6250 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 24 / Friday, February 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 29th day of 

January 2009, under authority assigned to me 

by 14 CFR 385.17 (c). 

Neil R. Eisner, 

Assistant General Counsel, Office of 

Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. 

Department of Transportation. 

[FR Doc. E9–2548 Filed 2–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

36 CFR Part 242 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 100 

[FWS–R7—SM–2009–0001; 701 01–I 261– 

0000L6] 

RIN 1018–AW3O 

Subsistence Management Regulations 

for Public Lands in Alaska—2010–11 

and 2011–12 Subsistence Taking or 

Wildlife Regulations 

AGENCIES: Forest Service, Agriculture; 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

January 20, 2009, memorandum 

‘‘Regulatory Review,’’ signed by Chief of 

Staff Rahm Emanuel, we, the U.S. Forest 

Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, withdraw our proposed rule 

published January 29, 2009, to establish 

regulations for hunting and trapping 

seasons, harvest limits, methods, and 

means related to taking of wildlife for 

subsistence uses in Alaska during the 

2010–11 and 2011–12 regulatory years. 

DATES: Effective February 4, 2009, the 

Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service withdraw the joint proposed 

rule published January 29, 2009 (74 FR 

5127). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

Fish and Wildlife Service questions, 

contact Peter 3. Probasco, Chair, Federal 

Subsistence Board, c/o U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Office of Subsistence 

Management, at (907) 786–3888 

(telephone) or subsistence@fws.gov (email). For National Forest System lands 

questions, contact Steve Kessler, 

Regional Subsistence Program Leader, 

USDA, Forest Service, Alaska Region, at 

(907) 743–9461 (telephone). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under Title VIII of the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111–3126), 

the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) 

jointly implement the Federal 

Subsistence Management Program 

(program). This program grants a 

preference for subsistence uses of fish 

and wildlife resources on Federal public 

lands and waters in Alaska. The 

Secretaries originally published 

regulations to carry out the program in 

the Federal Register on May 29, 1992 

(57 FR 22940), and the program has 

subsequently amended these regulations 

several times. Because this program is a 

joint effort between Interior and 

Agriculture, its regulations are located 

in two titles of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR): Title 36, ‘‘Parks, 

Forests, and Public Property,’’ and Title 

50, ‘‘Wildlife and Fisheries,’’ at 36 CFR 

242.1–28 and 50 CFR 100.1–28, 

respectively. 

Among other things, subpart D of 

these regulations set forth specific 

harvest seasons and limits. Subpart D 

regulations are subject to periodic 

review and revision. The Federal 

Subsistence Board completes the 

biennial process of revising subsistence 

hunting and trapping regulations for 

wildlife in even-numbered years and 

subsistence fishing and shellfish 

regulations in odd-numbered years; 

public proposal and review processes 

take place during the preceding year. 

The Board also addresses customary and 

traditional use determinations during 

the applicable biennial cycle. 

On January 29, 2009 (74 FR 5127), we 

published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register revising the subpart D 

regulations that set forth specific harvest 

seasons and limits for wildlife and the 

subpart C customary and traditional use 

determinations. The text of the 2008–10 

subparts C and D final rule that 

published June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35726), 

serve as the text for our 2010–12 

subparts C and D proposed rule (January 

29, 2009, 74 FR 5127). 

We are withdrawing this rule because 

publication did not follow the 

requirements set forth in a January 20, 

2009, memorandum signed by the 

President’s Chief of Staff. That 

memorandum requires Administration 

appointees to review rules prior to 

publication. This rule did not receive 

complete Administration review. 

For more about the background and 

structure of the Federal Subsistence 

Program, Federal Subsistence Board, 

and Federal Subsistence Regional 

Advisory Councils; our Public Review 

Process involving Comments, Proposals, 

and Public Meetings; Compliance with 

Statutory and Regulatory Authorities; 

and discussion of our original proposed 

rule, see 74 FR 5127. 

Dated: January 29, 2009. 

Rowan Gould, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Dated: February 3, 2009. 

Abigail Kimbell, 

Chief of the U.S. Forest Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–2608 Filed 2–4–09; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODES 3410–11–P; 4310–55–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 111 

New Standards for Domestic Mailing 

Services, Revised Proposal 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental. 

SUMMARY: On January 29, 2009, the 

Postal Service published a proposed 

rule to provide mailing standards that 

would accompany new prices for 

mailing services in 2009 and 2010. 

Upon further review, the Postal Service 

has determined that it is appropriate to 

make certain changes in its initial 

proposal. In particular, language has 

been inserted to clarify that proposed 

new standards relating to static charge 

and coefficient of friction standards for 

automation and machinable letters 

would be recommended, not mandatory, 

and a proposal to revise the standards 

for window envelopes on letter-size 

envelopes has been removed. For 

purposes of clarity and convenience, the 

entire revised version of the proposed 

rule is being published for comment. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before March 9, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written 

comments to the Manager, Mailing 

Standards, U.S. Postal Service, 475 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 3436, 

Washington, DC 20260–3436. You may 

inspect and photocopy all written 

comments at USPS Headquarters 

Library, 475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 11th 

Floor N, Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday. E-mail comments, containing 

the name and address of the commenter, 

may be sent to: 

MailingStandards@usps.gov, with a 

subject line of ‘‘Price-related Proposal 

Comments.’’ Faxed comments are not 

accepted. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill 

Chatfield, 202–268–7278. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 24 / Friday, February 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 6251 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 29, 2009, the Postal Service 

published a proposed rule to provide 

mailing standards that would 

accompany new prices for mailing 

services in 2009 and 2010. Federal 

Register 74 FR 5130. This supplemental 

filing makes appropriate changes in the 

original proposed rule, as discussed 

below. 

The Postal Service’s proposed rule 

includes: Several mail classification 

changes, modifications to mailpiece 

characteristics, and changes in 

classification terminology. This 

proposed rule contains the revisions to 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM®) that we would adopt to 

implement the new prices. Additional 

changes will be included in a separate 

final rule to support prices established 

by the Governors. 

