        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 229 and 697
        [Docket No. 141002823-4823-01]
        RIN 0648-BE57
        Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations; Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; American Lobster Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to amend the regulations implementing the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan to modify the start date of the Massachusetts Restricted Area to begin on February 1, 2015, and to expand the Massachusetts Restricted Area by 912 square miles. In addition, this action also proposes to revise the Federal lobster regulations to be consistent with the revised start date of the Massachusetts Restricted Area. Recent Federal lobster regulations closed the Outer Cape Lobster Management Area to lobster trap fishing from January 15 through March 15, which is consistent with the lobster trap haul-out period in the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster. This proposed rule would adjust the Outer Cape Lobster Management Area closure dates to February 1 through March 31.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before November 21, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0127, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov.

          • Mail: Submit written comments to Kim Damon-Randall, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS Greater Atlantic Region, 55 Great Republic Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930, Attn: Large Whale Proposed Rule.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kate Swails, NMFS Greater Atlantic Region, 978-282-8481, Kate.Swails@noaa.gov; or, Kristy Long, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 206-526-4792, Kristy.Long@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access

        Several of the background documents for the Plan and the take reduction planning process can be downloaded from the Plan Web site at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/whaletrp/index.html. The complete text of the regulations implementing the Plan can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 229.32 or downloaded from the Web site, along with a guide to the regulations.
        Background
        This proposed rule combines two regulatory modifications that are authorized under different statutes. Specifically, this action proposes to amend the regulations implementing: (1) the Atlantic Large Whale Plan (Plan)_regulations found at 50 CFR part 229 under the authority of the MMPA; and (2) the Federal American lobster Fishery Management Plan regulations found at 50 CFR part 697 under the authority of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act.
        NMFS published a final rule implementing an amendment to the Plan on June 27, 2014 (79 FR 36586) to address large whale entanglement risks associated with vertical line (or buoy lines) from commercial trap/pot fisheries. That amendment included gear modifications, gear setting requirements, a seasonal closure (Massachusetts Restricted Area) and gear marking for both the trap/pot and the gillnet fisheries. The Massachusetts Restricted Area is a seasonal closure that is effective January 1 through April 30 for all trap/pot fisheries, which accounts for the largest number of vertical lines in the water column.
        In September 2010, in consultation with the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (Team), NMFS developed protocols for considering modifications or exemptions to the regulations implementing the Plan. Following these protocols, on August 18, 2014, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) submitted a proposal to modify the Massachusetts Restricted Area and exempt several areas from the gear setting requirements to address safety and economic concerns raised by Massachusetts fishermen.
        Review of Massachusetts Restricted Area
        The proposal submitted by DMF contains two components:
        (1) Modify the Massachusetts Restricted Area (closure), which begins on January 1, 2015 by:
        ○ Modifying the timing and size of the closure.
        ○ Establishing gear stowage areas during a portion of the closure.
        (2) Establish several exemption areas to the current minimum number of traps per trawl requirement, which take effect June 1, 2015.
        ○ Exemption areas would include portions of Southern New England waters (Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, and Nantucket Sound) as well as state waters north and east of Cape Cod.
        Given the importance of addressing the Massachusetts Restricted Area before the closure begins on January 1, 2015, and the time needed to complete the analysis of the entire suite of requests contained in the entire DMF proposal, NMFS decided to address the modifications to the Massachusetts Restricted Area and the exemption of the minimum number of traps per trawl requirements separately.
        Changes Proposed to the Plan
        NMFS proposes to modify the start date of the Massachusetts Restricted Area to begin on February 1, 2015 and expand the area by 912 square miles. NMFS proposes this action because it responds to comments to improve the past action while balancing risk reduction considerations. Specifically, the action decreases the number of affected vessels and results in reductions in compliance costs while maintaining the same entanglement risk reduction as provided in the June 2014 amendment to the Plan.
        At its October 1, 2014 meeting, the Team discussed the requested modifications to the Massachusetts Restricted Area, as well as the creation of the trap/pot storage areas. The discussion included a review of the merits and analysis of the DMF proposal utilizing NMFS' co-occurrence model. The model incorporates information on geographic and temporal variations in fishing effort and the distribution of fishing line, as well as whale sightings per unit of survey effort, and identifies areas and times at which whales and commercial fishing gear are likely to co-occur. The model's final product is a set of indicators that provide information on factors that contribute to the risk of entanglement at various locations and at different points in time. These indicators, in particular the number of vertical lines in an area and the area's co-occurrence score, assumed to be related to the relative entanglement risk in different locations. They also provide a basis for comparing the impact of alternative management measures on the potential for entanglements to occur.
        NMFS compared the impacts of the two closure areas for conservation benefit using its co-occurrence model and economic analysis. The methods and data sources used in this analysis are consistent with those applied in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the 2014 Plan amendments referred above. The proposed changes to the closure would allow approximately 125 vessels to continue to fish during a lucrative time of year for the fishing industry and would require a slightly greater number of vessels to suspend activity from February through April. This is because the proposed closure area is larger than the current closure area, an increase of 912 square miles. On average, the proposed closure area offers a similar reduction in co-occurrence to that of the current closure (38.2%) while providing less of an economic burden. Therefore, this proposed action minimizes potential economic impacts without increasing risk to large whales.
        At the conclusion of the October 1, 2014, meeting, the Team, by consensus, recommended that we modify the Massachusetts Restricted Area as proposed by DMF. However, the Team recommended that NMFS not act on DMF's proposed trap/pot storage areas. The remainder of DMF's proposal will be analyzed and discussed with the Team during its January 2015 meeting. The Team will provide NMFS a recommendation at that time on whether to move forward with the remaining components of the DMF proposal.
        Changes to American Lobster Regulations

