0648-BC00 Temp rule Emergency Action Extended

3848

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

280, 300, 340 or 350 kPa, or 60 psi) 7
percent or 10 mm (0.4 inches),
whichever is larger.
*
*
*
*
*
S4.3.4 If the maximum inflation
pressure of a tire is 240, 280, 300, 340,
or 350 kPa, then:
*
*
*
*
*
S4.4.1 * * *
(a) Listed by manufacturer name or
brand name in a document furnished to

dealers of the manufacturer’s tires, to
any person upon request, and in
duplicate to the Docket Section (No:
NHTSA–2009–0117), National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave SE.,
Washington, DC 20590; or
(b) Contained in publications, current
at the date of manufacture of the tire or
any later date, of at least one of the
following organizations:

Tire and Rim Association
The European Tyre and Rim Technical
Organization
Japan Automobile Tyre Manufacturers
Association, Inc.
Tyre and Rim Association of Australia
Associacao Latino Americana de Pneus
e Aros (Brazil)
South African Bureau of Standards
*
*
*
*
*

TABLE I–C—FOR RADIAL PLY TIRES
Maximum permissible inflation
Size designation

PSI

Below 160 mm:
(in-lbs) .......................................................................................
(joules) ......................................................................................
160 mm or above:
(in-lbs) .......................................................................................
(joules) ......................................................................................

*

*

*

*

kPa

32

36

40

240

280

300

340

350

1,950
220

2,925
330

3,900
441

1,950
220

3,900
441

1,950
220

3,900
441

1,950
220

2,600
294

3,900
441

5,200
588

2,600
294

5,200
588

2,600
294

5,200
588

2,600
294

340

350

*

TABLE II—TEST INFLATION PRESSURES
[Maximum permissible inflation pressure to be used for the following test]
psi

kPa

Test type
32
Physical dimensions .........................................................
Bead unseating, tire strength, and tire endurance ..........
High speed performance ..................................................

*

*

*

*

*

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with

Appendix to § 571.109
Persons requesting the addition of new tire
sizes not included in S4.4.1(b) organizations
may, upon approval, submit five (5) copies of
information and data supporting the request
to the Vehicle Dynamics Division, Office of
Crash Avoidance Standards, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
The information should contain the
following:
1. The tire size designation, and a
statement either that the tire is an addition
to a category of tires listed in the tables or
that it is in a new category for which a table
has not been developed.
2. The tire dimensions, including aspect
ratio, size factor, section width, overall
width, and test rim size.
3. The load-inflation schedule of the tire.
4. A statement as to whether the tire size
designation and load inflation schedule has
been coordinated with the Tire and Rim
Association, the European Tyre and Rim
Technical Organization, the Japan
Automobile Tyre Manufacturers Association,
Inc., the Tyre and Rim Association of
Australia, the Associacao Latino Americana

VerDate Mar<15>2010

12:47 Jan 16, 2013

Jkt 229001

36
24
24
30

40
28
28
34

60
32
32
38

240
60
52
58

280

180
180
220

220
220
260

300
180
180
220

220
220
260

de Pneus e Aros (Brazil), or the South African
Bureau of Standards.
5. Copies of test data sheets showing test
conditions, results and conclusions obtained
for individual tests specified in § 571.109.
6. Justification for the additional tire sizes.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Issued on: January 4, 2013.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.

[Docket No. 120312181–2279–01]

[FR Doc. 2013–00938 Filed 1–16–13; 8:45 am]

Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery;
Trawl Rationalization Program;
Emergency Rule Extension

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

PO 00000

180
180
220

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 660

RIN 0648–BC00

National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; emergency
action extended.
AGENCY:

NMFS is extending the
temporary rule that delayed or revised
several portions of the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Trawl
Rationalization Program (program)
regulations. This emergency rule
extension is necessary to enable the

SUMMARY:

Frm 00022

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\17JAR1.SGM

17JAR1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) to comply with a court order
requiring NMFS to reconsider the initial
allocation of Pacific whiting (whiting) to
the shorebased Individual Fishing
Quota (IFQ) fishery and the at-sea
mothership fishery. This extension of
the temporary, emergency rule affects
the transfer of Quota Share (QS) and
Individual Bycatch Quota (IBQ) between
QS accounts in the shorebased IFQ
fishery, and severability in the
mothership fishery, both of which will
be delayed until NMFS can complete
reconsideration of whiting allocations in
the shorebased IFQ fishery and the atsea mothership fishery.
DATES: The expiration date of the
temporary rule published August 1,
2012 (77 FR 45508) is extended from
January 28, 2013, through July 22, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ariel Jacobs, 206–526–4491; (fax) 206–
526–6736; Ariel.Jacobs@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with

Background
This action extends the
Reconsideration of Allocation of
Whiting, Delay of Relevant Regulations
Rule, referred to as ‘‘RAW 1’’. RAW 1
delayed or revised several provisions of
the Pacific coast trawl rationalization
program. Background on this rule was
provided in the proposed rule,
published on May 21, 2012 (77 FR
29955), and in the final rule, published
on August 1, 2012 (77 FR 45508), and
is not repeated here. This action would
extend the effectiveness of the final rule,
which:
(1) Delayed the ability to transfer QS
and IBQ between QS accounts in the
shorebased IFQ fishery in order to avoid
complications that would occur if QS
permit owners in the shorebased IFQ
fishery were allowed to transfer QS
percentages prior to completion of the
whiting allocation reconsideration;
(2) Delayed the requirement to divest
excess QS amounts for the shorebased
IFQ fishery and the at-sea mothership
fishery so that QS permit owners would
have sufficient time to plan and arrange
sales of excess QS, as originally
recommended by the Council for this
provision of the trawl rationalization
program;
(3) Delayed the ability to change
mothership catcher vessel (MS/CV)
endorsement and catch history
assignments from one limited entry
trawl permit to another in order to avoid
complications that would have occurred
had permit owners been allowed to
transfer ownership of catch history
assignments prior to completion of the
reconsideration; and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

12:47 Jan 16, 2013

Jkt 229001

(4) Modified the issuance provisions
for quota pounds (QP) for the beginning
of fishing year 2013 to preserve NMFS’
ability to deposit the appropriate final
amounts into QS accounts based on any
recalculation of QS allocations. In
January 2013, NMFS deposited into
accounts an interim amount of QP based
on the shorebased trawl allocation
multiplied by the lower end of the range
of potential harvest specifications for
2013, as reduced by the amount of QP
for whiting trips associated with the
whiting QS issued based on the limited
entry permit history that qualified for an
initial allocation, and for species caught
incidentally in the whiting fishery
(including lingcod, Pacific cod, canary,
bocaccio, cowcod, yelloweye, Pacific
ocean perch, widow, English sole,
darkblotched, sablefish N. of 36° N lat.,
yellowtail N. of 40°10′ N. lat.,
shortspine N. of 34°27′ N. lat., minor
slope rockfish N. of 40°10′ N. lat., minor
slope rockfish S. of 40°10′ N. lat., minor
shelf rockfish N. of 40°10′ N. lat., minor
shelf rockfish S. of 40°10′ N. lat., and
other flatfish). The remainder of the
interim QP will be deposited in QS
accounts at the start of the whiting
primary season.
NMFS is also advising the at-sea
mothership fishery that the response to
the court order may impact processor
obligations and cooperative (coop)
formation, if whiting catch history
assignments are recalculated. NMFS
will announce a process for correcting
data, if necessary, following the public
comment period for the RAW 2
proposed rule (78 FR 72, January 2,
2013).
Potential Impact on Processor
Obligations and Coop Formation
NMFS advises the at-sea mothership
fishery that the response to the courtordered reconsideration may impact
processor obligations and coop
formation if whiting catch history
assignments are recalculated. NMFS
will announce any changes to the
amount of catch history assignments
associated with MS/CV-endorsed
limited entry trawl permits by April 1,
2013. The mothership sector has until
March 31, 2013, to submit their coop
permit applications to NMFS for that
fishing year. The coop permit
application includes a list of the catch
history amounts associated with specific
MS/CV-endorsed limited entry permits
and which MS permit those amounts are
obligated to. Because coop permit
applications may be submitted before
NMFS has made its final determination
on the 2013 catch history assignments
associated with MS/CV-endorsed
permits, participants in the mothership