We think it is vital to share proposed 

modifications to mailing standards as 

far in advance as possible; therefore, 

included are additional proposed 

revisions scheduled for implementation 

in May 2010. We summarize the 

revisions by shape for 2009 and 2010, 

and provide proposed changes to the 

mailing standards in the DMM. We 

invite your comments on the proposed 

standards. 

Proposed Changes for Letters and Flats 

for May 2009 

Letters 

In May 2009, we propose alignment of 

standards for commercial machinable 

and automation letters so all machinable 

letters have the physical characteristics 

required of automation letters, with the 

exception of a qualifying barcode. 

Commercial letters that are not 

machinable are mailed as 

nonmachinable letters. 

We propose a new minimum 0.009 

inch thickness standard for automation 

and machinable letters. 

If letter surfaces are too glossy, pieces 

may double-feed into processing 

machines, and it can be difficult to 

handle groups of letters when inducted 

or removed from machines. We propose 

new recommended static charge and 

coefficient of friction standards for 

automation and machinable letters to 

avoid excessive static charge and allow 

all letters to be handled efficiently when 

inducted and removed from processing 

equipment. We will continue to explore 

the development of testing methods and 

mailpiece design factors that impact 

static charge and coefficient of friction. 

Our proposed rule revises the list of 

nonmachinable characteristics. We 

clarify that letters with nonpaper 

surfaces, and letters with keys, coins or 

similar objects that are either loose or 

thick enough to make a letter 

nonuniform in thickness, render letters 

nonmachinable. Letters that do not meet 

the ‘‘automation-compatible’’ physical 

standards in DMM 201.3.0 would be 

considered nonmachinable letters. 

We propose to allow optional 

sortation of First-Class Mail® and 

Standard Mail® automation letters and 

Standard Mail machinable letters to all 

applicable sort levels, with prices 

matching the level of sortation chosen. 

Note: Language in the original version of 

this proposed rule which would have revised 

the standards for window envelopes on 

letter-size envelopes has been removed. 

Accordingly, this revised proposal no longer 

contains proposed changes to sections 202, 

302, and 600 of Mailing Standards of the 

United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail 

Manual (DMM), which appeared in the 

previously published proposal. 

Flats 

Effective in May 2009, we plan to 

extend the eligibility for automation 

prices to certain flat-size mailpieces that 

are not able to meet the flexibility 

standards in DMM 301.1.3, but that are 

able to demonstrate flats machine 

compatibility through a Pricing and 

Classification Service Center (PCSC)– 

administered testing process. Some flatsize mailpieces containing rigid items 

process adequately on USPS® flatssorting equipment when the surface of 

the mailpiece does not fit too tightly 

around the contents. Once inducted, 

those pieces with rigid contents, but 

with a surface that can be grasped at 

induction, may be processed efficiently. 

Because machine compatibility for these 

mailpieces may be defined by a number 

of characteristics, each type of mailpiece 

must be individually analyzed to ensure 

that it will process efficiently. We 

propose to allow mailers of flat-size 

pieces containing rigid items to mail at 

automation flats prices after they obtain 

PCSC approval. Those pieces that do not 

meet the published flexibility standards 

for flats, but were authorized to mail at 

flats prices by PCSC approval, would be 

required to be marked ‘‘Automation 

Flat.’’ 

We propose that the polywrap 

standards in DMM 301.3.3, currently 

applicable only to automation flats, be 

extended to all flat-size mailpieces 

using polywrap including saturation 

carrier route flats. The use of 

automation-compatible polywrap on all 

flat-size mailpieces improves mail 

processing efficiency and applies 

standardization and consistency for 

mailers of polywrapped flats. We also 

propose to redefine measurement of 

height and length dimensions by 

including polywrap selvage when 

measuring for maximum dimensions 

because selvage that extends beyond the 

maximum height or length may interfere 

with efficient processing. We would not 

include selvage when measuring for 

minimum dimensions, however, 

because the selvage is not substantial 

enough for it to be considered part of a 

uniformly thick flat. Polywrap products 

approved for flats are available from a 

number of independent vendors and the 

approval process for these products is 

described in DMM 301 and on the USPS 

Rapid Information Bulletin Board 

(RIBBSTM) Web site at http:// 

ribbs.usps.gov. 

Effective in May 2009, we propose to 

extend the deflection standards, 

currently applicable to automation flats, 

to all flat-size mailpieces, except those 

mailed at saturation carrier route prices. 

The deflection standards change to 

allow one inch less of vertical deflection 

(droop) than is currently allowed. We 

propose to eliminate the current 

exception for oblong flats (those with a 

bound edge on the shorter side) so all 

flats would be tested with the length 

placed perpendicular to the edge of a 

flat surface. The broader application and 

revision of deflection standards will 

improve processing efficiencies within 

USPS systems, assuring better 

machinability of flat-size mailpieces. 

We propose to simplify mail 

preparation by eliminating the bundling 

requirements for First-Class Mail 

commercial flats. The new tray-based 

standards streamline mail preparation 

and processing and improve efficiency 

for this type of mail. Similar to the 

current tray-based preparation option 

for First-Class Mail flats, prices will be 

based on the sort level of the tray. 

Mailers may improve efficiency by 

eliminating bundling, and the minimum 

number of pieces per tray will be 

changed to 50 pieces within a tray, 

rather than the 90 pieces required today. 

Parcels 

We remove definitions of irregular 

parcels from the mail preparation 

standards in DMM 465, 475, and 485, 

and provide references to the current 

definition of irregular parcels in DMM 

401. 

Overview of Proposed Changes for 2010 

These initial changes proposed for 

May 2010 include modifications that 

enhance processing and delivery 

efficiency while continuing to offer 

mailers choices. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
6252 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 24 / Friday, February 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Flats 

We propose to merge standards for 

nonautomation and automation flats in 

May 2010; requiring all machinable 

flats, whether or not they are barcoded, 

to have the same physical 

characteristics. The terminology would 

likely change to machinable, barcoded 

machinable, and irregular flats. 