        On April 7, 2014, NMFS published a final rule (79 FR 19015) that implemented the Outer Cape Area lobster haul-out period. In that rule, NMFS acknowledged in the preamble that it might need to adjust the closure dates if Massachusetts ultimately requested a different time period (See Response to Comment 22, 78 FR 35217, June 12, 2013). Now that Massachusetts has done so, if this proposed rule is adopted, the original Outer Cape Area lobster closure dates would become outdated and may create unintended impacts to Federal lobster fishers. For example, if NMFS does not adjust the January 15 start date, Federal lobster fishers would have to remove their traps from the Outer Cape Area two weeks earlier than the February 1 start date that exists in the Massachusetts regulations and the large whale Plan. Therefore, in this rule, NMFS proposes to change the start date of the Outer Cape Lobster Management Area closure dates from January 15 to February 1. Further, NMFS proposes to adjust the end of the Outer Cape Area haul-out period by two weeks from March 15 to March 31, to continue with a full two-month haul-out period as dictated by the Commission. NMFS considered extending the haul-out period to April 30, to be consistent with the Plan. However, the southwestern portion of the Outer Cape Area is not included in the Plan's revised closure area, and would be closed for an additional month longer than the Commission's two-month haul-out period. Accordingly, NMFS proposes to simply shift the Outer Cape Area haul-out period dates ahead by two weeks. After March 31, lobster trap fishermen in the Massachusetts Restricted Area will be held to the more restrictive Plan dates through April 30.
        Classification
        The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this action is not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        The fisheries affected by this proposed rule are the Northeast American lobster trap/pot, Atlantic blue crab trap/pot and Atlantic mixed species trap/pot. The population of vessels that are affected by this proposed action includes commercial trap/pot vessels fishing in state and federal waters in Massachusetts. On June 12, 2014, the SBA issued an interim final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33647). The rule increased the size standard for Finfish Fishing from $19.0 to 20.5 million, Shellfish Fishing from $5.0 to 5.5 million, and Other Marine Fishing from $7.0 to 7.5 million (79 FR 33656, 33660, 33666). Currently, the Massachusetts Restricted Area closure impacts an average of 109 vessels. All of the entities (fishing vessels) affected by this action are considered small entities under the SBA size standards for small fishing businesses.
        The analysis of the economic impacts for this action were based on data from the 2014 FEIS that supported the most recent Plan amendment published as a final rule on June 27, 2014 (79 FR 36586). The number of vessels and level of overall fishing effort have remained constant since the preparation of the FEIS. Therefore, NMFS believes that these data are still relevant for the purpose of this analysis.

        Currently, the Massachusetts Restricted Area closure impacts an average of 109 vessels, with $1.2 M in gross revenue potentially lost during the closure period. Relatively strong landings make this a critical time for the Massachusetts lobster fishery, especially in the northern part of the closure area. Based on an analysis of the affected number of vessels, average traps per vessel, and net revenues, NMFS estimates that by starting the closure in February, instead of January, this action would result in net revenue gains of $447,000. The net change in revenue has two components: (1) the revenue gain associated with allowing trap/pot fishing in January within the current boundaries of the Massachusetts Bay Restricted Area, and (2) the revenue loss associated with expanding the boundaries of the closure to include all waters within the Outer Cape Lobster Management Area, thus prohibiting trap/pot fishing in these newly-closed waters from February through April. The difference between the two is the overall net revenue gain.
        This rule would result in positive economic impacts on the affected vessels by excluding the prime fishing month of January. The start date of February 1 would allow lobstermen to complete normal lobster fishing operations through the lucrative holiday months of November into January. Although the closed area is increasing by 912 square miles, the number of vessels affected by the increase in area is minimal. The average number of vessels impacted in the larger area is 106 versus the 109 vessels impacted under current regulations.
        NMFS has determined that this action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the approved coastal management programs of Massachusetts. This determination was submitted for review by the responsible state agency under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
        This proposed rule contains policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Accordingly, the Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs will provide notice of the proposed action to the appropriate official(s) of affected state, local, and/or tribal governments.

          List of Subjects
          50 CFR Part 229
          Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Fisheries, Marine mammals, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
          50 CFR Part 697
          Fisheries, fishing.

          Dated: October 31, 2014.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 229 and 697 are proposed to be amended to read as follows:

          PART 229—AUTHORIZATION FOR COMMERCIAL FISHERIES UNDER THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972

        1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 229 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; § 229.32(f) also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

        2. In § 229.32, paragraph (c)(3) is revised to read as follows:

          § 229.32
          Atlantic large whale take reduction plan regulations.

          (c) * * *
          (3) Massachusetts Restricted Area—(i) Area. The Massachusetts restricted area is bounded by the following points connected by straight lines in the order listed, and bounded on the west by the shoreline of Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

              Point
              N. Lat.
              W. Long.