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

3849

fishery should be aware that this
proposal may potentially impact their
processor obligations, coop formation,
and coop permit application. NMFS
does not anticipate a need for regulatory
changes to address these potential
impacts and will work with any MS
coop permit applicants if there are
changes in catch history assignments
from that noted in the 2013 coop permit
application. For example, in the initial
administrative determination for any
2013 MS coop permit application,
NMFS will notify the coop manager of
any changes in catch history
assignments for MS/CV-endorsed
permits associated with that coop.
NMFS also considered whether to
allow limited entry permit transfers (i.e.,
changes in permit ownership) for all
limited entry trawl endorsed permits,
except for those with a catcher/
processor endorsement, for a period of
time during the reconsideration. This
allowance would simplify reissuance of
QS permits in the shorebased IFQ
fishery or catch history assignments on
MS/CV-endorsed limited entry trawl
permits in the at-sea mothership fishery.
After assessing this step, NMFS has
determined that it is not necessary
because the reallocation rule likely will
have no planned application process.
The initial allocation had a lengthy
application process that necessitated not
allowing limited entry permit (LEP)
transfers while NMFS reviewed
applications. For any revised
reallocation, NMFS likely will issue an
initial administrative determination
(IAD), but not an application; these
details will be developed as part of the
reallocation rulemaking, if necessary.
Accordingly, there should not be a need
to freeze LEP transfers. If NMFS reissues
QS permits and/or catch history
assignments on MS/CV-endorsed
limited entry trawl permits, NMFS
likely will issue those permits or catch
history assignments to the QS account
owner of record with NMFS at the time
of reissuance. Because the RAW 2 rule
(78 FR 72, January 2, 2013) is not
proposing any reallocation, it did not
include these additional details.
Classification
This emergency rule extension is
published under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
OMB has determined that this action
is not significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
This extension to an emergency/
interim rule is exempt from the
procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because this extension rule is issued
without opportunity for prior notice and
opportunity for public comment.

E:\FR\FM\17JAR1.SGM

17JAR1

3850

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with

The Assistant Administrator finds it is
unnecessary and contrary to the public
interest to provide for prior notice and
an opportunity for public comment on
this emergency rule extension. In the
initial emergency rule published on
May 21, 2012 (77 FR 29955), NMFS
requested, and subsequently received,
comments on the rulemaking. Therefore,
the agency has the authority to extend
the emergency action for up to 186 days
beyond January 28, 2013. This would
extend the emergency action to through
August 2, 2013.
The measures of this emergency rule
extension remain unchanged from the
measures contained in the initial
emergency rule that delayed or revised
portions of the trawl program
regulations pending completion of the
reconsideration of the allocation of
whiting for the shoreside IFQ and
mothership sectors of the program. This
extension must be in place during the
2013 whiting fishing season because the
reconsideration is still underway and
failing to extend the emergency rule
would be counter to the NMFS and the
Council’s efforts to manage the fishery
until the reconsideration has been
completed. The emergency action
authority under 305(c)(3) allows NMFS
to extend the provisions of the
emergency action rule if there was a
public comment period and the Council
is currently addressing the
reconsideration. NMFS has met both of
these provisions.
NMFS solicited public comment
during the 30-day comment period on
the measures contained in the initial
emergency action and extended by this
action. The comments received were
considered and were addressed in the
preamble of the emergency rule.
Therefore, for the reasons outlined
above, the Assistant Administrator finds
it is unnecessary and contrary to the
public interest to provide any additional
notice and opportunity for public
comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) prior
to publishing the emergency rule
extension. Furthermore, NMFS finds
good cause to waive the 30-day delay in
effectiveness because any lapse in
effectiveness of this temporary rule
could potentially jeopardize NMFS’
ability to comply with the Court order
in Pacific Dawn.
No Federal rules have been identified
that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with