We propose new flexibility standards 

for May 2010. Current standards in 

DMM 301.1.3 describe minimum 

flexibility as demonstrated by 

‘‘tabletop’’ flexibility tests. Effective 

May 2009, we are proposing to extend 

automation prices to certain flat-size 

mailpieces not able to meet the 

flexibility standards in 301.1.3, but able 

to demonstrate flat machine 

compatibility through a PCSCadministered testing process. Delivery 

of rigid pieces is often more costly than 

delivery of foldable flats. For May 2010, 

we propose the flexibility standards 

noted above, be replaced with a single 

flexibility standard requiring all 

machinable flat-size mailpieces to be 

foldable, parallel to the length, to a 

height no greater than 5 inches. Flat-size 

pieces failing to meet this level of 

flexibility may be categorized as 

irregular flats. 

We propose to modify standards in 

May 2010 for all flats, except those 

mailed as saturation carrier route, to 

prevent inserts from falling out of the 

host flat-size mailpiece during normal 

sortation and delivery. We propose that 

loose inserts less than 75% of the size 

of a host mailpiece be limited to singleply unfolded cards, when the mailpiece 

is not enclosed in polywrap, an 

envelope, or other wrapper. Allowable 

loose inserts should be injected well 

into the body of the mailpiece. 

Irregular Flats 

For May 2010, we propose a new 

‘‘irregular flats’’ category. This category 

encompasses two types of flat-size 

mailpieces. One example is a flat-size 

piece that is machinable, but with 

parcel-like characteristics that affect 

deliverability, such as pieces with rigid 

contents because the pieces cannot be 

folded. Another type of irregular flat 

would be one that is foldable with 

favorable delivery characteristics, but is 

not machinable, such as flimsy pieces 

that are difficult to process on 

automation equipment. 

Not Flat-Machinable (NFMs) 

In 2007, we created a NFM category 

for Standard Mail items that could not 

meet revised automation flats standards. 

In May 2010, we propose to discontinue 

or redefine the NFM category. Pieces 

that would have been mailed as NFMs 

can likely qualify as Standard Mail 

parcels. Some NFMs, with 

modifications, might be mailable as 

machinable or irregular flats in 2010. 

General 

We encourage customers to comment 

on the May 2010 proposed changes and 

hope that this notice provides the 

opportunity for mailers to prepare for 

possible operation changes ahead of the 

proposed May 2010 effective date. 

Although we are exempt from the 

notice and comment requirements of the 

Administrative Procedure Act [5 U.S.C 

of 553(b), (c)] regarding proposed 

rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), we 

invite public comments on the 

following proposed revisions to Mailing 

Standards of the United States Postal 

Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), 

incorporated by reference in the Code of 

Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR Part 

111. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Postal Service. 

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 111—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for 39 CFR 

part 111 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 

401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201– 

3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 

3633, and 5001. 

2. Revise the following sections of 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM), as follows: 

100 Retail Mail Letters, Cards, Flats, 

and Parcels 

101 Physical Standards 

101.1 Physical Standards for Letters 

* * * * * 

1.2 Nonmachinable Criteria 

A letter-size piece is nonmachinable 

(see 6.4) if it has one or more of the 

following characteristics (see 601.1.4 to 

determine the length, height, top, and 

bottom of a mailpiece): 

* * * * * 

[Revise item b to add that any 

nonpaper exterior surface is 

nonmachinable as follows:] 

b. Is polybagged, polywrapped, 

enclosed in any plastic material, or has 

an exterior surface made of a material 

that is not paper. Paper envelopes with 

windows prepared under 202.5.8 and 

601.6.3 do not make mailpieces 

nonmachinable. 

* * * * * 

[Revise item d to clarify that letters 

are nonmachinable when certain items 

are loose or when they cause the 

thickness to be uneven, as follows:] 

d. Contains items such as pens, 

pencils, keys, or coins that cause the 

thickness of the mailpiece to be uneven; 

or loose keys or coins or similar objects 

not affixed to the contents within the 

mailpiece. Loose items may cause a 

letter to be nonmailable when mailed in 

paper envelopes; see 601.2.3, OddShaped Items in Paper Envelopes. 

* * * * * 

[Revise item h by referring to sealing 

standards in 201.3.14.1 for all selfmailers as follows:] 

h. Is a self-mailer that is not prepared 

according to 201.3.14.1. 

[Revise item i by referring to sealing 

standards in 201.3.14.2 for all booklets 

as follows:] 

i. Is a booklet that is not prepared 

according to 201.3.14.2. 

* * * * * 

200 Commercial Mail Letters and 

Cards 

201 Physical Standards 

1.0 Physical Standards for 

Machinable Letters and Cards 

1.1 Physical Standards for 

Machinable Letters 

1.1.1 Dimensional Standards for 

Letters 

Letter-size mail is: 

[Revise item a to increase minimum 

thickness to 0.009 inch as follows:] 

a. Not less than 5 inches long, 31⁄2

inches high, and 0.009-inch thick. 

* * * * * 

1.1.3 All Machinable Letters 

[Revise the first sentence of 1.1.3 as 

follows:] 

All pieces of First-Class Mail and 

Standard Mail machinable letters must 

meet the standards for automationcompatible letters in 201.3.0. * * * 

* * * * * 

2.0 Physical Standards for 

Nonmachinable Letters 

2.1 Criteria for Nonmachinable 

Letters 

[Revise 2.1 by noting that letters not 

made of paper or that do not meet 

automation-compatibility standards are 

nonmachinable; that all letters over 3.3 

ounces must have a barcode and claim 

an automation letter price to avoid a 

surcharge; and by removing the 

individual listed items as follows:] 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 24 / Friday, February 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 6253 

A letter-size piece is nonmachinable if 

it has an exterior surface that is not 

made of paper or if it does not meet the 

standards in 201.3.0. In addition, a 

letter-size piece is nonmachinable if it 

weighs more than 3.3 ounces (up to 3.5 

ounces) unless it has a barcode and is 

eligible for and claims automation letter 

prices or Standard Mail Enhanced 

Carrier Route letter prices. 