              MRA1
              42°12′
              70°44′

              MRA2
              42°12′
              70°30′

              MRA3
              42°30′
              70°30′

              MRA4
              42°30′
              69°45′

              MRA5
              41°56.5′
              69°45′

              MRA6
              41°21.5′
              69°16′

              MRA7
              41°15.3′
              69°57.9′

              MRA8
              41°20.3′
              70°00′

              MRA9
              41°40.2′
              70°00′

          (ii) Closure. From February 1 to April 30, it is prohibited to fish with, set, or possess trap/pot gear in this area unless stowed in accordance with § 229.2.
          (iii) Area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From May 1 through January 30, no person or vessel may fish with or possess trap/pot gear in the Massachusetts Restricted Area unless that gear complies with the gear marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the universal trap/pot gear requirements specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and the area-specific requirements listed in (c)(2) of this section, or unless the gear is stowed as specified in § 229.2.

          PART 697—ATLANTIC COASTAL FISHERIES COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

        3. The authority citation for part 697 continues to read as follows:

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

        4. In § 697.7, revise paragraph (c)(1)(xxx) introductory paragraph to read as follows:

          § 697.7
          Prohibitions.

          (c) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (xxx) Outer Cape Area seasonal closure. The Federal waters of the Outer Cape Area shall be closed to lobster fishing with traps by Federal lobster permit holders from February 1 through March 31.

      [FR Doc. 2014-26323 Filed 11-5-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 90
        [WT Docket Nos. 12-64 and 11-110; Report No. 2959]
        Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding; Correction

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petition for reconsideration; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          The Federal Communications Commission published a summary in the Federal Register of August 31, 2012, regarding a Petition for Reconsideration filed in a rulemaking proceeding. The summary included the incorrect deadline for filing replies to an opposition to the Petition. This document revises the deadline for replies to an opposition to the Petition.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before September 17, 2012. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before September 27, 2012.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Brian Regan, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, brian.regan@fcc.gov <mailto:brian.regan@fcc.gov>, (202) 418-2849.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a summary of a Petition for Reconsideration of a rulemaking proceeding in the Federal Register at 77 FR 53163, August 31, 2012. The deadlines for filing oppositions to the Petition and replies to oppositions to the Petition were listed in the summary. The deadline in the summary for replies to an opposition is incorrect.

        In the summary published in 77 FR 53163 on August 31, 2012, in FR Doc. No. 2012-21478, make the following correction. On page 53163, in the third column, correct the second sentence in the DATES section to read: Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before September 27, 2012.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Gloria J. Miles,
          Federal Register Liaison, Office of the Secretary, Office of Managing Director.

      [FR Doc. 2012-22562 Filed 9-12-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 537
        [Docket No. NHTSA-98-3965, Notice 01]
        RIN 2127-AG00
        Automotive Fuel Economy; Semi-Annual Reports

