abundance-based halibut PSC limits on the halibut stock and on participants in directed halibut fisheries. Alternatives may be formulated based on two elements critical to establishing abundance-based halibut PSC limits: (1) A halibut abundance index, and (2) a control rule informed by abundance index data that results in a halibut PSC limit for the trawl and fixed gear groundfish fisheries in the BSAI. The Council has identified the following index and control rule options for preliminary analysis.
        Possible alternatives for the abundance-based halibut PSC management program could be constructed from one or more of the following options, in addition to those developed through the public scoping and Council processes:
        1. Abundance index and application: Establish halibut abundance indices using the annual NMFS eastern Bering Sea trawl survey and the annual IPHC setline survey. Data from these indices may be applied separately or in combination to establish trawl and fixed gear halibut PSC limits.
        2. Control rule: Using the selected abundance index, establish a control rule that results in annual halibut PSC limits for the trawl and fixed gear groundfish fisheries in the BSAI. The control rule to establish halibut PSC limits may have one or more of the following features:
        • Control rule application: The control rule could be applied through a mathematical formula to specify halibut PSC limits based on the abundance index data. The control rule also could be applied through a decision framework that identifies specific ranges of halibut abundance levels and the resulting halibut PSC limits. For example, the control rule could associate low, intermediate and high levels of the spawning biomass with low, intermediate and high PSC limits.
        • Responsiveness of control rule to abundance changes: The control rule could result in halibut PSC limits that change proportionally with changes in the abundance index or PSC limits that change in different proportions relative to the abundance index to meet specific objectives. For example, a control rule could limit annual variability in halibut PSC limits, as determined by halibut abundance, to achieve the objective of stability in PSC limits on an inter-annual basis or to provide flexibility to avoid unnecessarily constraining the groundfish fishery, particularly when halibut abundance is high.
        • Starting point for PSC limit: The control rule will have a PSC limit starting point to which the abundance index will be applied to determine halibut PSC limits for the groundfish fisheries in any given year. The starting point could be based on the current PSC limit or halibut PSC use.
        • Maximum and/or minimum PSC limits: The control rule could establish a maximum and/or minimum value for the halibut PSC limit for groundfish fisheries. Maximum and/or minimum PSC limits would limit the total amount of halibut PSC that can be taken at varying levels of halibut abundance and could promote the objectives to protect the halibut spawning stock biomass and provide for directed halibut fishing operations in the Bering Sea.
        Public Involvement
        Scoping is an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed in an EIS and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action. A principal objective of the scoping and public involvement process is to identify a range of reasonable management alternatives that, with adequate analysis, will delineate critical issues and provide a clear basis for distinguishing among those alternatives and selecting a preferred alternative. Through this document, NMFS is notifying the public that an EIS and decision-making process for this proposed action have been initiated so that interested or affected people may participate and contribute to the final decision.

        NMFS is seeking written public comments on the scope of issues, including potential impacts, and alternatives that should be considered to establish abundance-based halibut PSC limits for the groundfish fisheries in the BSAI. Written comments should be as specific as possible to be the most helpful. Written comments received during the scoping process, including the names and addresses of those submitting them, will be considered part of the public record of this proposal and will be available for public inspection. Written comments will be accepted at the address above (see ADDRESSES). Please visit the NMFS Alaska Region website at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov for more information on the EIS to establish abundance-based halibut PSC limits for the BSAI groundfish fisheries and for guidance on submitting effective written public comments.

        The public is invited to participate and provide input at Council meetings where the latest scientific information regarding the BSAI groundfish fisheries is reviewed and alternatives for abundance-based halibut PSC limits are developed and evaluated. Notice of future Council meetings will be published in the Federal Register and on the internet at http://www.npfmc.org/. Please visit this website for information and guidance on participating in Council meetings.

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

          Dated: December 7, 2017.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2017-26734 Filed 12-11-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P