* * * * * 

3.0 Physical Standards for 

Automation Letters and Cards 

* * * * * 

3.2 Dimensions and Shape Standards 

for Automation Letters 

Each letter-size piece must be 

rectangular (see 1.1.1) and: 

* * * * * 

[Revise item c to increase minimum 

thickness to 0.009 inch as follows:] 

c. For thickness, no more than 0.25 

inch, or less than 0.009 inch thick, 

except for cards mailed at First-Class 

Mail postcard prices. Cards eligible for 

and mailed at postcard prices may be no 

more than 0.016 inch thick or less than 

0.007 inch thick. 

[Renumber current 3.3 through 3.15 as 

new 3.4 through 3.16.] 

[Add new 3.3 as follows:] 

3.3 Static and Coefficient of Friction 

The exterior surface of letter-sized 

machinable and automation mailpieces 

must be made of paper material, with 

the following recommended 

characteristics: 

a. Static charge of less than 2 KV 

when tested using test method ASTM 

D4470. 

b. Kinetic coefficient of friction 

between 0.26 and 0.34 when tested as 

paper to same paper using test method 

ASTM D4917. 

* * * * * 

230 First-Class Mail 

* * * * * 

235 Mail Preparation 

* * * * * 

[Revise heading of 6.0 as follows:] 

6.0 Preparing Automation Letters 

* * * * * 

6.6 Tray Preparation 

* * * Preparation sequence, tray size, 

and Line 1 labeling: 

* * * * * 

[Revise items b through d to allow 

optional preparation and modify 

grouping requirement as follows:] 

b. 3-digit/scheme: Optional, but 

required for 3-digit price (150-piece 

minimum except no minimum for origin 

or entry 3-digit/scheme); overflow 

allowed; for Line 1, use L002, Column 

B. 

c. AADC: Optional, but required for 

AADC price (150-piece minimum); 

overflow allowed; group pieces by 3- 

digit (or 3-digit scheme) ZIP Code when 

overflow pieces from 3-digit trays are 

placed in AADC trays. For Line 1, use 

L801, Column B. 

d. Mixed AADC: Required (no 

minimum); group pieces by AADC 

when overflow pieces from AADC trays 

are placed in mixed AADC trays. For 

Line 1 use L201; for mail originating in 

ZIP Code areas in Column A, use 

‘‘MXD’’ followed by city, state, and 3- 

digit ZIP Code prefix in Column C (use 

‘‘MXD’’ instead of ‘‘OMX’’ in the 

destination line and ignore Column B). 

* * * * * 

240 Standard Mail 

* * * * * 

245 Mail Preparation 

* * * * * 

5.0 Preparing Nonautomation Letters 

* * * * * 

5.3 Machinable Preparation 

* * * * * 

5.3.2 Traying and Labeling 

* * * Preparation sequence, tray size, 

and labeling: 

* * * * * 

[Revise first sentence of 5.3.2 b to 

allow optional preparation as follows:] 

b. AADC (optional, but required for 

AADC price); 150-piece minimum 

(overflow allowed); labeling: * * * 

* * * * * 

[Revise heading of 7.0 as follows:] 

7.0 Preparing Automation Letters 

* * * * * 

7.5 Tray Preparation 

* * * Preparation sequence, tray size, 

and Line 1 labeling: 

* * * * * 

[Revise items b through d to allow 

optional preparation and modify 

grouping requirement as follows:] 

b. 3-digit/scheme; optional, but 

required for 3-digit price (150-piece 

minimum, except no minimum for 

optional origin/entry 3-digit/scheme(s)); 

overflow allowed; for Line 1, use L002, 

Column B. 

c. AADC: Optional, but required for 

AADC price (150-piece minimum); 

overflow allowed; group pieces by 3- 

digit (or 3-digit scheme) ZIP Code prefix 

when overflow pieces from 3-digit/ 

scheme trays are placed in AADC trays. 

For Line 1, use L801, Column B. 

d. Mixed AADC: Required (no 

minimum); group pieces by AADC 

when overflow pieces from AADC trays 

are placed in mixed AADC trays. For 

Line 1 labeling: use L011, Column B. 

Use L010, Column B if entered at an 

ASF or BMC or for mail placed on an 

ASF, BMC, or SCF pallet under the 

option in 705.8.10.3. 

* * * * * 

300 Commercial Mail Flats 

301 Physical Standards 

1.0 Physical Standards for Flats 

* * * * * 

1.2 Length and Height of Flats 

[Revise the text of 1.2 by adding new 

third and fourth sentences about selvage 

as follows:] 

* * * When determining the 

maximum height or length of a flat, 

include any selvage of polywrap 

material that may enclose the piece. 

When determining the minimum height 

or length of a flat, do not include the 

selvage of any polywrap material that 

may enclose the piece. 

* * * * * 

[Renumber current 1.5 as new 1.7.] 

[Move 301.3.2.3 in its entirety, 

renumber as 1.5, revise heading and text 

to extend maximum deflection 

standards to all flat-size mailpieces, and 

delete item c as follows:] 

1.5 Maximum Deflection for Flat-Size 

Mailpieces 

Flat-size mailpieces must be flexible 

(see 1.3) and must meet maximum 

deflection standards. Flat-size pieces 

mailed at saturation carrier route prices 

are not required to meet these deflection 

standards. Test deflection as follows: 

a. For pieces 10 inches or longer (see 

Exhibit 1.5a): 

1. Place the piece on a flat surface 

with the length perpendicular to the 

edge of the surface and extend the piece 

5 inches off the edge of the surface. Test 

square-shaped bound flats by placing 

the bound edge parallel to the edge. 

Turn the piece around and repeat the 

process. 

2. The piece is mailable at flat prices 

if it does not droop more than 3 inches 

vertically at either end. 