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

          ACTION:
          Termination of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document terminates a rulemaking proceeding to amend the required form and content of the semi-annual reports that automobile manufacturers are required to submit under the Federal automotive fuel economy program. The purpose of the proposal was to simplify the existing reporting requirements and thereby reduce the paperwork burdens imposed on manufacturers, without inhibiting the agency's ability to comply with its statutory requirements. The agency undertook this action as part of an effort to make its regulations easier to understand and apply. However, the agency has determined that the changes it proposed would increase, rather than reduce, the regulatory burdens of the manufacturers (e.g., computer reprogramming costs) and the administrative tasks of NHTSA, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Accordingly, we are terminating the rulemaking proceeding.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For non-legal issues: Ms. Henrietta L. Spinner, Office of Planning and Consumer Programs, Safety Performance Standards, NPS-32, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-4802.
          For legal issues: Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-20, telephone (202) 366-5253, facsimile (202) 366-3820.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NHTSA undertook a review of its regulations and directives and identified rules that it could propose to eliminate as unnecessary or to amend to improve their comprehensibility, usefulness, and appropriateness. NHTSA identified the Semi-Annual Reports for Automotive Fuel Economy as a candidate for review and, as noted below, issued a proposal to amend the semi-annual report requirements.
        Background
        Section 32907 of title 49, United States Code (49 U.S.C. 32907) requires automobile manufacturers to submit semi-annual reports to NHTSA. These reports indicate whether the manufacturer will comply with applicable fuel economy standards for a model year, state the actions that the manufacturer has taken or intends to take to comply with the standard, and provide other information required by regulation (49 U.S.C. 32907(a)(1)). Section 32907(a)(2) specifies that two reports must be filed for each model year (49 U.S.C. 32907(a)(2)). One report is due before the beginning of each model year, and the second is due within 30 days of the 180th day of the model year. In the event that a manufacturer determines, after having previously reported that it would comply with the applicable standard for that model year, that the actions it has taken in an effort to comply with an applicable fuel economy standard are not sufficient to ensure compliance with that standard, the manufacturer is required by section 32907(a)(3) (49 U.S.C. 32907(a)(3)) to report additional actions that the manufacturer intends to take to comply and whether those actions will be sufficient to ensure compliance. However, if a manufacturer is subject to an alternative fuel economy standard under Section 32902(d)(2) (49 U.S.C. 32902(d)(2)), it is not required to submit any of the foregoing reports.
        NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal Register on December 12, 1977 (42 FR 62374), implementing the provisions of Section 32907 and adding several requirements to those expressly contemplated by that section's provisions. In the final rule, the agency observed that since manufacturers have different annual production periods, there was no single model year designation applicable to all companies. Accordingly, NHTSA determined to use the calendar year to specify the timing of the section 32907 reports, making the pre-model year report for a model year due in December (49 CFR 537.5(b)(1)) (e.g., the pre-model year report for the 2001 model year was due in December 2000) and the mid-model year report for that model year due in July (49 CFR 537.5(b)(2)) (e.g., the mid-model year report for the 2001 model year is due in July 2001). For the major domestic manufacturers, this means that the pre-model year report is submitted during the early part of their production period and the mid-model year report is due near the end of that period. The final rule also established requirements for the content of the reports (49 CFR 537.6, 537.7), as well as for the supplemental reports that are required when a manufacturer determines that it cannot meet applicable fuel economy standards (49 CFR 537.8).
        The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
        In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) issued on May 13, 1996 (61 FR 22010), the agency proposed revisions to simplify the reporting requirements contained in Part 537. The agency proposal sought to reverse the order in which the most detailed information must be submitted by manufacturers. Instead of submitting the detailed data in the pre-model year report, the NPRM proposed that these data be presented in the mid-model year report. This change was intended to lead to the submission of more complete and correct data because the data would be gathered later in the typical production period for each model. The proposal sought to reduce the amount of detailed data required in the mid-model year report by requesting data at the model level instead of requiring data about different configurations within model lines. The proposal also sought to modify the format for the reports so that data would be submitted in a form more closely matching the format used by the agency in analyzing manufacturer fleets in the annual Automotive Fuel Economy Report to Congress and other special reports and studies. The proposal also sought to eliminate some categories of information (SAE horsepower, Engine Code, Emission Control System, Existence of Overdrive, and data relating to classification as a passenger car or light truck), modified other categories (Number of Carburetor Barrels, and Projected Sales), and added new categories (Number of Engine Cylinders and Road Load power at 50 miles per hour). Further, for both the pre and mid-model year reports, the proposal indicated that model type information be provided in order of increasing equivalent test weight, replacing the prior specification that these data be provided in order of increasing average inertia weight.
        The NPRM also proposed to delete § 537.8 in its entirety. This section contains the requirements for supplementary reports. The proposal explained that in the event that a supplementary report is filed or requested in the future, revisions in § 537.7(b)(4) would incorporate the supplemental report into the mid-model year reports.
        Comments Received in Response to the NPRM
        The agency received comments on the proposed revisions from two trade associations and three manufacturers. The American Automobile Manufacturers Association and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AAMA/AIAM) submitted joint comments and Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler), Ford Motor Company (Ford), and General Motors Corporation (GM) also submitted comments. Manufacturers were generally supportive of the intent of the proposed revisions, but expressed concerns that some changes might impose significant financial burdens by requiring computer reprogramming and the expenditure of resources for the collection and preparation of information that is not used by the industry or other federal government agencies. All of the commenters objected to the proposal's specification of “equivalent test weight” as a replacement for “average inertia weight” in § 537.7(c). The commenters argued that “equivalent test weight” is a term that is used to describe vehicles at the model level as opposed to the configuration level. As § 537.7(c) currently specifies “average inertia weight,” which applies at the configuration level, the commenters indicated that use of “equivalent test weight” would require submission of more complex reports.
        In addition to these general concerns, both AAMA/AIAM and each of the manufacturers had individual concerns regarding discrete elements of the agency's proposal.
        AAMA/AIAM argued for several alterations to the proposed modifications of § 537.7(c)(4). In light of the agency's stated goal of simplifying the detailed information proposed to be incorporated into the mid-model year reports by requiring it at the model level, AAMA/AIAM requested that two other specifications—road load power and equivalent test weight—be changed or discarded. The associations also contended that other proposed parameters would be of little value, since “loaded vehicle weight,” as well as “total drive ratio” are data that relate to vehicle configurations rather than model types. Instead of using equivalent test weight and loaded vehicle weight, AAMA/AIAM suggested that “inertia weight class” be used instead. The organizations stated that “loaded vehicle weight” and “total drive ratio” are not used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for calculating model fuel economy and should be stricken from the proposed requirements. AAMA/AIAM also suggested that the manufacturers' final CAFE reports should be submitted concurrently to the EPA. AAMA/AIAM also stated that this process would allow the EPA time to review the calculations and to properly notify (i.e., within 60 days) both NHTSA and the manufacturers that the calculations are either correct or require modification. AAMA/AIAM recommended reducing the pre-model year report to only a projected fleet average corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) level and a projected production volume. Finally, AAMA/AIAM strongly suggested that the proposal's requirement that specific data be included in the mid-model year report be stricken entirely and that both the pre- and mid-model year reports contain only fleet averages and projected total production volumes.