VerDate Mar<15>2010

12:47 Jan 16, 2013

Jkt 229001

this emergency rule extension. Public
comment is hereby solicited, identifying
such rules. A copy of this analysis is
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
NMFS issued Biological Opinions
under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) on August 10, 1990, November
26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September
27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December
15, 1999 pertaining to the effects of the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan (PCGFMP) fisheries
on Chinook salmon (Puget Sound,
Snake River spring/summer, Snake
River fall, upper Columbia River spring,
lower Columbia River, upper Willamette
River, Sacramento River winter, Central
Valley spring, California coastal), coho
salmon (Central California coastal,
southern Oregon/northern California
coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal
summer, Columbia River), sockeye
salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and
steelhead (upper, middle and lower
Columbia River, Snake River Basin,
upper Willamette River, central
California coast, California Central
Valley, south/central California,
northern California, southern
California). These biological opinions
have concluded that implementation of
the PCGFMP for the Pacific Coast
groundfish fishery is not expected to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered or threatened species
under the jurisdiction of NMFS, or
result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
NMFS issued a Supplemental
Biological Opinion on March 11, 2006
concluding that neither the higher
observed bycatch of Chinook in the
2005 whiting fishery nor new data
regarding salmon bycatch in the
groundfish bottom trawl fishery
required a reconsideration of its prior
‘‘no jeopardy’’ conclusion. NMFS also
reaffirmed its prior determination that
implementation of the Groundfish
PCGFMP is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any of the
affected ESUs. Lower Columbia River
coho (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) and
Oregon Coastal coho (73 FR 7816,
February 11, 2008) were recently
relisted as threatened under the ESA.
The 1999 biological opinion concluded
that the bycatch of salmonids in the
Pacific whiting fishery were almost
entirely Chinook salmon, with little or

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 9990

no bycatch of coho, chum, sockeye, and
steelhead.
On December 7, 2012, NMFS
completed a biological opinion
concluding that the groundfish fishery
is not likely to jeopardize non-salmonid
marine species including listed
eulachon, green sturgeon, humpback
whales, Steller sea lions, and
leatherback sea turtles. The opinion also
concludes that the fishery is not likely
to adversely modify critical habitat for
green sturgeon and leatherback sea
turtles. An analysis included in the
same document as the opinion
concludes that the fishery is not likely
to adversely affect green sea turtles,
olive ridley sea turtles, loggerhead sea
turtles, sei whales, North Pacific right
whales, blue whales, fin whales, sperm
whales, Southern Resident killer
whales, Guadalupe fur seals, or the
critical habitat for Steller sea lions.
As Steller sea lions and humpback
whales are also protected under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act,
incidental take of these species from the
groundfish fishery must be addressed
under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E). On
February 27, 2012, NMFS published
notice that the incidental taking of
Steller sea lions in the West Coast
groundfish fisheries is addressed in
NMFS’ December 29, 2010 Negligible
Impact Determination (NID) and this
fishery has been added to the list of
fisheries authorized to take Steller sea
lions (77 FR 11493, Feb. 27, 2012).
NMFS is currently developing MMPA
authorization for the incidental take of
humpback whales in the fishery.
On November 21, 2012, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a
biological opinion concluding that the
groundfish fishery will not jeopardize
the continued existence of the shorttailed albatross. The FWS also
concurred that the fishery is not likely
to adversely affect the marbled murrelet,
California least tern, southern sea otter,
bull trout, nor bull trout critical habitat.
Dated: January 11, 2013.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
performing the functions and duties of the
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–00936 Filed 1–16–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

E:\FR\FM\17JAR1.SGM

17JAR1