Fisheries Off West Coast States; Notice of Availability for Secretarial Amendment 1 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, 55865-55866 [2011-23125]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
in the petition for review so it was not
possible for the agency to determine
what assumptions were made as to how
many trucks on the road were equipped
with ABS. In summary, the petition
claims that ABS contributed to
reductions in truck occupant fatalities
during three years (1998 through 2000)
but also contributed to increases in
truck occupant fatalities in the first year
(1997). The agency study of ABS
effectiveness did not specifically
address how ABS contributed to truck
occupant safety (due to the limited
amount of available crash data it only
reviewed overall increases and
reductions in crashes), but since ABS
prevents tractor-trailers from losing
control under a variety of circumstances
the agency believes it is likely that it has
reduced injuries and fatalities among
truck occupants.
V. Agency Decision
The agency has reviewed the petition
and is denying it. The agency does not
plan to initiate rulemaking or other
actions to consider removing ABS from
heavy vehicles, to consider requiring an
on-off switch for the driver to disable
the ABS, or to consider requiring the
automatic disabling of ABS at speeds
greater than 55 mph. The petitioner has
not demonstrated that a safety need
exists, which would justify removing or
disabling ABS on heavy vehicles, or to
vacate FMVSS No. 121 or the ABS
requirements contained in it. The safetyneed basis of the petition included
citations of the agency’s study on the
effectiveness of ABS on tractor-trailers,
and a claim that ABS has allowed lessskilled truck drivers to operate trucks.
However, citing a subgroup of FARS
data where there was an increase in fatal
rear-end crashes among ABS tractors on
a particular type of roadway (i.e., highspeed rural highways) does not prove by
itself, or provide sufficient evidence,
that a safety problem with ABS exists.
We note that state data indicated
reductions in rear-end crashes for ABS
tractors in four states and increases in
rear-end crashes for ABS tractors in
three states. The crash data were not
sufficiently detailed, or consistently
conclusive, to present clear evidence
that ABS causes an increase in rear-end
crashes when it is installed on tractors.
The petition cited a slight increase in
overall fatal crashes among ABS
tractors, but when those data were
weighted to account for the effects of
road type and lighting condition, the
results indicated an overall reduction in
fatal crashes. Although this result was
not statistically significant, possibly due
to the limited amount of available crash
data, the results of the study indicated
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:55 Sep 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
that ABS is effective in reducing all
crashes, with quite possibly a similar
effect on fatal crashes. Beyond these
data that were cited in the petition,
there was the claim that ABS allows
incompetent truck drivers to operate
trucks. The agency concludes that while
there are variations in levels of
experience of truck drivers, they all
must meet the same qualifications to
drive trucks. We do not believe that
ABS somehow allows incompetent
drivers to drive trucks. The agency notes
that, since the ABS final rule was
published in 1995, only one ABS
functionality problem has been
identified related to some trucks
operating in severe, off-road conditions.
This problem has been resolved by
using a modified ABS algorithm to
provide an additional amount of wheel
lockup at very low vehicle speeds. The
vehicle manufacturers can incorporate
this feature as needed by switching to a
modified ABS wheel slip algorithm
when a front drive axle or interaxle
locking system is engaged by the driver.
The agency is not aware of any other
functionality problems with heavy
vehicle ABS that would justify disabling
it. We conclude that the petition has not
demonstrated that there is a safety need
or other technical reason that would
justify disabling the ABS at highway
speeds under any circumstances.
Issued: September 2, 2011.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011–23043 Filed 9–8–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 660
RIN 0648–BB27
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Notice of Availability for Secretarial
Amendment 1 to the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Availability of Secretarial
amendment to a fishery management
plan; request for comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS has prepared
Secretarial Amendment 1 to the Pacific
Coast Groundfish Fishery Management
Plan (FMP). Secretarial Amendment 1
would modify the FMP to add an
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55865
overfished species rebuilding plan for
petrale sole and revise existing
overfished species rebuilding plans. In
addition, Secretarial Amendment 1
would modify the default proxy values
for FMSY and BMSY as they apply to the
flatfish species, including petrale sole;
and the harvest control rule policies.
Finally the amendment makes nonsubstantive changes and updates factual
information.
DATES: Comments on Secretarial
Amendment 1 must be received on or
before November 8, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS 2011–0207, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal https://
www.regulations.gov. To submit
comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal,
first click the ‘‘submit a comment’’ icon,
then enter NOAA–NMFS 2011–0207 in
the keyword search. Locate the
document you wish to comment on
from the resulting list and click on the
‘‘Submit a Comment’’ icon on the right
of that line.
• Mail: William W. Stelle, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Northwest
Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way
NE., Seattle, WA 98115–0070, Attn:
Sarah Williams.
• Fax: 206–526–6736, Attn: Sarah
Williams.
Instructions: Comments must be
submitted by one of the above methods
to ensure that the comments are
received, documented, and considered
by NMFS. 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. All comments received are
a part of the public record and will
generally be posted for public viewing
on https://www.regulations.gov without
change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.)