        GM indicated its belief that the proposed changes would not necessarily simplify reporting tasks or lessen manufacturer burdens. The company suggested that the model type report format in the proposal be modified to list each model type with its associated projected volume, combined fuel economy, and average equivalent test weight class. GM also argued for changes in the proposed format for mid-model year reports. The company noted that the proposal's revision of § 537.7(c)(3)—which sought to replace a requirement that information be provided at the configuration level for only those vehicles that had been tested with a requirement that the same information be provided at the model level—would increase the regulatory burden of manufacturers instead of reduce it. In addition, the revisions proposed for § 537.7(c)(4) would, in GM's view, require the expenditure of additional resources to acquire data and change their computer systems to include SAE power, road load horsepower, total drive ratio, and loaded vehicle weight. GM also contended that, in deleting § 537.8, relating to supplementary reports, and inserting a provision for supplementary reports into part 537, which outlines requirements for pre- and mid-model year reports, the proposal created a new requirement, as supplementary reports would have to be incorporated into the mandatory pre- and mid-model year reports. GM also observed that § 537.7(c)(3) of the proposal indicated that mid-model year report data be provided either in tabular form or electronically. The company suggested that it would be prudent to require that the data be submitted both electronically and on paper.
        Chrysler also argued that the proposed changes to data formats and content would require significant computer reprogramming efforts. The company also recommended reducing the pre-model year report to only a projected fleet average corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) level and a projected production volume. Finally, Chrysler indicated that it was unsure why NHTSA departed from English units of HP to SAE net rated power in kilowatts.
        Ford recommended deleting some categories of data the proposal would require in the mid-model year report. The company indicated that final production volumes classified by loaded test weight, total drive ratio, and road load power are not known at the time of mid-model report submission. In Ford's view, the proposed requirements would force the company to submit reports that could be both inaccurate and misleading. Ford also noted that § 537.7(c)(5) of the proposed regulatory text specified that certain data be provided for light trucks classified as being capable of off-highway operation under 49 CFR Part 523 and indicated that this reference should specifically refer to § 523.5(b).
        Interagency Consultation
        Following its review of the comments, NHTSA sought EPA's views of the proposal and the impact that adoption of the proposal would have on that agency's role in the administration of the CAFE program. The EPA said that the agency's proposal would be detrimental in several respects. EPA opposed the relaxation of the semi-annual report requirements. In particular, EPA urged this agency to not change the requirement that data be submitted on the configuration level. As that agency analyzes fuel economy data in detail, it urged NHTSA to retain existing requirements that vehicle configuration, transmission configuration, and axle ratios be reported. In addition, EPA indicated that the continued reporting of SAE horsepower is necessary to allow EPA to continue to calculate and employ a “performance index.” EPA also suggested that NHTSA continue to require both pre- and mid-model year reports. Although it acknowledged that pre-model year reports are, by their nature, incomplete and preliminary, these reports do contain valuable information on projected sales, vehicle performance, and vehicle characteristics.
        EPA also noted that one of the aspects of the NHTSA proposal that had been favored by commenters—the direct concurrent submission of fuel economy reports to both agencies—was recently addressed in a rule issued by the EPA. In that rulemaking (64 FR 23976), EPA modified 40 CFR 600.512-01(a) to require reports to be submitted to NHTSA at the same time they are submitted to the EPA.
        Analysis
        The agency proposal sought to amend Part 537 to simplify the requirements for the submission of fuel economy reports. After review of the comments submitted in response to that proposal and discussions between NHTSA and the EPA, it has become apparent that the agency's proposal would add additional burdens to manufacturers and increase their reporting costs while depriving EPA of some of the information it needs to complete its mission.
        Conclusion
        For the reasons stated above, NHTSA is terminating this rulemaking action.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          Issued on: April 4, 2001.
          Stephen R. Kratzke,
          Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

      [FR Doc. 01-8650 Filed 4-12-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 052803C]
        Fisheries off the West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Fishing Conducted Under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS); announcement of public scoping period; request for written comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS, in cooperation with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), announces its intention to prepare an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to assess the impacts of the 2004 Pacific Coast groundfish fishery specifications and management measures on the human environment.

          DATES:

          Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m, local time (l.t.), on July 7, 2003.  Two public scoping meetings are scheduled as part of the Council's June 16-20, 2003, meeting in Foster City, CA (see
            SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments on suggested alternatives and potential impacts should be sent to Donald McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220-1384.  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to 503-820-2299 or via e-mail (pfmc.comments@noaa.gov and write “2004 groundfish specifications EIS” in subject line).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          John DeVore, Groundfish Fishery Management Coordinator; phone:  503-820-2280 and e-mail: john.devore@noaa.gov or Matthew Harrington, NMFS Northwest Region NEPA Coordinator; phone:  206-526-4742 and email: Matthew.Harrington@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background and Need For Agency Action
        There are more than 80 species managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (Groundfish FMP), nine of which have been declared overfished.  The groundfish stocks support an array of commercial, recreational, and Indian tribal fishing interests in state and Federal waters off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California.  In addition, groundfish are also harvested incidentally in nongroundfish fisheries, most notably the trawl fisheries for pink shrimp, spot/ridgeback prawns, California halibut, and sea cucumber.
        The proposed action is needed to establish commercial and recreational harvests levels in 2004 that will ensure groundfish stocks are maintained at, or restored to, sizes and structures that will produce the highest net benefit to the nation, while balancing environmental and social values.
        The Proposed Action
        The proposed action is to implement management measures consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) that constrain total fishing mortality during 2004 within limits that maintain fish stocks at, or rebuild them to, a level capable of producing maximum sustained yield (MSY), or to a stock size less than this if such stock size results in long-term net benefit to the nation.

