        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 050703A]
        Fisheries off the West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Amending the Notice to Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Fishing Conducted Under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP)

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to revise the scope of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS); request for written comments.

          SUMMARY:
          On April 10, 2001, NOAA announced in the Federal Register its intention to prepare a PEIS, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to assess the impacts of Federal management of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery on the human environment. The proposed scope of the PEIS analysis included many issues related to the conduct of the fishery, including the effects of the groundfish fishery on essential fish habitat (EFH).  As a result of public comments received during the scoping process, NMFS enhanced the description of the purpose and need for NMFS' action, clearly identified significant issues related to the proposed action, and a distinction between proposed actions related to EFH and the broader management program for Pacific groundfish.  To avoid confusion as a result of this distinction, NMFS decided to prepare a separate EIS to address EFH issues.  Subsequent to that decision, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS have taken a number of management actions to prevent overfishing and to rebuild overfished groundfish stocks.  In addition, a number of court cases have affected the fishery regulatory processes and have required additional analysis of environmental impacts of the Federal groundfish fishery management program.  NMFS believes these events and activities have influenced the purpose of and need for action and is considering revision to the scope of the alternatives and analysis.  The intent of this document is to describe the rationale for revising the purpose and need for action and the scope of the analysis.

          DATES:

          Written comments will be accepted on or before June 13, 2003.  A public scoping meeting is scheduled for June 16, 2003 (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on suggested alternatives and potential impacts, and any other issues or concerns related to the proposed action which should be analyzed in detail in the PEIS, as described in this scoping notice, should be sent to Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA  98115 0070.  Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 206 526  6736.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jim Glock, Northwest Region, NMFS, 503-231-2178; fax:  503-872-2737 and email: jim.glock@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access
        This Federal Register scoping notice is also available on the Government Printing Office's website at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/gdfsh01.htm.

        Background

        In June 2001, NMFS concluded the initial scoping process for a PEIS on the Federal management of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery and published a summary report.  Scoping was initiated on April 10, 2001, through publication of a Notice of Intent (66 FR 18586).  The report was initially published on the NMFS, Northwest Region website in August 2001 to provide a summary of all comments received and key issues identified during the scoping process.  In February 2002 NMFS clarified the purpose and need for Federal action and revised the scope of analysis, which resulted in the preparation of two separate EISs.  The PEIS was intended to be a broad analysis of the Federal fishery management program, and the additional EIS was specific to the designation of EFH and associated management measures, including measures to reduce effects of fishing on EFH.  This separation was intended to improve public understanding and participation in the NEPA process, make each EIS more useful in future management decisions, and to more clearly distinguish between programmatic groundfish fishery management and specific EFH issues.
        NMFS had intended the PEIS to analyze continued management of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery pursuant to the FMP, and to consider alternative groundfish management programs.  The Council prepared the original FMP and an EIS in the late 1970s, and NMFS implemented the FMP in 1982.  Since then, the Council has amended the FMP 13 times and has three additional amendments in process.  These amendments were in response to development of the commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries, changes in the groundfish resources, and amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  NMFS initiated this PEIS to update the original EIS to reflect changes in the fishery and to evaluate the impacts of the Federal groundfish management program on the human environment, including the marine fish resources, the physical ocean environment and ecosystem, and human society.
        The Council established an ad hoc Groundfish PEIS Oversight Committee (Committee) shortly after NMFS began preparation of the draft PEIS.  The Committee met twice during 2002 to advise the drafting team and help develop a range of alternatives for managing the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery.  The Council adopted the alternatives recommended by the Committee in October 2002.  The Committee met again on April 22-23, 2003, and reviewed the status of the PEIS and the alternatives under consideration.  The Committee reviewed the events leading up to initiation of the PEIS and subsequent to the initial scoping period.  The consensus of the Committee was to narrow the scope of the PEIS to deal with bycatch issues.  The Committee prepared a revised set of alternatives to encompass the range of approaches to resolve bycatch and incidental catch monitoring, reporting and reduction issues.  The following chronology summarizes the basis for the Committee's recommendation to focus this PEIS more narrowly on bycatch.
        Immediately before and since the initial scoping period (April-June, 2001), several events and activities have occurred that have substantially affected the groundfish management program.  In December 2000, NMFS approved Amendment 13 to the FMP, which was designed to implement bycatch management measures to bring the FMP into compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  In January 2001, NMFS determined that widow and darkblotched rockfishes were overfished, and implemented the Council's recommendations to impose broad harvest reductions to restrict the take of canary rockfish (also designated overfished) and darkblotched rockfish.  Soon after the PEIS scoping comment period closed, a group of environmental organizations filed suit on NMFS' approval of Amendment 13, claiming NMFS had not considered all reasonable bycatch management and reduction alternatives.  As explained below, the Court ultimately agreed with the plaintiffs.
        NMFS prepared a scoping summary report and made it available in August 2001.  The agency immediately began working with the Council to develop a range of alternatives for consideration and analysis in the PEIS.  In January 2002, yelloweye rockfish and Pacific whiting were determined to be overfished.  In February 2002, NMFS determined the analytical requirements for a programmatic EIS were different from those envisioned for EFH, and decided to prepare a separate EIS to deal exclusively with EFH issues.  In April, Amendment 13 was declared invalid by Federal District Court and remanded to the agency.  In June, initial rebuilding analyses for bocaccio and canary rockfish indicated extensive harvest restrictions were needed immediately in order to meet the rebuilding mandates.  In response, the Council delayed adoption of the PEIS alternatives in order to concentrate on preparing an immediate response to the new scientific information.  Major groundfish fishery closures were imposed mid-season, and proposals for further restrictions were developed and evaluated as part of the annual management process for the 2003 fishing year.  The Council prepared an EIS in conjunction with its management recommendations (referred to as the “annual specifications”), evaluating the impacts of the proposed management measures on the biological resources and the social and economic environment. NMFS approved the Council's recommendations and issued a rule effectively closing much of the outer continental shelf from the border with Canada to the border with Mexico.  Vessel catch allowances were developed through the use of a computer model that applies observed catch ratios of various depleted and healthy stocks to the available amounts of overfished stocks.  In April 2003, NMFS and the Council became aware that data from the 2001-2002 Federal observer program clearly demonstrated some ratios substantially underestimated the catches of bocaccio and canary rockfish. NMFS implemented additional fishery restrictions on May 1, 2003 (68 FR 23901, May 6, 2003).
        NMFS believes the most critical need at this time is improvement of the catch monitoring program and development of a system to enhance individual vessel flexibility and accountability, including opportunities and incentives to improve the selectivity of fishing operations.  The current management program provides little opportunity or incentive for individuals to improve their catch selectivity (i.e., avoid overfished species).  Changes to the bycatch reduction program may require revisions to the catch and bycatch reporting and monitoring systems.  NMFS believes these issues should be the sole focus of the current PEIS.  The current need is to focus the analysis on bycatch, incidental catch, and discard issues.   A determination will be made after consulting with the Council at its June 2003 meeting.