Exhibit 1.5a Deflection Test—Pieces 

10 Inches or Longer 

[Placeholder for new exhibit reflecting 

new standards.] 

b. For pieces less than 10 inches long 

(see Exhibit 1.5b): 

1. Place the piece on a flat surface 

with the length perpendicular to the 

edge of the surface and extend the piece 

one-half of its length off the edge of the 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
6254 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 24 / Friday, February 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

surface. Test square-shaped bound flats 

by placing the bound edge parallel to 

the edge. Turn the piece around and 

repeat the process. 

2. The piece is mailable at flat prices 

if it does not droop more than 2 inches 

less than the extended length. For 

example, a piece 8 inches long would 

extend 4 inches off a flat surface. It must 

not droop more than 2 inches vertically 

at either end. 

Exhibit 1.5b Deflection Test—Pieces 

Less Than 10 Inches Long 

[Placeholder for new exhibit reflecting 

new standards.] 

* * * * * 

[Renumber 301.3.3 in its entirety as 

new 1.6 and revise text to extend 

polywrap standards to all flats as 

follows:] 

1.6 Polywrap Coverings 

1.6.1 Polywrap Films and Similar 

Coverings 

[Revise renumbered 1.6.1 as follows:] 

Mailers using polywrap film or 

similar material to enclose or cover flatsize mailpieces must use a product 

meeting the standards in 1.6. Film 

approved for use under 1.6.5 must meet 

the specifications in Exhibit 1.6.1 as 

follows: 

a. Films or similar coverings must 

meet all six properties in Exhibit 1.6.1. 

b. If the address label is affixed to the 

outside of the polywrap, the haze 

property (property 2) does not apply. 

c. Only products listed as approved 

on the USPS RIBBS Web site (http:// 

ribbs.usps.gov) may be used on flat-size 

mailpieces. 

Exhibit 1.6.1 Polywrap Specifications 

[Revise the introductory sentence of 

renumbered exhibit 1.6.1 as follows:] 

Mailers who polywrap flats must use 

polywrap that meets all of the properties 

in this exhibit. 

* * * * * 

[Delete renumbered 1.6.4, Polywrap 

on Mailpieces, in its entirety and 

redesignate renumbered 1.6.5 to new 

1.6.4.] 

1.6.4 Polywrap Certification Process 

for Manufacturers 

[Revise the first sentence of the 

introductory paragraph in 1.6.4 as 

follows:] 

To ensure that all polywrap 

manufacturers use the same criteria, the 

Postal Service developed specification 

USPS–T–3204, Test Procedures for 

Polywrap Films. * * * Manufacturers 

should follow this procedure before 

submitting the letter certifying 

compliance with the specifications: 

[Revise item a as follows:] 

a. Test each film according to 

procedures listed in USPS–T–3204, Test 

Procedures for Polywrap Films. 

* * * * * 

1.7 Flat-Size Pieces Not Eligible for 

Flat-Size Prices 

[Revise text of renumbered 1.7 as 

follows:] 

Mailpieces that do not meet the 

standards in 1.1 through 1.6 are not 

eligible for flat-size prices and must pay 

applicable prices as follows: 

a. First-Class Mail—parcel prices. 

b. Standard Mail—Not FlatMachinable or parcel prices. 

c. Bound Printed Matter—parcel 

prices. 

* * * * * 

3.0 Physical Standards for 

Automation Flats 

* * * * * 

[Further renumber 3.3 through 3.7 as 

the new 3.5 through 3.9, and add new 

3.3 and 3.4 as follows:] 

3.3 Flats—Machine Compatibility 

Flat-size mailpieces meeting the 

standards in 1.0 and 3.0, but unable to 

meet the minimum flexibility standards 

described in 1.3, are not eligible for 

automation prices unless the mailpieces 

demonstrate flats-machine 

compatibility. Until May 2010, rigid 

flat-size mailpieces in paper, polywrap 

or similar packaging that allows for the 

pieces to be grasped and inducted into 

USPS flat-sorting equipment may 

qualify for automation prices when 

meeting the following standards: 

a. Mailpieces must be enclosed in 

envelopes or similar packaging capable 

of withstanding normal processing on 

USPS flat-sorting equipment. 

b. Mailpieces must be approved for 

automation flats prices by the USPS. 

Mailers seeking approval for mailpieces 

under this standard must contact the 

Pricing and Classification Service 

Center (PCSC) for instructions on 

submitting sample mailpieces for testing 

(see 608.8.0 for address). Mailpieces 

having a previous approval from the 

PCSC for automation flats prices, 

granted after May 2007, are not required 

to be resubmitted for a new approval. 

These and all other approvals granted 

under 3.3 expire in May 2010. 

c. Mailpieces approved for 

automation flats pricing under this 

standard must print the endorsement 

‘‘Automation Flat’’ directly under the 

postage imprint. 

3.4 Additional Flexibility Standards 

for Automation Flats 

It is recommended that all automation 

flats be foldable to a height no greater 

than 5 inches. Effective May 2010, flatsize automation mailpieces must be 

foldable, parallel to the length, to a 

height no greater than 5 inches (in 

addition to meeting the flexibility 

standards in 1.3). With a postal 

employee observing, customers may 

demonstrate the flexibility, according to 

these standards, of their own 

mailpieces. The employee does not then 

need to perform the test. 

* * * * * 

330 First-Class Mail Flats 

333 Prices and Eligibility 

* * * * * 

[Revise the heading of 5.0 as follows:] 

5.0 Additional Eligibility Standards 

for Automation First-Class Mail Flats 

5.1 Basic Standards for Automation 

First-Class Mail 

All pieces in a First-Class Mail 

automation mailing must: 

* * * * * 

[Revise item e to require an 11-digit 

barcode as follows:] 

e. Bear an accurate barcode meeting 

the standards in 708.4.0, a delivery 

point barcode (DPBC), or an Intelligent 

Mail barcode with a delivery point 

routing code, either on the piece or on 

an insert showing through a barcode 

window. 

* * * * * 

[Delete 5.2 and renumber current 5.3 

through 5.5 as new 5.2 through 5.4.] 