        These fishing mortality limits are harvest specifications that include acceptable biological catches (ABCs) and optimum yields (OYs) for groundfish species or species groups in need of particular protection; OYs may be represented by harvest guidelines or quotas for species that need individual management. The allocation of commercial OYs between the open access and limited entry segments of the fishery is also part of the proposed action.  The FMP requires that the groundfish specifications be annually evaluated and revised as necessary, and that management measures designed to achieve the OYs be published in the Federal Register and made effective by January 1, the beginning of the fishing year.  The Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Groundfish FMP also require that NMFS implement actions to prevent overfishing and to rebuild overfished stocks.  These specifications include fish caught in state ocean waters (0-3 nautical miles (nm) offshore) as well as fish caught in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (3-200 nm offshore).
        Alternatives
        NEPA requires that agencies evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed action in an EIS.  The purpose and need for agency action determines the range of reasonable alternatives.  A preliminary set of alternatives will be developed during the June 16-20, 2003, Council meeting.  Alternatives will be structured around a range of ABCs/OYs for assessed groundfish species.  This range of ABCs/OYs is based on stock assessments, including seven new assessments completed since 2003 harvest specification were established, rebuilding analyses for overfished species based on these assessments, and a stock assessment of cabezon due to be completed before the end of 2003.  This last assessment, although it will not be completed and peer-reviewed early in the decision process, will be used to identify different management measures for nearshore fisheries.  For some species ABC/OY ranges that would be used to develop alternatives may be based on consultations by the Council with state and Federal agencies, Indian tribes, and the affected public on the allocation of harvest opportunity between sectors. Allocation decisions can affect OYs because different sectors may catch fish of different ages, allowing different sustainable harvest levels.
        For each set of ABCs/OYs used in a given alternative, a set of management measures will be identified that will constrain total harvest mortality (across all fisheries intercepting groundfish).  Restrictive management measures intended to rebuild overfished species have been adopted and implemented over the past several years for most commercial and recreational fishing sectors.  Management measures intended to control the rate at which different groundfish species or species groups are taken in the fisheries include trip limits, bag limits, size limits, time/area closures, and gear restrictions. Large area closures, intended to reduce bycatch of overfished species and referred to as Rockfish Conservation Areas were first implemented in late 2002.  These closed areas will continue to be a key feature of alternatives considered in the EIS to manage groundfish fisheries in 2004.
        Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues

        A principal objective of the scoping and public input process is to identify potentially significant impacts to the human environment that should be analyzed in depth in the EIS.  The EIS evaluates a range of feasible alternatives (described above) to determine their likely impacts on the human environment and identify significant impacts.  Council and NMFS staff conducted initial screening to identify the potentially significant impacts of the range of alternatives that will be developed.  They identified the following potentially significant impacts:  (1) effects of fishing operations on essential fish habitat; (2) effects of fishing operations on protected species listed under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act and their critical habitat; and (3) effects on the sustainability of target and non-target fish stocks, and especially overfished groundfish stocks.  Socioeconomic impacts are also considered in terms of the effect changes in projected harvests will have on the following groups of individuals:  (1) Those who participate in harvesting the fishery resources and other living marine resources; (2) those who process and market fish and fish products; (3) those who are involved in allied support industries; (4) those who consume fish products; (5) those who rely on living marine resources in the management area, either for subsistence needs or for recreational benefits; (6) those who benefit from non-consumptive uses of living marine resources; (7) those involved in managing and monitoring fisheries; and (8) fishing communities.
        Public Scoping Process

        Two public scoping meetings will occur at the June 16-20, 2003, Council meeting as part of the Council's regular agenda.  The meeting will take place at the Crown Plaza Hotel, 1221 Chess Drive, Foster City, CA.  The first public scoping meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 17, 2003, as part of agendum B.4, Preliminary Range of Harvest Levels for 2004.  The second scoping meeting will be held on Friday, June 20, 2003, as part of agendum B.14, Adoption of Proposed Range of Alternatives for 2004 Groundfish Management Measures.  A public comment period is scheduled for each agendum and comments on the scope of the DEIS are encouraged during these comment periods.  Because these scoping opportunities will occur as part of the regular agenda, the time at which they will begin depends on the agenda as a whole.  Council business begins at 8 a.m. each day and usually ends not later than 5 p.m.  A scoping document identifying the management issues, and an outline of the proposed analysis will be made available at the June 16-20, 2003 Council meeting and on the Council's Web site (www.pcouncil.org).  A full agenda and other information about this meeting is also available on this website or by request from Council offices (see
          ADDRESSES above).
        NMFS invites comments and suggestions on the scope of the analysis to be included in the DEIS.  The scope includes the range of alternatives to be considered and potentially significant impacts to the human environment that should be evaluated in the DEIS.  In addition, NMFS is notifying the public that, in conjunction with the Council, it is beginning a full environmental analysis and decision-making process for this proposal so that interested or affected people may know how they can participate in the environmental analysis and contribute to the final decision.

        A DEIS will be prepared for comment later on in the process.  The comment period on the DEIS environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of availability appears in the Federal Register.  It is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate at that time.  To be the most helpful, comments on the DEIS should be as specific as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement or merits of the alternatives discussed.  It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the DEIS.  Comments may also address the adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the DEIS.  (Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA  CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.) Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.
        Special Accommodations
        These meetings are accessible to people with physical disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Carolyn Porter 503-820-2280 (voice) or 503-820-2299 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the scheduled meeting date.