        NMFS invites written public comment on these issues until June 13.  On June 16, 2003, at 7:30 p.m., NMFS will hold a public forum in conjunction with the Council meeting in Foster City, CA.  Scoping documents which identify the management issues, initial alternatives, and an outline of the proposed analysis are available on request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above) and will also be posted on the NOAA Fisheries Northwest Region website (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/gdfsh01.htm).  Additional copies will be available at the scoping meeting.
        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 12, 2003.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-12315 Filed 5-15-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 160422356-7026-01]
        RIN 0648-XE587
        Pacific Island Fisheries; 2016 Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed specifications; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes annual catch limits (ACLs) for Pacific Island bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem fisheries, and accountability measures (AMs) to correct or mitigate any overages of catch limits. The proposed ACLs and AMs would be effective for fishing year 2016. The fishing year for each fishery begins on January 1 and ends on December 31, except for precious coral fisheries, which begin July 1 and end on June 30 the following year. Although the 2016 fishing year has ended for most stocks, we will evaluate 2016 catches against these proposed ACLs when data become available in mid-2017. The proposed ACLs and AMs support the long-term sustainability of fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands.

          DATES:
          NMFS must receive comments by February 2, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0049, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0049, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Send written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

            Instructions: NMFS may not consider comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible.

          NMFS prepared environmental analyses that describe the potential impacts on the human environment that would result from the proposed ACLs and AMs. NMFS provided additional background information in the 2015 proposed and final specifications (80 FR 43046, July 21, 2015; 80 FR 52415, August 31, 2015). Copies of the environmental analyses and other documents are available at www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Matt Dunlap, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5177.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Fisheries in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ, or Federal waters) around the U.S. Pacific Islands are managed under archipelagic fishery ecosystem plans (FEPs) for American Samoa, Hawaii, the Pacific Remote Islands, and the Mariana Archipelago (Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)). A fifth FEP covers pelagic fisheries. The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) developed the FEPs, and NMFS implemented them under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.).
        Each FEP contains a process for the Council and NMFS to specify ACLs and AMs; that process is codified at Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 665.4 (50 CFR 665.4). The regulations require NMFS to specify, every fishing year, an ACL for each stock and stock complex of management unit species (MUS) included in an FEP, as recommended by the Council and considering the best available scientific, commercial, and other information about the fishery. If a fishery exceeds an ACL, the regulations require the Council to take action, which may include reducing the ACL for the subsequent fishing year by the amount of the overage, or other appropriate action.
        NMFS proposes to specify ACLs for bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem fishery MUS in American Samoa, Guam, the CNMI, and Hawaii. NMFS based the proposed specifications on recommendations from the Council at its 164th meeting held October 21-22, 2015, and at its 166th meeting held June 6-10, 2016. In all, the Council recommended 112 ACLs: 26 in American Samoa, 26 in Guam, 26 in the CNMI, and 34 in Hawaii. The Council also recommended that NMFS specify multi-year ACLs and AMs in fishing years 2015-2018. NMFS proposes to implement the specifications for 2017 and 2018 separately, prior to each fishing year.
        Except for bottomfish in American Samoa, Guam, and the CNMI, and Guam jacks, Hawaii crabs, and Hawaii octopus, the proposed 2016 ACLs are identical to those that NMFS specified for 2015 (80 FR 52415, August 31, 2015).
        For bottomfish in American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, the 2016 ACLs are based on new estimates of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) contained in a 2016 stock assessment updated by the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC). This stock assessment update represents the best scientific information available for specifying ACLs.
        For Guam jacks, Hawaii crabs, and Hawaii octopus, NMFS and the Council determined that the average 2013-2015 catch for each of these three stock complexes exceeded their respective 2015 ACLs. Specifically, average 2013-2015 catch for Guam jacks was 37,399 lb and exceeded the 2015 ACL of 29,300 lb by 8,099 lb. For Hawaii crabs, average 2013-2015 catch was 40,363 lb and exceeded the 2015 ACL of 33,500 lb by 6,863 lb. For Hawaii octopus, average 2013-2015 catch was 40,237 lb and exceeded the 2015 ACL of 35,700 lb by 4,537 lb. In accordance with the 2015 AMs (80 FR 52415, August 31, 2015), and in consideration of the best available scientific information available, NMFS proposes to reduce the 2016 ACLs from the 2015 ACL by the amount of the 2015 overages for each of the three stocks. As a result, the proposed ACL for Guam jacks is 21,201 lb, 26,637 lb for Hawaii crabs, and 31,163 lb for Hawaii mollusks.

        In addition, NMFS prepared an updated environmental assessment for Pacific Island crustacean and precious coral fisheries to account for new information on the fisheries. In December 2015, NMFS and the Council received new information on the historical and projected stock status of Hawaii Kona crab. The information indicates that the Hawaii Kona crab stock was likely to be overfished as of 2006. However, an independent review identified data gaps and methodological concerns with the 2015 stock assessment. NMFS PIFSC also noted concerns with the data used in the recent stock assessment, but found the assessment provided useful information regarding stock status within the last decade. Because of the uncertainty in the projected stock status and structure of Hawaii Kona crab after 2006, the Council did not account for this information with other relevant information in recommending the 2016 Hawaii Kona crab ACL. For this reason, NMFS will not set an ACL for Hawaii kona crab for fishing year 2016. Instead, NMFS will continue to work with the Council and other partners to review the available data and to set an acceptable biological catch and an ACL for the Hawaii Kona crab stock, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, for fishing year 2017.
        NMFS is also not proposing ACLs for MUS that are currently subject to Federal fishing moratoria or prohibitions. These MUS include all species of gold coral (78 FR 32181, May 29, 2013), the three Hawaii seamount groundfish (pelagic armorhead, alfonsin, and raftfish (75 FR 69015, November 10, 2010), and deepwater precious corals at the Westpac Bed Refugia (75 FR 2198, January 14, 2010). The current prohibitions on fishing for these MUS serve as the functional equivalent of an ACL of zero.
        Additionally, NMFS is not proposing ACLs for bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, or coral reef ecosystem MUS identified in the Pacific Remote Islands Area (PRIA) FEP. This is because fishing is prohibited in the EEZ within 12 nm of emergent land, unless authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (78 FR 32996, June 3, 2013). To date, NMFS has not received fishery data that would support any such approvals. In addition, there is no suitable habitat for these stocks beyond the 12-nm no-fishing zone, except at Kingman Reef, where fishing for these resources does not occur. Therefore, the current prohibitions on fishing serve as the functional equivalent of an ACL of zero. However, NMFS will continue to monitor authorized fishing within the Pacific Remote Islands Monument in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and may develop additional fishing requirements, including monument-specific catch limits for species that may require them.
        NMFS is also not proposing ACLs for pelagic MUS at this time, because NMFS previously determined that pelagic species are subject to international fishery agreements or have a life cycle of approximately one year and, therefore, are statutorily excepted from the ACL requirements.
        Proposed Annual Catch Limit Specifications
        The following four tables list the proposed ACL specifications for 2016.