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe
PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah Williams (Northwest Region,
NMFS), phone: 206–526–4646; fax:
206–526–6736; and e-mail:
sarah.williams@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
55866
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Electronic Access
This Federal Register document is
also accessible via the internet at the
Web site of the Office of the Federal
Register: https://www.access.gpo.gov/sudocs/aces/aces140.html.
Background
On December 27, 2010, NMFS
disapproved Amendment 16–5 to the
Pacific Groundfish Fishery Management
Plan (FMP) because there was not an
adequate National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) document to base a decision
on; consequently, the provisions of 16–
5 were implemented pursuant to
emergency authority under section
305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(MSA) and can only be effective 365
days and therefore further action is
necessary to extend the provisions of
the Amendment through 2012. A
Secretarial Amendment is necessary
before the expiration of the emergency
provisions, because the Council at its
June 2011 meeting chose not to resubmit
Amendment 16–5 and instead deferred
to NMFS to take action to develop and
adopt the amendment. Therefore NMFS
has prepared Secretarial Amendment 1
which is a modified version of
Amendment 16–5.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Provisions of Secretarial Amendment 1
Secretarial Amendment 1 proposes to
establish one new rebuilding plan,
modify seven existing plans, modify the
default proxy values for FMSY and BMSY
as they apply to the flatfish species, and
the harvest control rule policies.
The new rebuilding plan is needed
because petrale sole was declared
overfished on February 9, 2010. The
following groundfish species currently
being managed under rebuilding plans
which are proposed to be modified by
Secretarial Amendment 1 are: Bocaccio
in the Monterey and Conception areas;
canary rockfish; cowcod south of Point
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:55 Sep 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
Conception to the U.S. Mexico
boundary; darkblotched rockfish, Pacific
Ocean Perch (POP), widow rockfish,
and yelloweye rockfish. The proposed
revisions to these existing rebuilding
plans are based on new stock
assessments or assessment updates and
include revisions to the rebuilding
parameters such as rebuilding years,
BMSY, and other parameters.
The new flatfish harvest control rule
is necessary because sufficient
information became available to develop
more appropriate values of FMSY and
BMSY, for all flatfish species. Therefore
Secretarial Amendment 1 would revise
the proxy FMSY value for all flatfish
species from F40% to F30% and revises
the proxy BMSY value for all flatfish
species from B40% to B25%. A rebuilding
analysis is used to project the status of
the overfished resource into the future
under a variety of alternative harvest
strategies to determine the probability of
recovering to BMSY within a specified
time-frame. The overfished threshold
would also be revised. The overfished
threshold or minimum stock size
threshold (MSST) is the estimated
biomass level of the stock relative to its
unfished biomass (i.e., depletion level),
below which the stock is considered
overfished. Secretarial Amendment 1
would revise the default proxy MSST
for the assessed flatfish species from
B25% to B12.5%, which is 50 percent of the
BMSY target of B25%.
Secretarial Amendment 1 would add
to the FMP a new harvest control rule
referred to as the 25–5 harvest control
rule for stocks with a BMSY proxy of 25
percent (B25%). When the estimated
biomass has fallen below B25% and when
the stock is not managed under an
overfished species rebuilding plan, the
25–5 harvest control rule would be
applied. Under the 25–5 harvest control
rule, a precautionary adjustment is
made to the ACL when the stock’s
depletion drops below B25% and at B5%,
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
the ACL is set to zero. The 25–5 harvest
control rule is designed to prevent
stocks from becoming overfished.
Finally, Secretarial Amendment 1
would also move the elements of the
rebuilding plans into an appendix and
update factual information. This
revision is being proposed to provide
the public and fishery managers easy
access to the current rebuilding plans.
Consistent with the existing provisions
of the FMP, any changes to rebuilding
plans will be available for public
comment, be thoroughly reviewed in the
Council process and by NMFS and be
evaluated through analytical documents
prepared by the Council and NMFS.
NMFS welcomes comments on the
proposed FMP amendment through the
end of the comment period. A proposed
rule to implement Secretarial
Amendment 1 has been submitted for
Secretarial review and approval. NMFS
expects to publish and request public
review and comment on proposed
regulations to implement Secretarial
Amendment 1, along with the
groundfish specifications and
management measures for 2012, in the
near future. Public comments on the
proposed rule must be received by the
end of the comment period on the
amendment to be considered in the
approval/disapproval decision on the
amendment. All comments received by
the end of the comment period for the
amendment, whether specifically
directed to the amendment or the
proposed rule, will be considered in the
approval/disapproval decision.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: September 6, 2011.
James P. Burgess,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–23125 Filed 9–8–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55865-55866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23125]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 660
RIN 0648-BB27
Fisheries Off West Coast States; Notice of Availability for
Secretarial Amendment 1 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Availability of Secretarial amendment to a fishery management
plan; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has prepared Secretarial Amendment 1 to the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Secretarial Amendment 1 would
modify the FMP to add an overfished species rebuilding plan for petrale
sole and revise existing overfished species rebuilding plans. In
addition, Secretarial Amendment 1 would modify the default proxy values
for FMSY and BMSY as they apply to the flatfish
species, including petrale sole; and the harvest control rule policies.