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

          Dated:  May 30, 2003.
          Richard W. Surdi,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-14177 Filed 6-4-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 013006I]
        RIN 0648-AU93
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish, Crab, Salmon, and Scallop Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and Gulf of Alaska, Essential Fish Habitat Rule Correction

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of reopening of a comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          On June 19, 2007, NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to correct certain provisions of a June 28, 2006, essential fish habitat (EFH) rule for Alaska fisheries. The comment period deadline for written comments for the proposed rule was June 19, 2007. NMFS is reopening the comment period on this proposed rule because the E-mail account listed in the proposed rule for the submission of comments was in error and did not accept comments as intended. The proposed rule would clarify that portions of EFH management areas in the vicinity of the Aleutian Islands are located in State of Alaska waters. The proposed action also would apply EFH vessel monitoring system and closure requirements to federally permitted vessels operating in State of Alaska waters adjacent to the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and Aleutian Islands subarea. This action is necessary to ensure federally permitted vessels operating in State of Alaska waters comply with EFH protection measures.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by September 4, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Records Officer. Comments may be submitted by:
          • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802;
          • Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK;
          • Fax: 907-586-7557;
          • E-mail: VMS-PR-0648-AU93@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following document identifier: “VMS PR.” E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes; or
          • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2007 (72 FR 33732). Additional information on the proposed management measures are described in the proposed rule.

          Dated: July 30, 2007.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E7-15045 Filed 8-1-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 170320292-7292-01]
        RIN 0648-XF311
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Annual Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes to implement annual management measures and harvest specifications to establish the allowable catch levels (i.e., annual catch limit (ACL)/harvest guideline (HG)) for the northern subpopulation of Pacific sardine (hereafter, Pacific sardine), in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast for the fishing season of July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018. This rule is proposed according to the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The proposed action would prohibit directed non-tribal Pacific sardine commercial fishing for Pacific sardine off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California, which is required because the estimated 2017 biomass of Pacific sardine has dropped below the biomass threshold specified in the HG control rule. Under the proposed action, Pacific sardine may still be harvested as part of either the live bait or tribal fishery, or as incidental catch in other fisheries; the incidental harvest of Pacific sardine would initially be limited to 40-percent by weight of all fish per trip when caught with other CPS or up to 2 metric tons (mt) when caught with non-CPS. The proposed annual catch limit (ACL) for the 2017-2018 Pacific sardine fishing year is 8,000 mt. This proposed rule is intended to conserve and manage the Pacific sardine stock off the U.S. West Coast.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by June 14, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0045, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0045, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Barry A. Thom, Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070; Attn: Joshua Lindsay.
          • Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Copies of the report “Assessment of Pacific Sardine Resource in 2017 for U.S.A. Management in 2017-2018” may be obtained from the West Coast Region (see ADDRESSES).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joshua Lindsay, West Coast Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4034, joshua.lindsay@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        During public meetings each year, the estimated biomass for Pacific sardine is presented to the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) CPS Management Team (Team), the Council's CPS Advisory Subpanel (Subpanel) and the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and the biomass and the status of the fishery are reviewed and discussed. The biomass estimate is then presented to the Council along with the calculated overfishing limit (OFL), available biological catch (ABC), and HG, along with recommendations and comments from the Team, Subpanel, and SSC. Following review by the Council and after hearing public comment, the Council adopts a biomass estimate and makes its catch level recommendations to NMFS. NMFS manages the Pacific sardine fishery in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast (California, Oregon, and Washington) in accordance with the FMP. Annual specifications published in the Federal Register establish the allowable harvest levels (i.e., OFL/ACL/HG) for each Pacific sardine fishing year. The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement these annual catch reference points for 2017-2018, including the OFL and an ABC that takes into consideration uncertainty surrounding the current estimate of biomass for Pacific sardine. The FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set these annual catch levels for the Pacific sardine fishery based on the annual specification framework and control rules in the FMP. These control rules include the HG control rule, which, in conjunction with the OFL and ABC rules in the FMP, are used to manage harvest levels for Pacific sardine, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. According to the FMP, the quota for the principal commercial fishery is determined using the FMP-specified HG formula. The HG formula in the CPS FMP is HG = [(Biomass-CUTOFF) * FRACTION * DISTRIBUTION] with the parameters described as follows:
        1. Biomass. The estimated stock biomass of Pacific sardine age one and above. For the 2017-2018 management season, this is 86,586 mt.
        2. CUTOFF. This is the biomass level below which no HG is set. The FMP established this level at 150,000 mt.
        3. DISTRIBUTION. The average portion of the Pacific sardine biomass estimated in the EEZ off the Pacific coast is 87 percent.
        4. FRACTION. The temperature-varying harvest fraction is the percentage of the biomass above 150,000 mt that may be harvested.
        As described above, the Pacific sardine HG control rule, the primary mechanism for setting the annual directed commercial fishery quota, includes a CUTOFF parameter, which has been set as a biomass level of 150,000 mt. This amount is subtracted from the annual biomass estimate before calculating the applicable HG for the fishing year. Since this year's biomass estimate is below that value, the formula results in an HG of zero, and no Pacific sardine are available for the primary commercial directed fishery during the 2017-2018 fishing season.