          Table 1—American Samoa

            Fishery
            Management unit species
            Proposed ACLspecification
              (lb)

            Bottomfish
            Bottomfish multi-species stock complex
            106,000

            Crustacean
            Deepwater shrimp
            80,000

            Spiny lobster
            4,845

            Slipper lobster
            30

            Kona crab
            3,200

            Precious Coral
            Black coral
            790

            Precious corals in the American Samoa Exploratory Area
            2,205

            Coral Reef Ecosystem

              Selar crumenophthalmus—atule, bigeye scad
            37,400

            Acanthuridae—surgeonfish
            129,400

            Carangidae—jacks
            19,900

            Carcharhinidae—reef sharks
            1,615

            Crustaceans—crabs
            4,300

            Holocentridae—squirrelfish
            15,100

            Kyphosidae- rudderfishes
            2,000

            Labridae- wrasses
            16,200

            Lethrinidae—emperors
            19,600

            Lutjanidae—snappers
            63,100

            Mollusks—turbo snail; octopus; giant clams
            18,400

            Mugilidae—mullets
            4,600

            Mullidae—goatfishes
            11,900

            Scaridae—parrotfish
            272,000

            Serranidae—groupers
            25,300

            Siganidae—rabbitfishes
            200

              Bolbometopon muricatum—bumphead parrotfish
            235

              Cheilinus undulatus—Humphead (Napoleon) wrasse
            1,743

            All other CREMUS combined
            18,400

          Table 2—Mariana Archipelago—Guam

            Fishery
            Management unit species
            Proposed ACLspecification
              (lb)

            Bottomfish
            Bottomfish multi-species stock complex
            66,000

            Crustaceans
            Deepwater shrimp
            48,488

            Spiny lobster
            3,135

            Slipper lobster
            20

            Kona crab
            1,900

            Precious Coral
            Black coral
            700

            Precious corals in the Guam Exploratory Area
            2,205

            Coral Reef Ecosystem

              Selar crumenophthalmus—atulai, bigeye scad
            50,200

            Acanthuridae—surgeonfish
            97,600

            Carangidae—jacks
            21,201

            Carcharhinidae—reef sharks
            1,900

            Crustaceans—crabs
            7,300

            Holocentridae—squirrelfish
            11,400

            Kyphosidae—chubs/rudderfish
            9,600

            Labridae—wrasses
            25,200

            Lethrinidae—emperors
            53,000

            Lutjanidae—snappers
            18,000

            Mollusks—octopus
            23,800

            Mugilidae—mullets
            17,900

            Mullidae—goatfish
            15,300

            Scaridae—parrotfish
            71,600

            Serranidae—groupers
            22,500

            Siganidae—rabbitfish
            18,600

              Bolbometopon muricatum—bumphead parrotfish
            * 797

              Cheilinus undulatus—humphead (Napoleon) wrasse
            1,960

            All other CREMUS combined
            185,000

          * CNMI and Guam combined.

          Table 3—Mariana Archipelago—CNMI

            Fishery
            Management unit species
            Proposed ACLspecification
              (lb)

            Bottomfish
            Bottomfish multi-species stock complex
            228,000

            Crustacean
            Deepwater shrimp
            275,570

            Spiny lobster
            7,410

            Slipper lobster
            60

            Kona crab
            6,300

            Precious Coral
            Black coral
            2,100

            Precious corals in the CNMI Exploratory Area
            2,205

            Coral Reef Ecosystem

              Selar crumenophthalmus—Atulai, bigeye scad
            77,400

            Acanthuridae—surgeonfish
            302,600

            Carangidae—jacks
            44,900

            Carcharhinidae—reef sharks
            5,600

            Crustaceans—crabs
            4,400

            Holocentridae—squirrelfishes
            66,100

            Kyphosidae—rudderfishes
            22,700

            Labridae—wrasses
            55,100

            Lethrinidae—emperors
            53,700

            Lutjanidae—snappers
            190,400

            Mollusks—turbo snail; octopus; giant clams
            9,800

            Mugilidae—mullets
            4,500

            Mullidae—goatfish
            28,400

            Scaridae—parrotfish
            144,000

            Serranidae—groupers
            86,900

            Siganidae—rabbitfish
            10,200

              Bolbometopon muricatum—Bumphead parrotfish
            * 797

              Cheilinus undulatus—Humphead (Napoleon) wrasse
            2,009

            All other CREMUS combined
            7,300

          * CNMI and Guam combined.

          Table 4—Hawaii

            Fishery
            Management unit species
            Proposed ACLspecification
              (lb)