[Revise the heading and text of 

renumbered 5.2 as follows:] 

5.2 Price Application 

Automation prices apply to each 

piece that is sorted under 335.6.5, FirstClass Mail Tray-Based Preparation, into 

the corresponding qualifying groups: 

[Revise items a through c to change 

eligibility from 90 pieces or more to 50 

pieces or more as follows:] 

a. Groups of 50 or more pieces in 5- 

digit trays qualify for the 5-digit price. 

Preparation to qualify for the 5-digit 

price is optional and need not be done 

for all 5-digit destinations. 

b. Groups of 50 or more pieces in 3- 

digit trays qualify for the 3-digit price. 

c. Pieces in origin 3-digit trays and 

groups of 50 or more pieces in ADC 

trays qualify for the ADC price. 

* * * * * 

335 Mail Preparation 

1.0 General Definition of Terms 

* * * * * 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 24 / Friday, February 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 6255 

1.2 Definition of Mailings 

Mailings are defined as: 

* * * * * 

[Revise item b as follows:] 

b. The types of First-Class Mail listed 

below must not be part of the same 

mailing despite being in the same 

processing category (see 705.9.0, 

Combining Automation and 

Nonautomation Flats in Trays and Sacks 

for a preparation option for flat-size 

mail): 

1. Automation and any other type of 

mail, except under 705.9.0. 

2. Presorted and any other type of 

mail, except under 705.9.0. 

3. Single-piece and any other type of 

mail. 

4. Machinable and nonmachinable 

pieces. 

* * * * * 

1.4 Preparation Definitions and 

Instructions 

For purposes of preparing mail: 

* * * * * 

[Revise item b to change the 

definition of an automation flats full 

tray as follows:] 

b. For purposes of preparing 

automation flats, a full flat tray is one 

that contains at least 50 pieces of 

automation flats or one that is 

physically full. For nonautomation flats, 

a full flat tray is one that is physically 

full. A physically full tray contains at 

least a single stack of mail lying flat on 

the bottom of the tray and filling the 

tray to the bottom of the handholds. 

Before additional trays for the same 

destination are prepared, trays must be 

filled with additional available pieces 

(up to the reasonable capacity of the 

tray). 

* * * * * 

[Delete current items e through g and 

redesignate current items h through j as 

new e through g.] 

[Revise redesignated item g as 

follows:] 

g. An instruction to ‘‘group pieces’’ 

means the pieces are to be sorted as a 

unit (as if bundled) but not actually 

secured into a bundle. 

[Delete current item k in its entirety.] 

[Redesignate current item l as new 

item h and revise as follows:] 

h. A ‘‘logical’’ presort destination 

represents the total number of pieces 

that are eligible for a specific presort 

level based on the required sortation, 

but which might not be contained in a 

single container due to applicable 

preparation requirements or the size of 

the individual pieces. 

[Delete current item m in its entirety.] 

* * * * * 

[Delete 2.0 in its entirety.] 

[Renumber current 3.0 through 6.0 as 

new 2.0 through 5.0.] 

* * * * * 

2.0 Flat Trays 

* * * * * 

2.4 Preparation for Flats in Flat Trays 

All flat tray preparation is subject to 

these standards: 

* * * * * 

[Revise items f through h, to delete 

the ‘‘optional’’ phrasing, as follows:] 

f. For automation mailings, one lessthan-full overflow tray may be prepared 

for a presort destination when the total 

number of pieces for that destination 

meets the minimum for preparation of 

the tray level, and when one or more 

full trays for that destination are also 

prepared. 

g. For automation mailings, if the total 

number of pieces for a presort 

destination meets or exceeds the 

minimum number of pieces required to 

prepare a tray for that destination, but 

the total volume does not physically fill 

a single tray, then the mail for that 

presort destination may be prepared in 

a less-than-full tray. 

h. Pieces prepared as automation flats 

do not have to be grouped by 3-digit ZIP 

Code prefix in ADC trays or by ADC in 

mixed ADC trays if the mailing is 

prepared using an MLOCR/barcode 

sorter and standardized documentation 

is submitted. 

* * * * * 

2.5 Preparation for Flats in EMM 

Letter Trays 

Mailers may prepare First-Class Mail 

flat-size pieces in EMM letter trays 

instead of flat trays if the following 

standards are met: 

* * * * * 

[Revise item c as follows:] 

c. All mail must be prepared under 

6.6, and must not be prepared in 

bundles. 

* * * * * 

4.0 Preparation of Nonautomation 

Flats 

4.1 Basic Standards 

[Revise 4.1 to specifically prohibit 

bundling as follows:] 

Each mailing of Presorted First-Class 

Mail must be prepared under 4.0 and 

333.3.0, Eligibility Standards for FirstClass Mail Flats. All pieces must be in 

the flat-size processing category. Flatsize pieces must be prepared loose 

(unbundled) in flat trays under 2.4 and 

4.0. All pieces must be marked 

‘‘Presorted’’ and ‘‘First-Class Mail.’’ 

* * * * * 

[Delete 4.4 and renumber 4.5 and 4.6 

as new 4.4 and 4.5.] 

[Revise the heading and text of 

renumbered 4.5 as follows:] 

4.5 Cotraying With Automation Flats 

If a single mailing job contains an 

automation mailing and a Presorted 

mailing, and both mailings are reported 

on the same postage statement, the 

mailing job must be presorted under the 

cotraying standards in 705.9.0. 

[Revise the heading of renumbered 5.0 

as follows:] 

5.0 Preparation of Automation Flats 

5.1 Basic Standards 

[Revise 5.1 to specifically prohibit 

bundling as follows:] 

Automation First-Class Mail flats 

must be prepared under 5.0 and meet 

the eligibility standards for the price 

claimed; trays must bear the appropriate 

barcoded container labels under 708.6.0, 

Standards for Barcoded Tray Labels, 

Sack Labels, and Container Placards. 

Flat-size pieces must be prepared loose 

(unbundled) in flat trays under 2.4 and 

5.0. 