        At the April 2017 Council meeting, the Council's SSC approved, and the Council adopted, the “Assessment of the Pacific Sardine Resource in 2017 for U.S. Management in 2017-2018,” which was completed by NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center. The resulting Pacific sardine biomass estimate of 86,586 mt was adopted as the best available science for setting harvest specifications. Based on recommendations from its SSC and other advisory bodies, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, an OFL of 16,957 mt, an ABC of 15,497 mt, and a prohibition on Pacific sardine catch, unless it is harvested as part of either the live bait or tribal fishery or incidental to other fisheries for the 2017-2018 Pacific sardine fishing year. As additional management measures, the Council also recommended, and NMFS is proposing, an ACL of 8,000 mt and that the incidental catch of Pacific sardine in other CPS fisheries be managed with the following automatic inseason actions to reduce the potential for both targeting and discard of Pacific sardine:
        • An incidental per landing by weight allowance of 40 percent Pacific sardine in non-treaty CPS fisheries until a total of 2,000 mt of Pacific sardine are landed.
        • When 2,000 mt are landed, the incidental per landing allowance would be reduced to 20 percent until a total of 5,000 mt of Pacific sardine have been landed.
        • When 5,000 mt have been landed, the incidental per landing allowance would be reduced to 10 percent for the remainder of the 2017-2018 fishing year.
        Because Pacific sardine is known to comingle with other CPS stocks, these incidental allowances are proposed to allow for the continued prosecution of these other important CPS fisheries and reduce the potential discard of sardine. Additionally, a 2 mt incidental per landing allowance in non-CPS fisheries is proposed.

        The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator would publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the date of attainment of any of the incidental catch levels described above and subsequent changes to allowable incidental catch percentages. Additionally, to ensure that the regulated community is informed of any closure, NMFS will also make announcements through other means available, including fax, email, and mail to fishermen, processors, and state fishery management agencies.
        In each of the previous 5 fishing years, the Quinault Indian Nation requested, and NMFS approved, a set-aside for the exclusive right to harvest Pacific sardine in the Quinault Usual and Accustomed Fishing Area off the coast of Washington State, pursuant to the 1856 Treaty of Olympia (Treaty with the Quinault). For the 2017-2018 fishing season, the Quinault Indian Nation has requested that NMFS provide a set-aside of 800 mt (the same amount that was requested and approved for the 2016-2017 season) and NMFS is considering the request.

        Detailed information on the fishery and the stock assessment are found in the report “Assessment of the Pacific Sardine Resource in 2017 for U.S. Management in 2017-2018” (see ADDRESSES).
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This action is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, for the following reasons:
        For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
        The purpose of this proposed rule is to conserve the Pacific sardine stock by preventing overfishing, so that directed fishing may occur in future years. This will be accomplished by implementing the 2017-2018 annual specifications for Pacific sardine in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast. The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are the vessels that, if the fishery was open, would be expected to harvest Pacific sardine as part of the West Coast CPS small purse seine fleet. In 2014, the last year that a directed fishery for Pacific sardine was allowed, there were approximately 81 vessels permitted to operate in the directed sardine fishery component of the CPS fishery off the U.S. West Coast; 58 vessels in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California (south of 39° N. lat.), and a combined 23 vessels in Oregon and Washington's state Pacific sardine fisheries. The average annual per vessel revenue in 2014 for those vessels was well below the threshold level of $11 million; therefore, all of these vessels are considered small businesses under the RFA. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed rule is considered to equally affect all of these small entities in the same manner. Therefore, this rule would not create disproportionate costs between small and large vessels/businesses.
        The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to annually set an OFL, ABC, ACL, and HG or ACT for the Pacific sardine fishery based on the specified harvest control rules in the FMP applied to the current stock biomass estimate for that year. The derived annual HG is the level typically used to manage the principal commercial sardine fishery and is the harvest level typically used by NMFS for profitability analysis each year. As stated above, the CPS FMP dictates that when the estimated biomass drops below a certain level (150,000 mt) there is no HG. Therefore, for the purposes of profitability analysis, this action is essentially proposing an HG of zero for the 2017-2018 Pacific sardine fishing season (July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018). The estimated biomass used for management during the preceding fishing year (2016-2017) was also below 150,000 mt; therefore, NMFS did not implement a HG, thereby disallowing a commercial directed Pacific sardine fishery. Since there is again no directed fishing for the 2017-2018 fishing year, this proposed rule will not change the potential profitability as compared to the previous fishing year.

        The revenue derived from harvesting Pacific sardine is typically only one source of fishing revenue for many of the vessels that harvest Pacific sardine; as a result, the economic impact to the fleet from the proposed action cannot be viewed in isolation. From year to year, depending on market conditions and availability of fish, most CPS/sardine vessels supplement their income by harvesting other species. Many vessels in California also harvest anchovy, mackerel, and in particular, squid, making Pacific sardine only one component of a multi-species CPS fishery. Additionally, some sardine vessels that operate off of Oregon and Washington also fish for salmon in Alaska or squid in California during times of the year when sardine are not available. The purpose of the proposed incidental allowances under this action are to ensure the vessels impacted by this sardine action can still access these other profitable fisheries while still limiting the harvest of Pacific sardine. These proposed incidental allowances are similar to those implemented last year and should not restrict access to those other fisheries.
        CPS vessels typically rely on multiple species for profitability because abundance of Pacific sardine, like the other CPS stocks, is highly associated with ocean conditions and seasonality, and therefore are harvested at various times and areas throughout the year. Because each species responds to ocean conditions in its own way, not all CPS stocks are likely to be abundant at the same time; therefore, as abundance levels and markets fluctuate, it has necessitated that the CPS fishery as a whole rely on a group of species for its annual revenues.
        Based on the disproportionality and profitability analysis above, the proposed action, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.
        This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paper Reduction Act.

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

          Dated: May 23, 2017.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2017-11031 Filed 5-26-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P