            Bottomfish
            Non-Deep 7 bottomfish
            178,000

            Crustacean
            Deepwater shrimp
            250,773

            Spiny lobster
            15,000

            Slipper lobster
            280

            Kona crab
            None

            Precious Coral
            Auau Channel black coral
            5,512

            Makapuu Bed—Pink coral
            2,205

            Makapuu Bed—Bamboo coral
            551

            180 Fathom Bank—Pink coral
            489

            180 Fathom Bank—Bamboo coral
            123

            Brooks Bank—Pink coral
            979

            Brooks Bank—Bamboo coral
            245

            Kaena Point Bed—Pink coral
            148

            Kaena Point Bed—Bamboo coral
            37

            Keahole Bed—Pink coral
            148

            Keahole Bed—Bamboo coral
            37

            Precious corals in the Hawaii Exploratory Area
            2,205

            Coral Reef Ecosystem

              Selar crumenophthalmus—akule, bigeye scad
            988,000

              Decapterus macarellus—opelu, mackerel scad
            438,000

            Acanthuridae—surgeonfishes
            342,000

            Carangidae—jacks
            161,200

            Carcharhinidae—reef sharks
            9,310

            Crustaceans—crabs
            26,637

            Holocentridae—squirrelfishes
            148,000

            Kyphosidae—rudderfishes
            105,000

            Labridae—wrasses
            205,000

            Lethrinidae—emperors
            35,500

            Lutjanidae—snappers
            330,300

            Mollusks—octopus
            31,163

            Mugilidae—mullets
            19,200

            Mullidae—goatfishes
            165,000

            Scaridae—parrotfishes
            239,000

            Serranidae—groupers
            128,400

            All other CREMUS combined
            485,000

        Accountability Measures
        Each year, NMFS and local resource management agencies in American Samoa, Guam, the CNMI, and Hawaii collect information about MUS catches and apply them toward the appropriate ACLs. Pursuant to 50 CFR 665.4, when the available information indicates that a fishery is projected to reach an ACL for a stock or stock complex, NMFS must notify permit holders that fishing for that stock or stock complex will be restricted in Federal waters on a specified date. The restriction serves as the AM to prevent an ACL from being exceeded, and may include closing the fishery, closing specific areas, changing to bag limits, or restricting effort.
        However, local resource management agencies do not have the resources to process catch data in near-real time, so fisheries statistics are generally not available to NMFS until at least six months after agencies collect and analyze the data. Additionally, Federal logbook information and other reporting from fisheries in Federal waters is not sufficient to monitor and track catches for the evaluation of fishery performance against the proposed ACL specifications. This is because most fishing for bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem MUS occurs in state waters, generally 0-3 nm from shore. For these reasons, NMFS proposes to continue to specify the Council's recommended AM, which is to apply a three-year average catch to evaluate fishery performance against the proposed ACLs. Specifically, NMFS and the Council would use the average catch of fishing years 2014, 2015, and 2016 to evaluate fishery performance against the 2016 ACL for a particular fishery. At the end of each fishing year, the Council would review catches relative to each ACL. If NMFS and the Council determine the three-year average catch for any fishery exceeds the specified ACL, NMFS would reduce the ACL in the subsequent year for that fishery by the amount of the overage.

        NMFS will consider public comments on the proposed ACLs and AMs and will announce the final specifications in the Federal Register. NMFS must receive any comments by the date provided in the DATES heading, not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date. Regardless of the final ACL specifications and AMs, all other management measures will continue to apply in the fisheries.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that these proposed specifications are consistent with the applicable FEPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that these proposed specifications, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A description of the proposed action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for it are contained in the preamble to these proposed specifications.

        The proposed action would specify annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) for Pacific Island bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem fishery management unit species (MUS) for 2016. Except for Hawaii kona crab, the 2016 ACLs and AMs for all crustaceans, spiny lobster, Hawaii non-Deep 7 bottomfish, and precious corals MUS are identical to those NMFS specified for the 2015 fishing year (80 FR 52415, August 31, 2015). The proposed ACL for bottomfish MUS in American Samoa is 106,000 lb, which is 5,000 lb higher than the 2015 ACL. The proposed ACL for Guam bottomfish MUS is 66,000 lb, which is 800 lb lower than the 2015 ACL. The proposed ACL for CNMI bottomfish MUS would remain the same as the 2015 ACL of 228,000 lb.

        The proposed ACLs and AMs for coral reef ecosystem MUS are identical to those implemented in 2015 (80 FR 52415, August 31, 2015), with three exceptions. For Guam jacks, Hawaii crabs and Hawaii octopus, NMFS determined that the average 2013-2015 catch for each of these three stock complexes exceeded their respective 2015 ACLs. Specifically, average 2013-2015 catch for Guam jacks was 37,399 lb and exceeded the 2015 ACL of 29,300 lb by 8,099 lb. For Hawaii crabs, average 2013-2015 catch was 40,363 lb and exceeded the 2015 ACL of 33,500 lb by 6,863 lb. For Hawaii octopus, average 2013-2015 catch was 40,237 lb and exceeded the 2015 ACL of 35,700 by 4,537 lb. In accordance with the 2015 AMs (80 FR 52415, August 31, 2015), and in consideration of the best available scientific information, NMFS proposes to reduce the 2016 ACLs from the 2015 ACL by the amount of the 2015 overages for each of the three stocks. As a result, the proposed ACL for Guam jacks is 21,201 lb, 26,637 lb for Hawaii crabs and 31,163 lb for Hawaii mollusks.

        The vessels impacted by this action are federally permitted to fish under the FEPs for American Samoa, the Marianas Archipelago (Guam and the CNMI), and Hawaii. The numbers of vessels permitted under these Fishery Ecosystem Plans affected by this action are as follows: American Samoa (0), Marianas Archipelago (19), and Hawaii (8). For Regulatory Flexibility Act 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. Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all impacted entities are small entities under the SBA definition of a small entity, i.e., they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, are independently owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $11 million. Therefore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Furthermore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of vessels based on gear, home port, or vessel length.
        Even though this proposed action would apply to a substantial number of vessels, the implementation of this action should not result in significant adverse economic impact to individual vessels. The Council and NMFS are not considering in-season closures in any of the fisheries to which these ACLs apply because fishery management agencies are not able to track catch relative to the ACLs during the fishing year. As a result, fishermen would be able to fish throughout the entire year. In addition, the ACLs, as proposed, would not change the gear types, areas fished, effort, or participation of the fishery during the 2016 fishing year. A post-season review of the catch data is required to determine whether any fishery exceeded its ACL by comparing the ACL to the most recent three-year average catch for which data is available. If an ACL is exceeded, the Council and NMFS would take action in future fishing years to correct the operational issue that caused the ACL overage. NMFS and the Council would evaluate the environmental, social, and economic impacts of future actions, such as changes to future ACLs or AMs, after the required data are available. Specifically, if NMFS and the Council determine that the three-year average catch for a fishery exceeds the specified ACL, NMFS would reduce the ACL in the subsequent year for that fishery by the amount of the overage.
        The proposed action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules, and is not expected to have significant impact on small entities (as discussed above), organizations, or government jurisdictions. The proposed action also will not place a substantial number of small entities, or any segment of small entities, at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities. As such, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        This action has been determined to be exempt from review under E.O. 12866.

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

          Dated: January 11, 2017.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2017-00901 Filed 1-17-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 192
        [Docket ID PHMSA-2005-23447; Notice 3]
        RIN 2137-AE25
        Pipeline Safety: Standards for Increasing the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure for Gas Transmission Pipelines

          AGENCY:
          Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          PHMSA is extending the period for public comment to give interested persons an additional week to comment on a proposed rule to amend the pipeline safety regulations to prescribe safety requirements for the operation of certain gas transmission pipelines at pressures based on higher stress levels.

          DATES:
          Anyone interested in filing written comments on the rule proposed in this document must do so by May 19, 2008. PHMSA will consider late filed comments so far as practicable.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments should reference Docket ID PHMSA-2005-23447 and may be submitted in the following ways:
          • E-Gov Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any agency. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          • Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
          • Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System; Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

            Instructions: Identify the docket ID, PHMSA-2005-23447, at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov.

          Note:
          Comments will be posted without changes or edits to http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the Regulatory Analyses and Notices section of the Supplemental Information for additional information.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For information about this rulemaking, contact Barbara Betsock by phone at (202) 366-4361, by fax at (202) 366-4566, or by e-mail at barbara.betsock@dot.gov. For technical information, contact Alan Mayberry by phone at (202) 366-5124, or by e-mail at alan.mayberry@dot.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        PHMSA is extending by one week the comment period on the proposed rulemaking published on March 12, 2008. (73 FR 13167) The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) represents most of the pipeline operators potentially impacted by the proposed rule. INGAA requested this extension in order to complete technical papers it intends to file. PHMSA is granting the extension in order to be able to consider these technical papers.

          Issued in Washington, DC, on May 7, 2008.
          Jeffrey D. Wiese,
          Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

      [FR Doc. E8-10628 Filed 5-9-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 20
        [Dockets No. FWS-R9-MB-2012-0028 and FWS-R9-MB-2012-0038; FF09M21200-123-FXMB1231099BPP0L2]
        RINs 1018-AY61, 1018-AY66
        Migratory Bird Hunting; Application for Approval of Copper-Clad Iron Shot and Fluoropolymer Shot Coatings as Nontoxic for Waterfowl Hunting

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; availability of draft environmental assessments.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to approve copper-clad iron shot and fluoropolymer coatings for hunting waterfowl and coots. We published a notice of application for nontoxic shot approval for copper-clad iron shot in the Federal Register on June 20, 2012 (77 FR 36980), and one for the fluoropolymer shot coatings on July 6, 2012 (77 FR 39983). Having completed our review of the application materials for both, we have concluded that neither the shot nor the coatings are likely to adversely affect fish, wildlife, or their habitats.

          DATES:
          Electronic comments on this proposal via http://www.regulations.gov must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on October 26, 2012. Comments submitted by mail must be postmarked no later than October 26, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:

            Document Availability. You may view the application and our draft environmental assessments by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2012-0028 for copper-clad iron shot, or Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2012-0038 for fluoropolymer shot coatings.
          • Request a copy by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

            Written Comments: You may submit comments by either one of the following two methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on either or both of the dockets.
          • U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attention: FWS-R9-MB-2011-0060; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203-1610.

          We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information that you provide.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Dr. George Allen, at 703-358-1825.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Act) (16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j) implements migratory bird treaties between the United States and Great Britain for Canada (1916 and 1996 as amended), Mexico (1936 and 1972 as amended), Japan (1972 and 1974 as amended), and Russia (then the Soviet Union 1978). These treaties protect most migratory bird species from take, except as permitted under the Act, which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate take of migratory birds in the United States. Under this authority, we control the hunting of migratory game birds through regulations in 50 CFR part 20. We prohibit the use of shot types other than those listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 20.21(j) for hunting waterfowl and coots and any species that make up aggregate bag limits.
        Deposition of toxic shot and release of toxic shot components in waterfowl hunting locations are potentially harmful to many organisms. Research has shown that ingested spent lead shot causes significant mortality in migratory birds. Since the mid-1970s, we have sought to identify types of shot for waterfowl hunting that are not toxic to migratory birds or other wildlife when ingested. We have approved nontoxic shot types and added them to the migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR 20.21(j). We continue to review all shot types submitted for approval as nontoxic.
        We addressed lead poisoning in waterfowl in an environmental impact statement (EIS) in 1976, and again in a 1986 supplemental EIS. The 1986 document provided the scientific justification for a ban on the use of lead shot and the subsequent approval of steel shot for hunting waterfowl and coots that began that year, with a complete ban of lead for waterfowl and coot hunting in 1991. We have continued to consider other potential candidates for approval as nontoxic shot. We are obligated to review applications for approval of alternative shot types as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots.
        Many hunters believe that some nontoxic shot types compare poorly to lead and may damage some shotgun barrels. A small and decreasing percentage of hunters have not complied with nontoxic shot regulations. Allowing use of additional nontoxic shot types may encourage greater hunter compliance and participation with nontoxic shot requirements and discourage the use of lead shot. The use of nontoxic shot for waterfowl hunting increased after the ban on lead shot (Anderson et al. 2000), but we believe that compliance would continue to increase with the availability and approval of other nontoxic shot types. Increased use of nontoxic shot will enhance protection of migratory waterfowl and their habitats. More important is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is obligated to consider all complete nontoxic shot submissions.
        Applications

        Environ-Metal, Inc., of Sweet Home, Oregon, seeks approval of copper-clad iron shot as nontoxic. We evaluated the impact of approval of this shot type in a draft environmental assessment, which we are making available for public review (see ADDRESSES). The iron core of the shot has long been approved, so our concern with this shot is the copper cladding on the iron core. The data from Environ-Metal indicate that the copper will not be toxic when ingested by waterfowl, and should not pose a significant danger to migratory birds, other wildlife, or their habitats. We conclude that the shot should not be of concern if deposited in the environment or if ingested by waterfowl or predators.

        Spectra Shot, LLC, of Lafayette, Louisiana, seeks approval of fluoropolymer coatings as evaluated in a draft environmental assessment, which we are making available for public review (see ADDRESSES). Information from Spectra Shot indicates that the fluoropolymer coatings will be nontoxic when ingested by waterfowl, and should not pose a significant danger to migratory birds, other wildlife, or their habitats. We conclude that the information raises no particular concerns about deposition in the environment or about ingestion by waterfowl or predators.
        We have reviewed the shot and the shot coatings under the criteria in Tier 1 of the revised nontoxic shot approval procedures at 50 CFR 20.134 for permanent approval of shot and coatings as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots. We propose to amend 50 CFR 20.21(j) to add the shot and the coatings to the list of those approved for waterfowl and coot hunting. Details on the evaluations of the shot and the coatings can be found in the draft environmental assessments.
        Copper-Clad Iron Shot
        Copper-clad iron shot is a composite in which copper is thermo-mechanically bonded to centerless-ground steel rod, then mechanically worked to final wire and shot configurations. Copper-clad iron shot may be produced with a variety of different proportions of copper and iron, ranging from 16 to 44.41% by weight copper, with a density of approximately 8.3 grams per cubic centimeter. Environ-Metal asserts that “there is little variability in composition to be expected” in production of the shot. Environ-Metal expects to produce about 50,000 pounds of copper-clad iron shot per year.
        Fluoropolymer Coatings

        Spectra Shot is cut wire shotgun shot (steel shot) with a proprietary shot coating. Four different colors of the coated shot will be marketed as Spectra ShotTM Blue, Spectra ShotTM Green, Spectra ShotTM Orange, and Spectra ShotTM Yellow. The thickness of the coating will be 3 to 10 microns, with a corresponding weight per shot as follows: Spectra ShotTM Blue—0.209 milligram per shot; Spectra ShotTM Green—0.732 milligram per shot; Spectra ShotTM Orange—0.942 milligram per shot; and Spectra ShotTM Yellow—1.779 milligrams per shot. Spectra Shot expects annual use of the coated shot in hunting migratory birds in the United States to be 98,000 pounds.

        Polyamide-imide copolymer, polytetrafluoroethylene, amorphous fumed silica, and methylphenyl polysiloxane are common to all Spectra ShotTM colors and make up the bulk of the coating. The pigments vary between coatings, and comprise 13.8% to 20.5% by weight of the dry film.