* * * * * 

[Delete renumbered 5.4 and 5.5.] 

[Renumber current 6.6 as new 5.4 and 

revise heading and text as follows:] 

5.4 First-Class Mail Preparation 

Tray size, preparation sequence, and 

Line 1 labeling: 

a. 5-digit: Optional, but 5-digit trays 

required for price eligibility (50-piece 

minimum); one overflow tray allowed; 

for Line 1, use city, state, and 5-digit ZIP 

Code destination of pieces (for military 

mail see 3.3c). (Preparation to qualify 

for 5-digit price is optional and need not 

be done for all 5-digit destinations.) 

b. 3-digit: Required (50-piece 

minimum); one overflow tray allowed; 

for Line 1, use L002, Column A for 3- 

digit destinations. 

c. Origin 3-digit: Required for each 3- 

digit ZIP Code served by the SCF of the 

origin (verification) office; no minimum; 

for Line 1, use L002, Column A for 3- 

digit destinations. 

d. ADC: Required (50-piece 

minimum); one overflow tray allowed; 

group pieces by 3-digit ZIP Code prefix, 

except under 2.4h; for Line 1, use L004 

(ZIP Code prefixes in Column A must be 

combined and labeled to the 

corresponding ADC destination shown 

in Column B). 

e. Mixed ADC (required); no 

minimum for price eligibility. Group 

pieces by ADC, except under 2.4h. For 

Line 1 use L201; for mail originating in 

ZIP Code areas in Column A, use 

‘‘MXD’’ followed by city, state, and 3- 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
6256 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 24 / Friday, February 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

digit ZIP Code prefix in Column C (use 

‘‘MXD’’ instead of ‘‘OMX’’ in the 

destination line and ignore Column B). 

[Delete current 6.7.] 

[Renumber current 6.8 as new 5.5 and 

revise as follows:] 

5.5 Cotraying With Presorted Mail 

If the mailing job contains an 

automation mailing and a Presorted 

mailing, and both mailings are reported 

on the same postage statement, the 

mailing job must be prepared under the 

cotraying standards in 705.9.0. 

* * * * * 

400 Commercial Mail Parcels 

401 Physical Standards 

* * * * * 

2.0 Additional Physical Standards by 

Class of Mail 

* * * * * 

2.2 Standard Mail Parcels and Not 

Flat-Machinable Pieces 

* * * * * 

2.2.2 Not Flat-Machinable Pieces 

[Revise introductory text of 2.2.2 to 

indicate ending date of NFM category as 

follows:] 

Rectangular Standard Mail pieces 

with any of the following characteristics 

must be prepared as Not FlatMachinable (NFM) pieces (until May 

2010) or as parcels: 

* * * * * 

460 Bound Printed Matter 

* * * * * 

465 Mail Preparation 

* * * * * 

5.0 Preparing Presorted Parcels 

5.1 Basic Standards 

5.1.1 General Preparation 

Requirements 

All mailings of Presorted Bound 

Printed Matter (BPM) are subject to 

these general standards: 

* * * * * 

[Revise item b as follows:] 

b. All pieces in a mailing must be 

within the same processing category. 

See 401.1.0 for definitions of 

machinable and irregular parcels. 

* * * * * 

470 Media Mail 

* * * * * 

475 Mail Preparation 

* * * * * 

5.0 Preparing Media Mail Parcels 

5.1 Basic Standards 

All mailings of Presorted Media Mail 

are subject to the standards in 5.0 and 

to these general requirements: 

* * * * * 

[Revise item b as follows.] 

b. All parcels in a mailing must be 

within the same processing category. 

See 401.1.0 for definitions of 

machinable and irregular parcels. 

* * * * * 

480 Library Mail 

* * * * * 

485 Mail Preparation 

* * * * * 

5.0 Preparing Library Mail Parcels 

5.1 Basic Standards 

All mailings of Presorted Library Mail 

are subject to the standards in 5.0, 

Preparing Library Mail Parcels, and to 

these general standards: 

* * * * * 

[Revise item b as follows:] 

b. All pieces in a mailing must be 

within the same processing category. 

See 401.1.0 for definitions of 

machinable and irregular parcels. 

* * * * * 

700 Special Standards 

* * * * * 

705 Advanced Preparation and 

Special Postage Payment Systems 

* * * * * 

[Revise the heading of 9.0 as follows:] 

9.0 Combining Automation and 

Nonautomation Flats in Trays and 

Sacks 

9.1 First-Class Mail 

9.1.1 Basic Standards 

[Revise text of 9.1.1. to delete 

references to bundling as follows:] 

Flats in an automation mailing 

prepared under 335.6.5 must be 

cotrayed with flats in a Presorted 

mailing under the following conditions: 

a. The automation pieces and 

Presorted pieces are part of the same 

mailing job and reported on the same 

postage statement. 

b. Pieces in the automation mailing 

must meet the criteria for a flat under 

301.3.0. Pieces in the Presorted mailing 

must meet the criteria for a flat under 

301.1.0. 

c. The automation mailing must meet 

the eligibility criteria in 333.5.0, except 

that the traying criteria in 9.1.4 must be 

met rather than the traying criteria in 

335.5.0. 

d. The Presorted mailing must meet 

the eligibility criteria in 333.3.0, except 

that the traying and documentation 

criteria in 9.1.1 and 9.1.4 must be met 

rather than the traying and 

documentation criteria in 335.4.0. 

[Delete item e and redesignate current 

items f through i as new items e through 

h.] 

* * * * * 

[Revise redesignated item f as 

follows:] 

f. The pieces from the automation 

mailing and the pieces from the 

Presorted mailing must be sorted into 

the same trays as described in 9.1.2. 

* * * * * 

[Delete 9.1.2 and 9.1.3 in their 

entirety.] 

[Renumber current 9.1.4 as new 9.1.2 

and revise as follows:] 

9.1.2 Tray Preparation and Labeling 

Presorted and automation pieces must 

be presorted together into trays 

(cotrayed) in the sequence listed below. 