Finally the amendment makes non-substantive changes and updates factual
information.
DATES: Comments on Secretarial Amendment 1 must be received on or
before November 8, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS 2011-0207, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal https://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal,
first click the ``submit a comment'' icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS 2011-
0207 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on
from the resulting list and click on the ``Submit a Comment'' icon on
the right of that line.
Mail: William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator,
Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-
0070, Attn: Sarah Williams.
Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Sarah Williams.
Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above
methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and
considered by NMFS. 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. All comments received are a part of the public
record and will generally be posted for public viewing on https://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the
sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you
wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be
accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file
formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Williams (Northwest Region,
NMFS), phone: 206-526-4646; fax: 206-526-6736; and e-mail:
sarah.williams@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 55866]]
Electronic Access
This Federal Register document is also accessible via the internet
at the Web site of the Office of the Federal Register: https://www.access.gpo.gov/su-docs/aces/aces140.html.
Background
On December 27, 2010, NMFS disapproved Amendment 16-5 to the
Pacific Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) because there was not
an adequate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document to base a
decision on; consequently, the provisions of 16-5 were implemented
pursuant to emergency authority under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and can only be
effective 365 days and therefore further action is necessary to extend
the provisions of the Amendment through 2012. A Secretarial Amendment
is necessary before the expiration of the emergency provisions, because
the Council at its June 2011 meeting chose not to resubmit Amendment
16-5 and instead deferred to NMFS to take action to develop and adopt
the amendment. Therefore NMFS has prepared Secretarial Amendment 1
which is a modified version of Amendment 16-5.
Provisions of Secretarial Amendment 1
Secretarial Amendment 1 proposes to establish one new rebuilding
plan, modify seven existing plans, modify the default proxy values for
FMSY and BMSY as they apply to the flatfish
species, and the harvest control rule policies.
The new rebuilding plan is needed because petrale sole was declared
overfished on February 9, 2010. The following groundfish species
currently being managed under rebuilding plans which are proposed to be
modified by Secretarial Amendment 1 are: Bocaccio in the Monterey and
Conception areas; canary rockfish; cowcod south of Point Conception to
the U.S. Mexico boundary; darkblotched rockfish, Pacific Ocean Perch
(POP), widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish. The proposed revisions
to these existing rebuilding plans are based on new stock assessments
or assessment updates and include revisions to the rebuilding
parameters such as rebuilding years, BMSY, and other
parameters.
The new flatfish harvest control rule is necessary because
sufficient information became available to develop more appropriate
values of FMSY and BMSY, for all flatfish
species. Therefore Secretarial Amendment 1 would revise the proxy
FMSY value for all flatfish species from
F40 to F30 and revises the proxy
BMSY value for all flatfish species from
B40 to B25. A rebuilding analysis
is used to project the status of the overfished resource into the
future under a variety of alternative harvest strategies to determine
the probability of recovering to BMSY within a specified
time-frame. The overfished threshold would also be revised. The
overfished threshold or minimum stock size threshold (MSST) is the
estimated biomass level of the stock relative to its unfished biomass
(i.e., depletion level), below which the stock is considered
overfished. Secretarial Amendment 1 would revise the default proxy MSST
for the assessed flatfish species from B25 to
B12.5, which is 50 percent of the
BMSY target of B25.
Secretarial Amendment 1 would add to the FMP a new harvest control
rule referred to as the 25-5 harvest control rule for stocks with a
BMSY proxy of 25 percent (B25). When the
estimated biomass has fallen below B25 and when the
stock is not managed under an overfished species rebuilding plan, the
25-5 harvest control rule would be applied. Under the 25-5 harvest
control rule, a precautionary adjustment is made to the ACL when the
stock's depletion drops below B25 and at
B5, the ACL is set to zero. The 25-5 harvest control
rule is designed to prevent stocks from becoming overfished.
Finally, Secretarial Amendment 1 would also move the elements of
the rebuilding plans into an appendix and update factual information.
This revision is being proposed to provide the public and fishery
managers easy access to the current rebuilding plans. Consistent with
the existing provisions of the FMP, any changes to rebuilding plans
will be available for public comment, be thoroughly reviewed in the
Council process and by NMFS and be evaluated through analytical
documents prepared by the Council and NMFS.
NMFS welcomes comments on the proposed FMP amendment through the
end of the comment period. A proposed rule to implement Secretarial
Amendment 1 has been submitted for Secretarial review and approval.
NMFS expects to publish and request public review and comment on
proposed regulations to implement Secretarial Amendment 1, along with
the groundfish specifications and management measures for 2012, in the
near future. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by
the end of the comment period on the amendment to be considered in the
approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received
by the end of the comment period for the amendment, whether
specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be
considered in the approval/disapproval decision.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: September 6, 2011.
James P. Burgess,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-23125 Filed 9-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P