        Effects of the Approval on Migratory Waterfowl
        Allowing use of additional nontoxic shot types may encourage greater hunter compliance and participation with nontoxic shot requirements and discourage the use of lead shot. Furnishing additional approved nontoxic shot types and nontoxic coatings likely would further reduce the use of lead shot. Thus, approving additional nontoxic shot types and coatings would likely result in a minor positive long-term impact on waterfowl and wetland habitats.
        Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species
        The impact on endangered and threatened species of approval of copper-clad iron shot and fluoropolymer coatings alloys would be very small, but positive. Copper-clad iron shot and fluoropolymer coatings are highly unlikely to adversely affect animals that consume the shot or habitats in which the shot might be used. We see no potential effects on threatened or endangered species due to approval of the shot type or the coatings.

        We obtained a biological opinion pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), prior to establishing the seasonal hunting regulations. The hunting regulations promulgated as a result of this consultation remove and alleviate chances of conflict between migratory bird hunting and endangered and threatened species.
        Effects on Ecosystems
        Previously approved shot types have been shown in test results to be nontoxic to the migratory bird resource, and we believe that they cause no adverse impact on ecosystems. There is concern, however, about noncompliance with the prohibition on lead shot and potential ecosystem effects. The use of lead shot has a negative impact on wetland ecosystems due to the erosion of shot, causing sediment/soil and water contamination and the direct ingestion of shot by aquatic and predatory animals. Though we believe noncompliance is of concern, approval of the shot type and the coatings would have little impact on the resource, unless it has the small positive impact of reducing the rate of noncompliance.
        Cumulative Impacts
        We foresee no negative cumulative impacts if we approve the shot type and the coatings for waterfowl hunting. Their approval could help to further reduce the negative impacts of the use of lead shot for hunting waterfowl and coots. We believe the impacts of the approvals for waterfowl hunting in the United States should be positive.
        Required Determinations
        Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
        Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
        Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121)), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
        SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have examined this rule's potential effects on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and have determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule would allow small entities to improve their economic viability. However, the rule would not have a significant economic impact because it would affect only two companies. We certify that because this rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
        This rule is not a major rule under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
        a. This rule would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
        b. This rule would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, Tribal, or local government agencies; or geographic regions.
        c. This rule would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

        In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), we have determined the following:
        a. This rule would not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. A small government agency plan is not required. Actions under the regulation would not affect small government activities in any significant way.
        b. This rule would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year. It would not be a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
        Takings
        In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. This rule does not contain a provision for taking of private property.
        Federalism
        This rule does not have sufficient Federalism effects to warrant preparation of a federalism summary impact assessment under E.O. 13132. It would not interfere with the ability of States to manage themselves or their funds.
        Civil Justice Reform
        In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has approved our collection of information associated with applications for approval of nontoxic shot (50 CFR 20.134) and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0067, which expires May 31, 2015.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        Our draft environmental assessment is part of the administrative record for this proposed regulations change. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. and Part 516 of the U.S. Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM), approval of copper-clad iron shot and fluoropolymer coatings would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, nor would it involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. Therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required.
        Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
        In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects. This rule would not interfere with the ability of Tribes to manage themselves or their funds or to regulate migratory bird activities on Tribal lands.
        Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)
        On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 addressing regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule change would not be a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, nor would it significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. This action would not be a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
        Compliance With Endangered Species Act Requirements

        Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that “The Secretary [of the Interior] shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter” (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)). It further states that the Secretary must “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat” (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). We have concluded that the regulation change would not affect listed species.
        Clarity of the Rule
        We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
        (a) Be logically organized;
        (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
        (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
        (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
        (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

        If you feel that we have not met these requirements, please send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
          Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend part 20, subchapter B, chapter I of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

          PART 20—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755, 16 U.S.C. 703-712; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a-j; Pub. L. 106-108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 U.S.C. 703.

          2. Amend § 20.21(j)(1) by revising the table and footnotes to read as follows.

            § 20.21
            What hunting methods are illegal?

            (j)(1) * * *

                Approved shot type *
                Percent composition by weight
                Field testing device **

                Bismuth-tin
                97 bismuth, and 3 tin
                Hot Shot® ***.

                Iron (steel)
                iron and carbon
                Magnet or Hot Shot®.

                Iron-tungsten
                any proportion of tungsten, and ≥1 iron
                Magnet or Hot Shot®.

                Iron-tungsten-nickel
                ≥1 iron, any proportion of tungsten, and up to 40 nickel
                Magnet or Hot Shot®.

                Copper-clad iron
                84 to 56.59 iron core, with copper cladding up to 44.1 of the shot mass
                Magnet or Hot Shot 7.

                Tungsten-bronze
                51.1 tungsten, 44.4 copper, 3.9 tin, and 0.6 iron, or 60 tungsten, 35.1 copper, 3.9 tin, and 1 iron
                Rare Earth Magnet.

                Tungsten-iron-copper-nickel
                40-76 tungsten, 10-37 iron, 9-16 copper, and 5-7 nickel
                Hot Shot® or Rare Earth Magnet.

                Tungsten-matrix
                95.9 tungsten, 4.1 polymer
                Hot Shot®.

                Tungsten-polymer
                95.5 tungsten, 4.5 Nylon 6 or 11
                Hot Shot®.

                Tungsten-tin-iron
                any proportions of tungsten and tin, and ≥1 iron
                Magnet or Hot Shot®.

                Tungsten-tin-bismuth
                any proportions of tungsten, tin, and bismuth
                Rare Earth Magnet.

                Tungsten-tin-iron-nickel
                65 tungsten, 21.8 tin, 10.4 iron, and 2.8 nickel
                Magnet.

                Tungsten-iron-polymer
                41.5-95.2 tungsten, 1.5-52.0 iron, and 3.5-8.0 fluoropolymer
                Rare Earth Magnet or Hot Shot®.

              * Coatings of copper, nickel, tin, zinc, zinc chloride, zinc chrome, and fluoropolymers on approved nontoxic shot types also are approved.
              ** The information in the “Field Testing Device” column is strictly informational, not regulatory.
              *** The “HOT*SHOT” field testing device is from Stream Systems of Concord, CA.

            Dated: September 12, 2012.
            Michael J. Bean,
            Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2012-23657 Filed 9-25-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        RIN 0648-BG87
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Gray Triggerfish Management Measures; Amendment 46

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

          ACTION:
          Notification of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 46 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 46 would establish the rebuilding time period for the Gulf gray triggerfish stock. Amendment 46 would also revise the recreational fixed closed season, recreational bag limit, recreational minimum size limit, and commercial trip limit. The purpose of Amendment 46 is to implement management measures to assist in rebuilding the Gulf gray triggerfish stock and to achieve optimum yield (OY).

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before October 30, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the amendment identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0080” by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0080, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Lauren Waters, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            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).

          Electronic copies of Amendment 46, which includes an environmental assessment, a fishery impact statement, a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/reef_fish/2017/am46_gray_trigger/documents/pdfs/gulf_reef_am46_gray_trigg_final.pdf.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Lauren Waters, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone: 727-824-5305; email: Lauren.Waters@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the FMP or amendment is available for review and comment.
        The FMP being revised by Amendment 46 was prepared by the Council and implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Background
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the OY from Federally managed fish stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems. To further this goal, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires fishery managers to rebuild overfished stocks.
        The first Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) benchmark stock assessment for gray triggerfish was completed in 2006 (SEDAR 9). SEDAR 9 indicated that the gray triggerfish stock was both overfished and possibly undergoing overfishing. Subsequently, Amendment 30A to the FMP established a gray triggerfish rebuilding plan beginning in the 2008 fishing year (73 FR 3813; July 3, 2008). In 2011, a SEDAR 9 update stock assessment for gray triggerfish determined that the gray triggerfish stock was still overfished and was undergoing overfishing, and had not made adequate progress toward rebuilding. As a result of the SEDAR 9 update and to end overfishing, the final rule for Amendment 37 to the FMP revised the gray triggerfish commercial and recreational sector annual catch limits (ACLs) and annual catch targets (ACTs), revised the gray triggerfish recreational sector accountability measures (AMs), revised the gray triggerfish recreational bag limit, established a commercial trip limit for gray triggerfish, and established a fixed closed season for the gray triggerfish commercial and recreational sectors (78 FR 27084; May 5, 2013). Additionally, Amendment 37 revised the rebuilding plan and projected that the stock would be rebuilt in 5 years, or by the end of 2017 fishing year.

        Since implementation of Amendment 37 in 2013, commercial harvest has not exceeded the commercial ACL, while the recreational sector has exceeded the recreational ACL or adjusted recreational ACL (that resulted from a ACL overage adjustment) in the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 fishing years. The most recent stock assessment for gray triggerfish was completed and reviewed by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) in October 2015 (SEDAR 43). SEDAR 43 indicated that the gray triggerfish stock was not experiencing overfishing but remained overfished and would not be rebuilt by the end of 2017 as previously projected. On November 2, 2015, NMFS notified the Council that the gray triggerfish stock was not making adequate progress toward rebuilding and the Council subsequently began development of Amendment 46 to establish a new rebuilding time period and other management measures to achieve OY and rebuild the stock.
        Actions Contained in Amendment 46
        Amendment 46 includes measures to set a rebuilding time period, revise the recreational fixed closed season, revise the recreational bag limit, revise the recreational minimum size limit, and revise the commercial trip limit. Additionally, Amendment 46 considers alternatives to the commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs.
        Rebuilding Time Period and Commercial and Recreational ACTs and ACLs
        Amendment 37 established a 5-year rebuilding time period, expiring in 2017, and the current gray triggerfish commercial and recreational ACTs and ACLs. The current commercial ACT is 60,900 lb (27,624 kg), round weight, and the commercial ACL is 64,100 lb (29,075 kg), round weight. The current recreational ACT is 217,000 lb (98,475 kg), round weight, and the recreational ACL is 242,200 lb (109,406 kg), round weight. Amendment 46 would establish a new rebuilding time period for the Gulf gray triggerfish stock as a result of the stock status determined through SEDAR 43, and maintain the current commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs.
        The Council's SSC reviewed SEDAR 43 and recommended alternative rebuilding time periods of 8, 9, or 10 years and the acceptable biological catch (ABC) yield streams for each period. There is a 60 percent probability of rebuilding the stock within these time periods if landings are appropriately constrained to the recommended catch levels. In Amendment 46, the Council considered these rebuilding time periods and their associated catch levels, as well as a 6-year period, which would be the time needed to rebuild the stock in the absence of fishing mortality. The Council determined that the 9-year rebuilding time period was as short as possible, taking into account the status and biology of the stock and the needs of the associated fishing communities. Although the ABC recommendation associated with the 9-year time period allowed for an increase in harvest, the Council chose to adopt a more conservative approach and maintain the current commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs for gray triggerfish that were set through the final rule for Amendment 37 (78 FR 27084, May 9, 2013).
        Recreational Seasonal Closure
        The current recreational seasonal closure for gray triggerfish in the Gulf is from June 1 through July 31, and was established in Amendment 37 to protect gray triggerfish during the peak spawning season and help constrain landings to the recreational ACT (78 FR 27084; May 5, 2013). However, as explained above, recreational landings have exceeded the recreational ACL or adjusted ACL the last four years. Amendment 46 would establish an additional recreational fixed closed season for gray triggerfish from January 1 through the end of February, which is expected to reduce recreational landings and help rebuild the stock within the rebuilding time period established in Amendment 46.
        Recreational Bag Limit
        The current recreational bag limit was set in Amendment 37 and is a 2-fish per person per day limit within the overall 20-fish aggregate reef fish bag limit. Amendment 46 would reduce the recreational gray triggerfish bag limit to 1 fish per person per day within the 20-fish aggregate reef fish bag limit.
        As described in Amendment 46, from 2013 through 2015, approximately 10 percent of recreational trips with reef fish landings harvested 2 gray triggerfish within the 20-fish aggregate bag limit. NMFS expects the proposed change to the bag limit to reduce recreational landings by 15 percent, which will help constrain harvest to the recreational ACT to allow the sector to remain open through the end of the fishing year.
        Recreational Size Limit
        The current recreational minimum size limit for gray triggerfish is 14 inches (35.6 cm), FL, and was established in Amendment 30A to the FMP (73 FR 38139, July 3, 2008). Amendment 46 would increase the minimum size limit to 15 inches (38.1 cm), FL.
        Increasing the recreational minimum size limit is expected to increase the gray triggerfish spawning potential by maintaining larger-sized fish, which are more fecund, in the stock, and is expected to help slow recreational harvest.
        Commercial Trip Limit
        The current commercial trip limit is 12 fish per trip, and was established in Amendment 37 to constrain commercial harvest to the commercial ACT and avoid an in-season closure (78 FR 27084, May 5, 2013). Amendment 46 would increase the commercial trip limit to 16 fish per trip.
        As described in Amendment 46, since implementation of the 12-fish commercial trip limit in 2013, commercial landings have been consistently below the commercial ACT. Analysis of commercial trips demonstrated that 80 percent of trips caught 10 gray triggerfish or less. This indicates that gray triggerfish is primarily a non-target species by the commercial sector and that increasing the commercial trip limit would likely result in only a small change in the weight projected to be landed during a fishing year. However, increasing the commercial trip limit would allow those fishermen who encounter the species the opportunity to harvest more fish. This would help achieve OY for the stock while continuing to constrain commercial landings to the commercial ACT.
        Proposed Rule for Amendment 46

        A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 46 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        Consideration of Public Comments
        The Council has submitted Amendment 46 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments on Amendment 46 must be received by October 30, 2017. Comments received during the respective comment periods, whether specifically directed to Amendment 46 or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 46 and will be addressed in the final rule.
        All comments received by NMFS on Amendment 46 or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

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

          Dated: August 25, 2017.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2017-18417 Filed 8-25-17; 4:15 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 32
        RIN 1018-AT40
        2004-2005 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations; Correction

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Correction to proposed regulations.

          SUMMARY:
          This document contains corrections to the proposed regulations which were published June 30, 2004, (69 FR 39552). The proposed regulations related to the addition of 10 refuges and wetland management districts to the list of areas open for hunting and/or sport fishing programs and increase the activities available at 7 other refuges. We also develop pertinent refuge-specific regulations for those activities and amend certain regulations on other refuges that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for the 2004-2005 season.

          DATES:
          We must receive your comments on or before July 30, 2004.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Leslie Marler, (703) 358-2397.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        We issue refuge-specific regulations when we open wildlife refuges to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, or sport fishing. These regulations list the wildlife species that you may hunt or fish, season, bag or creel limits, methods of hunting or sport fishing, descriptions of areas open to hunting or sport fishing, and other provisions as appropriate. The regulations that are the subject of these corrections increase opportunity to hunt upland game only at Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge in the State of Indiana.
        Need for Correction
        We provided information in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section indicating that Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge was opening for the first time to migratory bird and upland game. The refuge is not opening to migratory bird hunting. The “X” will be removed from the chart in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION on page 39553 under migratory bird hunting, and the amendatory text under § 32.33 for that refuge should continue to reflect that migratory bird hunting is reserved and that we are opening to upland game hunting.
        Correction of Publication
        Accordingly, the publication on June 30, 2004, of the proposed regulations is corrected as follows:

          PART 32—[CORRECTED]

            § 32.33
            [Corrected]
            1. Direction #15 on page 39595 in the third column is corrected by adding instruction c. as follows: c. Revising paragraph B. of “Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge.”
            2. The listing for Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge should be inserted on page 39595 in the third column in § 32.33 before the listing for “Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge”. The listing reads as follows:
            Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge * * *

              B. Upland Game Hunting. We allow hunting of squirrel in accordance with State regulations subject to the following condition: We require a refuge permit.

            Dated: July 19, 2004.
            Susan Wilkinson,
            Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Register Liaison.

      [FR Doc. 04-16763 Filed 7-22-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 2
        [DA 01-786, ET Docket No. 00-258]
        Final Report Spectrum Study of 2500-2690 MHz Band: The Potential for Accommodating Third Generation Mobile Systems

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          On March 30, 2001, the Federal Communications Commission released a Final Report on a spectrum study of the 2500-2690 MHz band for Third Generation (3G) wireless systems. The Final Report reviews and evaluates the earlier analyses and evaluates additional topics, including potential alternate frequency bands for relocating Instructional Television Fixed Service and Multipoint Distribution Service operations and the costs associated with relocation.

          DATES:
          Comments Due: April 16, 2001.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Rodney Small, or Geraldine Matise, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2452, or (202) 418-2322, respectively; internet: rsmall@fcc.gov, or gmatise@fcc.gov, respectively.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the text of the Public Notice, DA 01-786 released March 30, 2001. This document is available on the Commission's Internet site, at www.fcc.gov. It is also available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
        Summary of the Public Notice
        1. The staff of the Federal Communications Commission today released a Final Report on a spectrum study of the 2500-2690 MHz band for Third Generation (3G) wireless systems. The Final Report was prepared under the leadership of the Office of Engineering and Technology, in cooperation with the Mass Media Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and the International Bureau.
        2. The 2500-2690 MHz band was identified by the 2000 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-2000) as candidate spectrum for 3G systems, along with the 806-960 MHz and 1710-1885 MHz bands. The WRC-2000 results allow countries flexibility in deciding how to implement 3G systems. The conference recognized that in many countries the frequency bands identified for 3G may already be in use by equally vital services. In the United States, the 2500-2690 MHz band is currently used by the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) and Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS).
        3. The technical study of the 2500-2690 MHz band has been conducted in two stages. In an Interim Report in ET Docket No. 00-232, released November 15, 2000, the staff examined technical characteristics of 3G systems; the existing and planned use of the 2500-2690 MHz band; the ability for 3G systems to share spectrum with incumbent services; and possible options for segmenting the frequency band to provide spectrum for 3G systems. The Final Report reviews and evaluates the earlier analyses and evaluates additional topics, including potential alternate frequency bands for relocating ITFS/MDS operations and the costs associated with relocation.
        4. The study conducted by the FCC staff is a companion to a study done by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on the 1755-1850 MHz band. The NTIA Interim Report (“Federal Operations in the 1755-1850 MHz Band: The Potential for Accommodating Third Generation Mobile Systems”), which was issued on November 15, 2000, and the NTIA Final Report (“The Potential for Accommodating Third Generation Mobile Systems in the 1710-1850 MHz Band: Federal Operations, Relocation Costs, and Operational Impacts”) cover the same topics as the FCC staff reports. The FCC and NTIA band study reports are consistent with a Study Plan issued by Department of Commerce on October 20, 2000.
        5. Earlier this year, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in ET Docket No. 00-258 on January 5, 2001, to examine and propose spectrum for allocation to fixed and mobile services that would be capable of being used to provide 3G wireless services. The NPRM recognized that a number of frequency bands, including the 1755-1850 MHz and 2500-2690 MHz bands, are capable of supporting advanced wireless systems, and invited comment on the Interim Reports issued by the FCC staff and NTIA. To provide a complete record on issues under review in ET Docket No. 00-258, the Commission seeks comment on the Final Reports of the 1755-1850 MHz and 2500-2690 MHz band studies.
        6. We hereby solicit comment by April 16, 2001 on the issues raised in the Final Reports. Comments should be filed in ET Docket No. 00-258. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. Generally, only one electronic submission must be filed. If filing by paper, parties must file an original and four copies. Parties should send comments to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties are also encouraged to file a copy of all pleadings on a 3.5 inch diskette in Word 97 format.

        7. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To obtain filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message: “get form (your e-mail address).” A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.

        8. The full texts of the FCC and NTIA Final Reports are available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW, 20036., telephone 202-857-3800, facsimile 202-857-3805, TTY 202-293-8810. You may also view the FCC Final Report at http://www.fcc.gov/3G/ and the NTIA Final Report at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/threeg/

        9. This matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. See 47 CFR 1.1200 and 1.1206. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance or the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented generally is required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
        10. This action is taken pursuant to authority found in sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 303(r); and pursuant to sections 0.31 and 0.241 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 0.31 and 0.241.

        11. For further information, contact Geraldine Matise, Office of Engineering and Technology, 202-418-2322 (gmatise@fcc.gov) or Rodney Small, Office of Engineering and Technology, 202-418-2452 (rsmall@fcc.go).

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Geraldine Matise,
          Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules Division, Office of Engineering and Technology.

      [FR Doc. 01-8841 Filed 4-10-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P