Trays must be labeled using the 

following information for Lines 1 and 2 

and 335.4.0 for other tray label criteria. 

a. 5-digit, required, 50 piece 

minimum; one less-than-full or overflow 

tray allowed; labeling: 

1. Line 1: Use city, state, and 5-digit 

ZIP Code destination (see 335.4.3 for 

military mail). 

2. Line 2: ‘‘FCM FLTS 5D BC/NBC.’’ 

b. 3-digit, required, 50 piece 

minimum; one less-than-full or overflow 

tray allowed; labeling: 

1. Line 1: Use L002, Column A. 

2. Line 2: ‘‘FCM FLTS 3D BC/NBC.’’ 

c. Origin/entry 3-digit, required for 

each 3-digit ZIP Code served by the SCF 

of the origin (verification) office, 

optional for each 3-digit ZIP Code 

served by the SCF of an entry office 

other than the origin office, no 

minimum; labeling: 

1. Line 1: Use L002, Column A. 

2. Line 2: ‘‘FCM FLTS 3D BC/NBC.’’ 

d. ADC, required, 50 piece minimum; 

one less-than-full or overflow tray 

allowed; use L004 to determine ZIP 

Codes served by each ADC; labeling: 

1. Line 1: Use L004, Column B. 

2. Line 2: ‘‘FCM FLTS ADC BC/NBC.’’ 

e. Mixed ADC, required, no 

minimum; labeling: 

1. Line 1: Use L201; for mail 

originating in ZIP Code areas in Column 

A, use ‘‘MXD’’ followed by the city, 

state, and 3-digit ZIP Code prefix in the 

corresponding row in Column C (use 

‘‘MXD’’ instead of ‘‘OMX’’ in the 

destination line and ignore Column B). 

2. Line 2: ‘‘FCM FLTS BC/NBC 

WKG.’’ 

* * * * * 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 24 / Friday, February 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 6257 

[Revise heading of 11.0 as follows:] 

11.0 Combining Automation and 

Nonautomation Flats in Bundles 

[Delete 11.1 and renumber current 

11.2 through 11.4 as new 11.1 through 

11.3.] 

* * * * * 

We will publish an appropriate 

amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect 

these changes if our proposal is 

adopted. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Chief Counsel, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. E9–2515 Filed 2–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 253 and 600 

[Docket No. 080228332–81199–01] 

RIN 0648–AW38 

Magnuson–Stevens Act Provisions; 

Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act; 

Disaster Assistance Programs; 

Fisheries Assistance Programs 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: NMFS extends the public 

comment period on the proposed rule to 

govern the requests for determinations 

of fishery resource disasters as a basis 

for acquiring potential disaster 

assistance. NMFS has received requests 

to extend the comment period for the 

proposed rule beyond its current 30-day 

comment period. The extension of the 

comment period for another 2 months is 

intended to ensure that NMFS provides 

adequate time for various stakeholders 

and other members of the public to 

comment on the proposed regulations to 

govern initiating and responding to 

requests for fisheries disaster assistance. 

The comment period of the January 15, 

2009 (74 FR 2467) rule is extended from 

February 17, 2009, to April 20, 2009. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted in 

writing on or before April 20, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by 0648–AW38, by any one of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov; 

• Fax: 301–713–1193, Attn: Robert 

Gorrell; 

• Mail: Alan Risenhoover, Director, 

NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

Attn: Disaster Assistance Program 

Guidance and Procedures, 1315 East– 

West Highway, SSMC3, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection–of–information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to Alan 

Risenhoover at the above address and by 

email to DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, 

or by fax to (202) 395–7285. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Gorrell, at 301–713–2341 or via 

e–mail at robert.gorrell@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A 

proposed rule that sets forth NMFS’ 

proposed regulations to govern requests 

for determinations of fishery resource 

disaster assistance was published in the 

Federal Register on January 15, 2009 

(74 FR 2467), with a comment period 

ending date of February 17, 2009. The 

regulations would establish definitions, 

and characteristics of commercial 

fishery failures, fishery resource 

disasters, serious disruptions affecting 

future production, and harm incurred 

by fishermen, as well as requirements 

for initiating a review by NMFS, and the 

administrative process it will follow in 

processing such applications. The 

intended result of these procedures and 

requirements is to clarify and interpret 

the fishery disaster assistance 

provisions of the Magnuson–Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries 

Act through rulemaking and thereby 

ensure consistency and facilitate the 

processing of requests. 

After receiving requests to extend the 

comment period, NMFS has decided to 

extend it for another 62 days through 

April 20, 2009. This action extends the 

comment period for a proposed rule that 

the Office of Management and Budget 

determined to be significant under 

Executive Order 12866. 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 1271–1279 and 16 

U.S.C. 4101 et seq. 

Dated: February 3, 2009. 

James W. Balsiger 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–2587 Filed 2–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 0808041045–9006–01] 

RIN 0648–AW64 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery off the Southern 

Atlantic States; Amendment 16 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed 

rule to implement Amendment 16 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for the 

Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South 

Atlantic Region (FMP)(Amendment 16), 

as prepared and submitted by the South 

Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

(Council). This proposed rule would 

establish a seasonal closure of the 

recreational and commercial fisheries 

for gag and associated grouper species; 

establish a seasonal closure of the 

recreational fishery for vermilion 

snapper; reduce the aggregate bag limit 

for grouper and tilefish; reduce the bag 

limit for gag or black grouper combined; 

reduce the bag limit for vermilion 

snapper; prohibit captain and crew of a 

vessel operating as a charter vessel or 

headboat from retaining any fish under 

the aggregate bag limit for grouper and 

tilefish or the vermilion snapper bag 

limit; establish semiannual quotas for 

the commercial vermilion snapper 

fishery; establish a quota for the 

commercial gag fishery; establish 

restrictions on the possession, sale, and 

purchase of gag and associated grouper 

species after the gag commercial quota 

is reached; and require possession of a 

venting tool and dehooking device on 

board a vessel when fishing for South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper and use of 

such tools as needed to accomplish 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS