        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 594
        [Docket No. NHTSA 2002-12939; Notice 1]
        RIN 2127-AI77
        Schedule of Fees Authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30141

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document proposes fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 and until further notice, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30141, relating to the registration of importers and the importation of motor vehicles not certified as conforming to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). These fees are needed to maintain the registered importer (RI) program.

          DATES:
          You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than September 13, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit your comments in writing to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Alternatively, you may submit your comments electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System (DMS) website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on “Help & Information” of “Help/Info” to view instructions for filing your comments electronically. Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the docket and notice number of this document. You can find the number at the beginning of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. Luke Loy, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Office of Safety Assurance, NHTSA (202-366-5308).

          For legal issues, you may call Mr. Coleman Sachs, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (202-366-5238).
          You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324. You may visit the Docket from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Introduction
        On June 24, 1996, we published a notice in the Federal Register at 61 FR 32411 that discussed the rulemaking history of 49 CFR part 594 and the fees authorized by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-562, since recodified as 49 U.S.C. 30141-30147. The reader is referred to that notice for background information relating to this rulemaking action. Certain fees became effective on January 31, 1990, and have been in effect and occasionally modified since then.
        The fees applicable in any fiscal year are to be established before the beginning of such year. We are proposing fees that would become effective on October 1, 2002, the beginning of FY 2003. The statute authorizes fees to cover the costs of the importer registration program, to cover the cost of making import eligibility determinations, and to cover the cost of processing the bonds furnished to the Customs Service. We last amended the fee schedule in 2000. See final rule published on September 19, 2000 at 65 FR 56497. Those amendments have applied in Fiscal Years 2001-2002.
        The fees are based on actual time and costs associated with the tasks for which the fees are assessed, and reflect the slight increase in hourly costs in the past two fiscal years attributable to the 3.57 and 4.52 percent raise (including the locality adjustment for Washington, DC) in salaries of employees on the General Schedule that became effective, respectively, on January 1, 2001 and January 1, 2002.
        Requirements of the Fee Regulation
        Section 594.6—Annual Fee for Administration of the Importer Registration Program
        Section 30141(a)(3) of Title 49 U.S.C. provides that RIs must pay “the annual fee the Secretary of Transportation establishes * * * to pay for the costs of carrying out the registration program for importers * * * .” This fee is payable both by new applicants and by existing RIs. For an RI to maintain its registration, it must file a statement at the time it submits its annual fee affirming that the information it previously furnished in its registration application (or in later amendments) remains correct (49 CFR 592.5(e)).
        In compliance with the statutory directive, we reviewed the existing fees and their bases for the purpose of establishing fees that would be sufficient to recover the costs of carrying out the registration program for importers for at least the next two fiscal years. The initial component of the Registration Program Fee is the fee attributable to processing and acting upon registration applications. We have tentatively determined that this fee should be increased from $345 to $395 for new applications. We have also tentatively determined that the fee representing the review of the annual statement should be increased from $177 to $195. The adjustments proposed reflect our recent experience in time spent reviewing both new applications and annual statements with accompanying documentation, as well as the inflation factor attributable to Federal salary increases and locality adjustments in the past two years since the regulation was last amended.
        We must also recover costs attributable to maintenance of the registration program that arise from our need to review a registrant's annual statement and to verify the continuing validity of information already submitted. These costs also include anticipated costs attributable to possible revocation or suspension of registrations.
        Based upon our review of the costs associated with this program, the portion of the fee attributable to the maintenance of the registration program is approximately $260 for each RI, an increase of $21. When this $260 is added to the $395 representing the registration application component, the cost to an applicant equals $655, which is the fee we propose. This represents an increase of $71 from the existing fee. When the $260 is added to the $195 representing the annual statement component, the total cost to the RI is $455, which represents an increase of $39.
        Sec. 594.6(h) recounts indirect costs that were previously estimated at $13.90 per man-hour. This should be raised $0.95, to $14.85, based on the agency costs discussed above.
        Sections 594.7, 594.8—Fees To Cover Agency Costs in Making Importation Eligibility Determinations
        Section 30141(a)(3) also requires registered importers to pay “other fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes to pay for the costs of * * * (B) making the decisions under this subchapter.” This includes decisions on whether the vehicle sought to be imported is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for import into and sale in the United States, and certified as meeting the FMVSS, and whether it is capable of being readily altered to meet those standards. Alternatively, where there is no substantial similar U.S.-certified motor vehicle, the decision is whether the safety features of the vehicle comply with or are capable of being altered to comply with the FMVSS. These decisions are made in response to petitions submitted by RIs or manufacturers, or pursuant to the Administrator's initiative.
        The fee for a vehicle imported under an eligibility decision made pursuant to a petition is payable in part by the petitioner and in part by other importers. The fee to be charged for each vehicle is the estimated pro rata share of the costs in making all the eligibility determinations in a fiscal year.

        Inflation and the small raises under the General Schedule also must be taken into account in the computation of costs. However, we have been able to reduce our processing costs through combining several decisions in a single Federal Register notice as well as achieving efficiencies through improved word processing techniques. Accordingly, we propose to maintain the fee of $175 presently required to accompany a “substantially similar” petition at the same level, and to also maintain at the same level the $800 fee that accompanies petitions for vehicles that are not substantially similar and that have no U.S.-certified counterpart. In the event that a petitioner requests an inspection of a vehicle, the fee will remain at $550 for each of those types of petitions.

        The importer of each vehicle determined to be eligible for importation pursuant to a petition currently must pay $125 upon its importation, the same fee applicable to those whose vehicles are covered by an eligibility determination on the agency's initiative (other than vehicles imported from Canada that are covered by vehicle eligibility numbers VSA-80 through VSA-83, for which no eligibility determination fee is assessed). The importation fee varies depending upon the basis on which the agency made the import eligibility decision. For vehicles covered by eligibility decisions resulting from petitions under 49 CFR 593.6(b), based on the safety features of the vehicle complying with, or being capable of being modified to comply with all applicable FMVSS, the fee would remain at $125. For vehicles covered by eligibility decisions resulting from petitions under 49 CFR 593.6(a), based on the substantial similarity of the vehicle to a vehicle that was originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS, the fee would remain at $105. Costs associated with previous eligibility decisions on the agency's own initiative will have been recovered by October 1, 2002. We would apply the fee of $125 per vehicle only to vehicles covered by decisions made by the agency on its own initiative on and after October 1, 2002.
        Section 594.9—Fee To Recover the Costs of Processing the Bond
        Section 30141(a)(3) also requires a registered importer to pay “any other fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes * * * to pay for the costs of—(A) processing bonds provided to the Secretary of the Treasury” upon the importation of a nonconforming vehicle to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into compliance within a reasonable time or if the vehicle is not brought into compliance within such time, that it is exported, without cost to the United States, or abandoned to the United States.
        The statute contemplates that we will make a reasonable determination of the cost to the United States Customs Service of processing the bond. In essence, the cost to Customs is based upon an estimate of the time that a GS-9, Step 5 employee spends on each entry, which Customs has judged to be 20 minutes.
        Because of the modest salary and locality raises in the General Schedule that were effective at the beginning of 2001 and 2002, we propose that the current processing fee be increased by $0.45, from $5.75 per bond to $6.20.
        Section 594.10—Fee for Review and Processing of Conformity Certificate
        This fee requires each RI to pay $16 per vehicle to cover the cost of the agency's review of any certificate of conformity furnished to the Administrator. However, if a RI enters a vehicle with the U.S. Customs Service through the Automated Broker Interface (ABS), has an e-mail address to receive communications from NHTSA, and pays the fee by credit card, the fee is $6. Based upon an analysis of the direct and indirect costs for the review and processing of these certificates, we find that the costs for processing non-automated entries have increased on the average of $2 per vehicle. We are therefore proposing to increase the fee for recovering these costs to $18. Since there has been no change in the cost to the agency for processing automated entries, we propose to maintain the fee for recovering these costs at the current $6 level. However, if an ABS entry contains one or more errors, the timesaving advantages of electronic entry are not realized. Accordingly, we are proposing to assess the full $18 fee for processing certificates based on ABS entries with one or more errors. However, if an acceptable electronic correction of the erroneous entry is sent to NHTSA, we are proposing to assess a $12 fee for processing the certificate.
        Comment Period
        Section 30141(e) provides that the Secretary shall review and make appropriate adjustments at least every 2 years to the fees, before the beginning of the fiscal year in which they are to become effective. In order to satisfy this statutory requirement of making adjustments before the fiscal year, we are reducing the ordinary 30 day comment period. Receipt of comments by September 13, 2002 will enable us to meet the deadline.
        Effective Date
        The proposed effective date of the final rule is October 1, 2002.
        Rulemaking Analyses
        A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        This rulemaking action was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” Further, NHTSA has determined that the action is not significant under Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. Based on the level of the fees and the volume of affected vehicles, NHTSA currently anticipates that the costs of the final rule will be so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation. The action does not involve any substantial public interest or controversy. There will be no substantial effect upon State and local governments. There will be no substantial impact upon a major transportation safety program. Both the number of registered importers and determinations are estimated to be comparatively small. A regulatory evaluation analyzing the economic impact of the final rule adopted on September 29, 1989, was prepared, and is available for review in the NHTSA docket.
        B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The agency has also considered the effects of this action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq.). I certify that this action will not have a substantial economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.
        The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. Sec. 605(b)). The proposed amendment would primarily affect entities that currently modify nonconforming vehicles and that are small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act; however, the agency has no reason to believe that a substantial number of these companies cannot pay the fees proposed by this action, which are either unchanged or only modestly increased from those now being paid by these entities, and which can be recouped through their customers. Costs to owners or purchasers for the alteration of nonconforming vehicles to conform with the FMVSS may be expected to increase (or decrease) to the extent necessary to reimburse the registered importer for the fees payable to the agency for the cost of carrying out the registration program and making eligibility decisions, and to compensate Customs for its bond processing costs.
        Governmental jurisdictions will not be affected at all since they are generally neither importers nor purchasers of nonconforming motor vehicles.
        C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
        Executive Order 13132 on “Federalism” requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” Executive Order 13132 defines the term “Policies that have federalism implications'' to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implication, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

        The proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rulemaking action.
        D. National Environmental Policy Act
        NHTSA has analyzed this action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The action will not have a significant effect upon the environment because it is anticipated that the annual volume of motor vehicles imported through registered importers will not vary significantly from that existing before promulgation of the rule.
        E. Civil Justice Reform
        This proposed rule does not have a retroactive or preemptive effect. Judicial review of a rule based on this proposal may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review.
        F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. Because a final rule based on this proposal would not have an effect of this magnitude, no Unfunded Mandates assessment has been prepared.
        G. Plain Language
        Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language include consideration of the following questions:

        —Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
        —Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated?
        —Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon that is unclear?
        —Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?

        —Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
        —Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
        —What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

        If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this document.
        Request for Comments
        How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
        Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
        Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

        Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given at the beginning of this document, under ADDRESSES.

        How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
        If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
        How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

        If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given at the beginning of this document under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given at the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation, 49 CFR part 512.
        Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

        We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
        How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

        You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given at the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES. You may also read the comments on the internet. To read the comments on the internet, take the following steps:

        (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
        (2) On that page, click on “search.”
        (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-digit docket number shown at the heading of this document. Example: if the docket number were “NHTSA-2000-1234,” you would type “1234.”
        (4) After typing the docket number, click on “search.”
        (5) The next page contains docket summary information for the docket you selected. Click on the comments you wish to see.
        You may download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, instead of the word processing documents, the “pdf” versions of the documents are word searchable. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for new material.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR part 594
          Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

          PART 594—SCHEDULE OF FEES AUTHORIZED BY 49 U.S.C. 30141
          In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 594 would be amended as follows:
          1. The authority citation for part 594 would continue to read as follows:

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 30141, 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          2. Section 594.6 would be amended by:

          A. revising the introductory text of paragraph (a),
          B. revising paragraph (b),
          C. changing the year “2000” in paragraph (d) to read “2002,”
          D. revising paragraph (h); and
          E. revising paragraph (i).
          The revised text reads as follows:

            § 594.6
            Annual fee for administration of the registration program.
            (a) Each person filing an application to be granted the status of a Registered Importer pursuant to part 592 of this chapter on or after October 1, 2002, must pay an annual fee of $655, as calculated below, based upon the direct and indirect costs attributable to: * * *

            (b) That portion of the initial annual fee attributable to the processing of the application for applications filed on and after October 1, 2002, is $395. The sum of $395, representing this portion, shall not be refundable if the application is denied or withdrawn.

            (h) * * * This cost is $14.85 per man-hour for the period beginning October 1, 2002.
            (i) Based upon the elements, and indirect costs of paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section, the component of the initial annual fee attributable to administration of the registration program, covering the period beginning October 1, 2002, is $260. When added to the costs of registration of $395, as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the costs per applicant to be recovered through the annual fee are $655. The annual renewal registration fee for the period beginning October 1, 2002, is $455.
            3. Section 594.7 would be amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

            § 594.7
            Fee for filing petitions for a determination whether a vehicle is eligible for importation.

            (e) For petitions filed on and after October 1, 2002, the fee payable for seeking a determination under paragraph (a)(1) of this section is $175. The fee payable for a petition seeking a determination under paragraph (a)(2) of this section is $800. If the petitioner requests an inspection of a vehicle, the sum of $550 shall be added to such fee. No portion of this fee is refundable if the petition is withdrawn or denied.

            4. Section 594.8 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (c) to read as follows:

            § 594.8
            Fee for importing a vehicle pursuant to a determination by the Administrator.

            (c) If a determination has been made on or after October 1, 2002, pursuant to the Administrator's initiative, the fee for each vehicle is $125. * * *
            5. Section 594.9 would be amended by reviving paragraph (c) to read as follows:

            § 594.9
            Fee for reimbursement of bond processing costs.

            (c) The bond processing fee for each vehicle imported on and after October 1, 2002, for which a certificate of conformity is furnished, is $6.20.
            6. Section 594.10 would be amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

            § 594.10
            Fee for review and processing of conformity certificate.

            (d) The review and processing fee for each certificate of conformity submitted on and after October 1, 2002 is $18. However, if the vehicle covered by the certificate has been entered electronically with the U.S. Customs Service through the Automated Broker Interface and the registered importer submitting the certificate has an e-mail address, the fee for the certificate is $6, provided that the fee is paid by a credit card issued to the registered importer. If NHTSA finds that the information in the entry or the certificate is incorrect, requiring further processing, the processing fee shall be $18. If the importer electronically corrects the incorrect information, the processing fee shall be $12.

            Issued on: August 13, 2002.
            L. Robert Shelton,
            Executive Director.

      [FR Doc. 02-20913 Filed 8-13-02; 3:15 pm]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 23, 42, and 52
        [FAR Case 2004-032; Docket 2006-0020; Sequence 13]
        RIN 9000-AK65
        Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2004-032, Biobased Products Preference Program

          AGENCIES:
          Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA), as amended by Sections 205 and 943 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  Entitled Federal Procurement of Biobased Products, section 9002 requires that a procurement preference be afforded biobased products within items designated by the Secretary of Agriculture.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments to the FAR Secretariat on or before February 26, 2007 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.
          The Councils, in collaboration with OFPP, invite interested parties from both the private and public sector to provide comments on the biobased procurement preference program and the requirement that Federal agencies shall consider maximum practicable use of biobased products when acquiring products and services.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by FAR case 2004-032 by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.  Search for any document by first selecting the proper document types and selecting “Federal Acquisition Regulation” as the agency of choice.  At the “Keyword” prompt, type in the FAR case number (for example, FAR Case 2006-001) and click on the “Submit” button.  Please include any personal and/or business information inside the document.
          You may also search for any document by clicking on the “Advanced search/document search” tab at the top of the screen, selecting from the agency field “Federal Acquisition Regulation”, and typing the FAR case number in the keyword field.  Select the “Submit” button.
          • Fax:  202-501-4067.
          • Mail:  General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, ATTN:  Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC  20405.

            Instructions:  Please submit comments only and cite FAR case 2004-032 in all correspondence related to this case.  All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For clarification of content, contact William Clark, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 219-1813.  For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the FAR Secretariat at (202) 501-4755.  Please cite FAR case 2004-032.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A.  Background
        On May 13, 2002, the President signed the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA), Public Law 107—171.  Section 9002 of the Act, entitled Federal Procurement of Biobased Products, requires that each Federal agency (“Procuring Agency” as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005), which procures products within items designated by the Secretary of Agriculture, give a preference to qualified biobased products, subject to specified exceptions.  This same section requires the Secretary of Agriculture to designate items which contain products which are or can be produced with biobased products, establish recommended practices with respect to the procurement of products within the designated items, and provide information as to the availability, relative price, performance, and environmental and public health benefits of such items.  In a final rule, published January 11, 2005 entitled Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal Procurement, the USDA promulgated regulations defining the process for designating items.  In the July 5, 2005 Federal Register (70 FR 38612), USDA proposed 6 item containing biobased materials that it plans to designate for Federal procurement preference.  In the March 16, 2006 Federal Register (71 FR 13685) entitled “Designation of Biobased Items for Federal Procurement”, USDA made a final determination about these items.  USDA designated the following six items within which biobased products will be afforded Federal procurement preference, as provided for under section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002: Mobile equipment hydraulic fluids; roof coatings; water tank coatings; diesel fuel additives; penetrating lubricants; and bedding, bed linens, and towels.  USDA also established minimum biobased content for each of these items.  However, USDA deferred the effective date for two items (water tank coatings and bedding, bed linens, and towels) until such time that more than one manufacturer of products in these two items is identified and planned to announce that availability in a future Federal Register notice.  In the August 17, 2006 Federal Register (71 FR 47566 and 47589), USDA proposed 20 additional items containing biobased materials that it plans to designate for Federal procurement preference.
        USDA's designation of biobased items parallels the approach taken by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its designation of items containing recovered material pursuant to 40 CFR part 247, subpart B.  USDA indicates throughout the preamble of the rule that where a biobased item is used for the same purposes and to meet the same requirements as an EPA-designated recovered content product, the Federal agency must purchase the recovered content product.  If, on the other hand, for example, biobased hydraulic fluid is to be used to address certain environmental or health requirements that the EPA-designated recovered content product would not meet, then the biobased product should be given preference, subject to cost, availability, and performance.
        On August 8, 2005, the President signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109—58.  Section 943 of the Energy Policy Act amended the FSRIA by revising the term “Federal agency” to “Procuring Agency” in several areas of Section 9002.  The term `Procuring agency” was defined as any Federal agency that is using Federal funds for procurement; or any person contracting with any Federal agency with respect to work performed under the contract.  The amended definition expanded application of the Biobased Program to products used in the performance of service contracts (including construction).  Section 205 added a requirement for degradable plastic ring carriers, see 40 CFR part 238.
        In the July 27, 2006 Federal Register (71 FR 42572), USDA amended 7 CFR 2902 in order to clarify that biobased products from certain designated countries must be treated by procuring agencies as eligible for the procurement preference under FSRIA.  This amendment requires agencies treat as eligible for the preference, biobased products composed of renewable agricultural materials or forestry materials from “designated countries,” as defined in 25.003, provided that those products otherwise meet all requirements for participation in the preference program.

        This proposed rule incorporates the biobased procurement preference into the FAR.  As discussed by the USDA in the Supplemental Information section of their final rule at 70 FR 1792-1793 (January 11, 2005), Congress had three primary objectives in enacting section 9002 of FSRIA: improved demand for biobased products, development of the industrial base through value-added agricultural processing and manufacturing, and energy security.  While environmental enhancement is only a possible ancillary feature to the first goal, the bulk of the implementing regulations are proposed for inclusion in FAR subpart 23.4 due to the similarities between FSRIA section 9002 and section 6002 of the RCRA mandating a similar preference for items containing recovered materials.  Specifically, both have similar triggering, preference, and exemption provisions; mandate a preference program; and require conformity certification.  Both also require federal agencies responsible for drafting specifications to review and revise their specifications to require the use of recovered materials and biobased products respectively.  By integrating the regulations implementing section 9002 of the FSRIA and section 6002 of the RCRA, efficiencies can be achieved at the contracting officer level by eliminating the repetitive requirement of reconciling the two provisions.  While the statutory provisions are strikingly similar, there are minor differences in the details of the two statutes as reflected in the proposed rule.
        The EPA program began at a time when contract certifications were more stringent than the current practice.  Under the EPA, the offerors are required to furnish a preaward certification that they will furnish a product with the requisite EPA recommended recovered material content.  At contract completion, the contractor is required to furnish an estimate of the actual recovered material content of the product delivered.  The Government, in turn, is required to verify the accuracy of the contractors' certifications.  Under the new USDA program, offerors are simply required to furnish a preaward self-certification that they will deliver and/or use products containing the minimum biobased content.  Under both programs, the EPA or USDA may propose and designate additional products from time to time.  Under both programs, the Federal agencies have a period of 1-year period in which to modify their procurement programs to accommodate the newly designated products.  Under both programs, Federal agencies may choose not to acquire products with recovered material or biobased content if they are not readily available, not reasonably priced, or do not perform satisfactorily.
        This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.  This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        B.  Solicitation of Public Comment
        The Councils, along with OFPP, wish to ensure that the biobased preference program includes the acquisition of products and services (including construction).  In furtherance of its responsibility under section 9002, OFPP seeks to better understand the application of acquisition of services coverage and welcomes feedback on this aspect of the proposed rule.  In commenting, please include citations, as appropriate, to relevant sources of information that may be used to substantiate the basis for your comments.
        C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

        This proposed rule may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because manufacturers, large or small, are expected to develop and market biobased products within the designated items.  The actual impact will be item specific and based on how many small entities are providing a specific item once it is designated by the United States Department of Agriculture.
        On March 16, 2006, the USDA issued a final rule in the Federal Register (71 FR 13685) amending 7 CFR part 2902, Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal Procurement, to add six sections designating the first six of a series of items that are made with biobased products that would be afforded Federal procurement preference, as provided for under section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.  The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement is summarized as follows:

          The rule will amend the FAR to implement section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (FSRIA) (Public L. 107-171, 7 U.S.C. section 8102), as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public L. 109-58, section 943) and incorporate the biobased preference program. As USDA designates items through the issuance of final rules, it is anticipated that this rule will impact small business entities that manufacture or sell products within the designated items. The impact may vary based on the specific item[s] once they are designated by USDA.

          The objective of the rule is to incorporate the biobased procurement preference into the FAR. As discussed by the USDA in the Supplementary Information section of their final rule published in the Federal Register at 70 FR 1792, January 11, 2005; Congress had three primary objectives in enacting section 9002 of FSRIA: (1) improved demand for biobased products; (2) development of the industrial base through value-added agricultural processing and manufacturing, and; (3) energy security.

          The proposed rule will apply to all large and small business entities that seek award of Federal contracts that may involve the manufacturing, selling or use of biobased products. Because the program is still in its infancy, the number of small business entities impacted is unknown and cannot be determined by the Councils. Small business entities are encouraged to thoroughly review the USDA's final rule entitled “Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal Procurement” published in the Federal Register at 70 FR 1792, January 11, 2005 as well as any subsequent publications from USDA concerning the program.  It is anticipated that as items are designated by USDA through the issuance of final rules, this Federal procurement preference program may provide additional opportunities for small business entities that manufacture and sell USDA designated biobased products to Federal agencies. USDA anticipates that it will take approximately 4 years to designate all items under this program. In its final rule published on March 16, 2006, USDA indicated they have no data on the number of small businesses that may choose to develop and market products within the six items designated, however, USDA expects the number to be small. Because biobased products represent a small emerging market, only a small percentage of all manufacturers, large or small, are expected to develop and market biobased products.
          The proposed rule does contain information collection requirements, which the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this notice addresses more fully below. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. There are no practical alternatives that will accomplish the objectives of this proposed rule.

        The FAR Secretariat has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.  A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the FAR Secretariat.  The Councils will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected FAR parts 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 23, 42, and 52 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610.  Comments must be submitted separately and should cite 5 U.S.C 601, et seq. (FAR case 2004-032), in correspondence.
        D.  Paperwork Reduction Act

        The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13) applies because the proposed rule contains information collection requirements.  The rule will require offerors to submit a certification that products being used or delivered in the performance of the contract are qualified biobased products that fall under items (generic groupings of biobased products) that have been designated by USDA for preferred procurement.  Accordingly, the FAR Secretariat has submitted a request for approval of a new information collection requirement concerning OMB Control Number 9000-00XX, Biobased Products Preference Program, implementation of section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107—171, 7 U.S.C. section 8102), to the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501m et seq.

          Annual Reporting Burden:

        The clause at 52.223-1 requires the contractor to certify the use of biobased material in each applicable solicitation, i.e. when the Federal agency purchases $10,000 or more of one of the USDA designated items or when functionally equivalent items purchased during the preceding fiscal year was $10,000 or more.  As USDA continues to designate items, it is anticipated that the number of responses will increase over time.  It is estimated that an average of 30 minutes will be required for offerors and contractors to research, prepare, and submit the required information.  We currently estimate the annual total burden hours as follows:

          Respondents:  6,000.

          Responses per respondent:  6.

          Total annual responses:  36,000.

          Preparation hours per response:  .5.

          Total response burden hours:  18,000.
        E.  Request for Comments Regarding Paperwork Burden
        Submit comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden, not later than February 26, 2007 to:  FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405.
        Public comments are particularly invited on:  whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
        Requester may obtain a copy of the justification from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VIR), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755.  Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-00XX, Biobased Products Preference Program, in all correspondence.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 23, 42, and 52
          Government procurement.

          Dated:  December 15, 2006.
          Ralph De Stefano,
          Director, Contract Policy Division.

        Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 23, 42, and 52 as set forth below:
        1.  The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 23, 42, and 52 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).

          PART 2—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS

        2.  Amend section 2.101 in paragraph (b)(2) by adding, in alphabetical order, the definition “Biobased product” to read as follows:

          2.101
          Definitions.

        (b) *  *  *
        (2) *  *  *

          Biobased product (7 U.S.C. 8101(2)) means a product determined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to be a commercial or industrial product (other than food or feed) that is composed, in whole or in significant part, of biological products or renewable domestic agricultural materials (including plant, animal, and marine materials) or forestry materials.

          PART 7—ACQUISITION PLANNING

        3.  Amend section 7.103 by revising paragraph (n)(2) to read as follows:

          7.103
          Agency-head responsibilities.

        (n) *  *  *
        (2)  Comply with the policy in 11.002(d) regarding procurement of biobased products, products containing recovered materials, and environmentally preferable and energy-efficient products and services.

          PART 11—DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS

        4.  Amend section 11.002 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

          11.002
          Policy.

        (d)(1)  When agencies acquire products and services, various statutes and executive orders (identified in Part 23) require consideration of—
        (i)  Energy-efficient products and services (Subpart 23.2);
        (ii)  Products and services that utilize renewable energy technologies (Subpart 23.2);
        (iii)  Products containing energy-efficient standby power devices (Subpart 23.2);
        (iv)  Products containing recovered materials (Subpart 23.4);
        (v)  Biobased products (Subpart 23.4); and
        (vi)  Environmentally preferable products and services (Subpart 23.7).
        (2)  Executive agencies shall consider maximum practicable use of products and services listed in paragraph (d)(1) of this section when—
        (i)  Developing, reviewing, or revising Federal and military specifications, product descriptions (including commercial item descriptions) and standards;
        (ii)  Describing Government requirements for products and services; and
        (iii)  Developing source-selection factors.

          11.101
          [Amended]

        5.  Amend section 11.101 by removing paragraph (b) and redesignating paragraph (c) as (b).
        6.  Amend section 11.302 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

          11.302
          Policy.

        (c)(1) When the contracting officer needs additional information to determine whether supplies meet minimum recovered material or biobased standards stated in the solicitation, the contracting officer may require offerors to submit additional information on the recycled or biobased content or related standards. The request for the information must be included in the solicitation.  When acquiring commercial items, limit the information to the maximum extent practicable to that available under normal commercial practices.
        (2) For biobased products, the contracting officer may require vendors to provide information on life cycle costs and environmental and health benefits in accordance with 7 CFR 2902.8.

          PART 12—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

        7.  Amend section 12.301 by revising paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows:

          12.301
          Solicitation provisions and contract clauses for the acquisition of commercial items.

        (e) *  *  *
        (3)  The contracting officer may use the provisions and clauses contained in Part 23 regarding the use of recovered material and biobased products when appropriate for the item being acquired.

          PART 13—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES

        8.  Amend section 13.201 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:

          13.201
          General.

        (f)  The procurement requirements in Subparts 23.2, 23.4, and 23.7 apply to purchases at or below the micro-purchase threshold.

          PART 23—ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE

        9.  Amend section 23.000 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

          23.000
          Scope.

        (d)  Acquiring energy-and water-efficient products and services, environmentally preferable products, products that use recovered materials, and biobased products; and
        10. Revise Subpart 23.4 to read as follows:

          Subpart 23.4—Use of Products Containing Recovered Materials and Biobased Products

            Sec.

          23.400
          Scope of subpart.
          23.401
          Definitions.
          23.402
          Authorities.
          23.403
          Policy.
          23.404
          Agency affirmative procurement programs.
          23.405
          Procedures.
          23.406
          Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

          23.400
          Scope of subpart.

        (a)  The procedures in this subpart apply to all agency acquisitions of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)-designated item, if—
        (1)  The price of the designated item exceeds $10,000; or
        (2)  The aggregate amount paid for designated items, or for functionally equivalent designated items, in the preceding fiscal year was $10,000 or more.
        (b)  While micro-purchases are included in determining the aggregate amount paid under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, it is not recommended that an agency track micro-purchases when—
        (1) The agency anticipates the aggregate amount paid will exceed $10,000; or
        (2)  The agency intends to establish or continue an affirmative procurement program in the following fiscal year.

          23.401
          Definitions.

        As used in this subpart—
        (a) EPA-designated item means a product that is or can be made with recovered material—

        (1)  That is listed by EPA in a procurement guideline (40 CFR part 247); and

        (2)  For which EPA has provided purchasing recommendations in a related Recovered Materials Advisory Notice (RMAN).
        (b) USDA-designated item means a product that is or can be made with biobased material—
        (1)  That is listed by USDA in a procurement guideline (7 CFR part 2902, subpart B); and
        (2)  For which USDA has provided purchasing recommendations.

          23.402
          Authorities.

        (a)  The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6962.
        (b)  The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA), 7 U.S.C. 8102.
        (c)  Executive Order 13101 of September 14, 1998, Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition.
        (d)  The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58.

          23.403
          Policy.

        Government policy on the use of products containing recovered materials and biobased products considers cost, availability of competition, and performance.  Agencies shall assure the use of products containing recovered materials and biobased products to the maximum extent practicable without jeopardizing the intended use of the product while maintaining a satisfactory level of competition at a reasonable price.  Such products shall meet the reasonable performance standards of the agency and be acquired competitively, in a cost-effective manner.  Except as provided at 23.404(b), virgin material shall not be required by the solicitation (see 11.302).

          23.404
          Agency affirmative procurement programs.

        (a)  An agency must establish an affirmative procurement program for EPA and USDA-designated items if the agency's purchases of designated items exceed the threshold set forth in 23.400.
        (1)  Agencies have a period of 1 year to revise their procurement program(s) after the designation of any new item by EPA or USDA.
        (2)  Technical or requirements personnel and procurement personnel are responsible for the preparation, implementation, and monitoring of affirmative procurement programs.
        (3)  Agency affirmative procurement programs must include—
        (i)  A recovered materials and biobased products preference program;
        (ii) An agency promotion program;
        (iii)  For EPA-designated items only, a program for requiring reasonable estimates, certification, and verification of recovered material used in the performance of contracts.  Both the recovered material content and biobased programs require preaward certification that the products meet EPA or USDA recommendations.  A second certification is required at contract completion for recovered material content; and
        (iv)  Annual review and monitoring of the effectiveness of the program.
        (b)  Agency affirmative procurement programs must require that 100 percent of purchases of EPA or USDA-designated items contain recovered material or biobased content, respectively, unless the item cannot be acquired—
        (1)  Competitively within a reasonable time frame;
        (2)  Meeting reasonable performance standards; or
        (3)  At a reasonable price.
        (c)  Agency affirmative procurement programs must provide guidance for purchases of EPA-designated items at or below the micro-purchase threshold.
        (d)  Agencies may use their own specifications or commercial product descriptions when procuring products containing recovered materials or biobased products.  When using either, the contract should specify—
        (1)  For products containing recovered materials, that the product is composed of the—
        (i)  Highest percent of recovered materials practicable; or
        (ii)  Minimum content standards in accordance with EPA's Recovered Materials Advisory Notices; and
        (2) For biobased products, that the product is composed of—
        (i)  The highest percentage of biobased material practicable; or
        (ii) USDA's recommended minimum contents standards.
        (e)  Agencies shall treat as eligible for the preference for biobased products, products from “designated countries,” as defined in 25.003, provided that those products—
        (1)  Meet the criteria for the definition of biobased product, except for the requirement that renewable agricultural materials (including plant, animal, and marine materials) or forestry materials in such product must be domestic; and
        (2)  Otherwise meet all requirements for participation in the preference program.

          23.405
          Procedures.

        (a) Designated items and procurement guidelines.—(1) Recovered Materials.  Contracting officers should refer to EPA's list of EPA-designated items (available via the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/cpg/) and to their agencies' affirmative procurement program when purchasing products that contain recovered material, or services that could include the use of products that contain recovered material.
        (2) Biobased products.  Contracting officers should refer to USDA's list of USDA-designated items (available through the Internet at http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov) and to their agencies' affirmative procurement program when purchasing supplies that contain biobased material or when purchasing services that could include supplies that contain biobased material.
        (b) Procurement exemptions.—(1)  Once an item has been designated by either EPA or USDA, agencies shall purchase conforming products unless it is determined that conforming products cannot be acquired—
        (i)  Competitively within a reasonable time frame;
        (ii)  Meeting reasonable performance standards; or
        (iii)  At a reasonable price.
        (2)  When an exemption is used for an EPA designated item or the procurement of a product containing recovered material does not meet or exceed the EPA recovered material content guidelines, the contracting officer shall place a written justification in the contract file.
        (c) Program priorities.  When both the USDA-designated item and the EPA-designated item will be used for the same purposes, and both meet the agency's needs, the agency shall purchase the EPA-designated item.

          23.406
          Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

        (a)  Insert the provision at 52.223-1, Biobased Product Certification, in solicitations that—
        (1)  Require the delivery or specify the use of USDA-designated items; or
        (2)  Include the clause at 52.223-XX.
        (b)  Insert the provision at 52.223—4, Recovered Material Certification, in solicitations that are for, or specify the use of, EPA-designated items.
        (c)  Insert the clause at 52.223—9, Estimate of Percentage of Recovered Material Content for EPA-designated Items, in solicitations and contracts exceeding $100,000 that include the provision at 52.223—4.  If technical personnel advise that estimates can be verified, use the clause with its Alternate I.

        (d)  Insert the clause at 52.223-XX, Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Products Under Service and Construction Contracts, in service or construction solicitations and contracts unless the contract will not involve the use of  USDA-designated items at http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov or 7 CFR part 2902.

          23.701
          [Removed and Reserved]

        11.  Remove and reserve section 23.701.
        12.  Amend section 23.702 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

          23.702
          Authorities.

        (g)  Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA) (7 U.S.C. 8102).
        13.  Amend section 23.703 by revising paragraph (b)(7); and adding paragraph (b)(8) to read as follows:

          23.703
          Policy.

        (b) *  *  *
        (7)  Promote the use of biobased products.
        (8)  Purchase only plastic ring carriers that are degradable (7 USC 8102(c)(1), 40 CFR part 238).

          PART 42—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES

        14.  Amend section 42.302 by revising paragraph (a)(68)(ii) to read as follows:

          42.302
          Contract administration functions.

        (a) *  *  *
        (68) *  *  *
        (ii)  Monitoring contractor compliance with specifications or other contractual requirements requiring the delivery or use of environmentally preferable products, energy-efficient products, products containing recovered materials, and biobased products.  This must occur as part of the quality assurance procedures set forth in Part 46; and

          PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

        15.  Add section 52.223-1 to read as follows:

          52.223-1
          Biobased Product Certification.

        As prescribed in 23.406(a), insert the following provision:

          BIOBASED PRODUCT CERTIFICATION (DATE)
          The Contractor shall execute the following certification required by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8102(c)(3)):
          I, _______ (name of certifier), am an officer or employee responsible for the performance of this contract and I hereby certify that biobased products (within categories of items listed by the United States Department of Agriculture in 7 CFR part 2902, subpart B) to be used or delivered in the performance of the contract will comply with the applicable specifications or other contractual requirements.
          ____________________
          [Signature of the Officer or Employee]
          ____________________
          [Typed Name of the Officer or Employee]
          ____________________
          [Title]
          ____________________
          [Name of Company, Firm, or Organization]
          ____________________
          [Date]
          (End of provision)

          52.223-4
          [Amended]

        16.  Amend section 52.223-4 by removing from the prescription “23.406(a”) and adding “23.406(b”) in its place.

          52.223-9
          [Amended]
          17.  Amend section 52.223-9 by removing from the prescription “23.406(b”) and adding “23.406(c”) in its place.
          18.  Add section 52.223-XX to read as follows:

          52.223-XX
          Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Products Under Service and Construction Contracts.
          As prescribed in 23.406(d), insert the following clause:

            AFFIRMATIVE PROCUREMENT OF BIOBASED PRODUCTS UNDER SERVICE AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (DATE)
            (a)  In the performance of this contract, the contractor shall make maximum use of biobased products that are USDA-designated items unless the product cannot be acquired—
            (1)  Competitively within a time frame providing for compliance with the contract performance schedule;
            (2)  Meeting contract performance requirements; or
            (3)  At a reasonable price.

            (b)  Information about this requirement and these products is available at http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
            (End of clause)

      [FR Doc. 06-9846 Filed 12-22-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 63
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0746; FRL-10005-80-OAR]
        RIN 2060-AT85
        National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review; Reopening of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopen comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          On December 17, 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a rule titled “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review.” The EPA is reopening the comment period on the proposed rule that originally closed on February 18, 2020. The comment period will reopen until March 19, 2020, to allow additional time for stakeholders to review and comment on the proposal.

          DATES:

          The public comment period for the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on December 17, 2019 (84 FR 69182), is being reopened. Written comments must be received on or before March 19, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:

            Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0746, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ (our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0746 in the subject line of the message.
          • Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0746.
          • Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0746, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
          • Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except federal holidays).

            Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. Do not submit information that you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.

          The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA's Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

            Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically within the digital storage media the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0746.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For questions about this proposed action, contact Tegan Lavoie, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5110; fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email address: lavoie.tegan@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk assessment methodology, contact Matthew Woody, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1535; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: woody.matthew@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and email address: cox.john@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        To allow for additional time for stakeholders to provide comments, the EPA has decided to reopen the public comment period until March 19, 2020.

          Dated: February 20, 2020.
          Panagiotis Tsirigotis,
          Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

      [FR Doc. 2020-03768 Filed 2-25-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 050915240-5240-01; I.D. 090905A]
        RIN 0648-AS66
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Gulf of Mexico Essential Fish Habitat Amendment

          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 Generic Amendment 3 to the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) of the Gulf of Mexico (EFH Amendment 3) prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). EFH Amendment 3 would amend each of the seven Council FMPs -shrimp, red drum, reef fish, coastal migratory pelagic resources, coral and coral reefs, stone crab, and spiny lobster- to describe and identify essential fish habitat (EFH); minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH; and encourage conservation and management of EFH. This proposed rule would establish additional habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs), restrict fishing activities within HAPCs to protect EFH, and require a weak link in bottom trawl gear to protect EFH. The intended effect of this proposed rule is to facilitate long-term protection of EFH and, thus, better conserve and manage fishery resources in the Gulf of Mexico.

          DATES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on November 10, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: 0648-AS66.Proposed@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following document identifier: 0648-AS66.

          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
          • Fax: 727-824-5308; Attention: Peter Hood.

          Copies of EFH Amendment 3, which includes a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFA), and the supporting Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be obtained from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: 813-348-1630; fax: 813-348-1711; e-mail: gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Peter Hood, telephone: 727-551-5728, fax: 727-824-5308, e-mail: peter.hood@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        EFH Amendment 3 addresses fisheries under the FMPs for coral and coral reef resources, coastal migratory pelagics, red drum, reef fish, shrimp, spiny lobster, and stone crab. The FMPs were prepared by the Council, except for the FMPs for coastal migratory pelagics and spiny lobster that were prepared jointly by the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils. All of these FMPs, except the spiny lobster and stone crab FMPs, are implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. The Fishery Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 640. The Fishery Management Plan for the Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 654.
        Background
        In 1998, the Council prepared a generic amendment for the seven Council FMPs to describe and identify EFH, minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH, and encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH, as required by section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. A coalition of environmental groups subsequently initiated litigation challenging NMFS' approval of the generic amendment. The court found that the environmental assessment for the generic amendment did not comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and required NMFS to prepare a more thorough NEPA analysis. Consequently, NMFS entered into a Joint Stipulation with the plaintiff environmental organizations that required the Council to prepare an EIS. NMFS concluded the scope of the EIS should address all required EFH components as described in section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        To support the required description and identification of EFH and to address adverse fishing impacts on EFH related to all Council-managed fisheries, the Council undertook a detailed, two-year analysis of the physical environment; oceanographic features; estuarine, near shore, and offshore habitats; fishery resources; and marine mammals and protected species in the Gulf of Mexico. This analysis provided the basis for preparation of the EFH EIS addressing the seven Council FMPs. The Council used the EFH EIS as a decision-making tool in developing EFH Amendment 3, which this proposed rule would implement.
        Provisions of This Proposed Rule
        This proposed rule would: establish new HAPCs; implement restrictions on fishing gear within the HAPCs to protect EFH, including coral reef habitat; and require that any bottom trawl fished in the Gulf EEZ include a weak link in the trawl's tickler chain to minimize damage to EFH. A weak link is defined as a length or section of the tickler chain that has a breaking strength less than the chain itself and is easily seen as such when visually inspected.
        The proposed rule would establish new HAPCs for Pulley Ridge off the southwest coast of Florida and for Stetson Bank and McGrail Bank located in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. The proposed rule would also expand the HAPCs for East Flower Garden Bank and West Flower Garden Bank by 9.56 nm2 (32.79 km2) and 13.14 nm2 (45.07 km2), respectively. Within these HAPCs, the use of bottom-tending gear (e.g., bottom longlines, bottom trawls, pots, traps, and buoy gear) and bottom anchoring by fishing vessels would be prohibited year-round. The coordinates for these proposed HAPCs are specified in § 622.34 of this proposed rule.
        Additional Provisions in EFH Amendment 3
        In addition to the measures discussed above, EFH Amendment 3 would describe and identify EFH for the fisheries in each of the Council's seven FMPs. This newly defined EFH consists of areas of higher species density as determined based on the NOAA Gulf of Mexico species atlas and functional relationship analyses for red drum, reef fish, coastal migratory pelagics, shrimp, stone crab, and spiny lobster and based on known distributions for corals. The newly defined EFH would ensure that habitats most important to managed species (i.e., those shallower than 100 fathoms (183 m)) would remain protected as EFH.
        EFH Amendment 3 also would identify numerous HAPCs in addition to those described under Provisions of This Proposed Rule above. These areas include: the Florida Middle Grounds; Madison-Swanson Marine Reserve; Tortugas North and South Ecological Reserves; and the individual reefs and banks of the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico (Sonnier Bank, MacNeil Bank, 29 Fathom, Rankin Bright Bank, Geyer Bank, Bouma Bank, Rezak Sidner Bank, Alderice Bank, and Jakkula Bank).
        Finally, EFH Amendment 3 would establish an education program for recreational and commercial fishermen regarding protection of coral reefs when using various fishing gears in coral reef areas.

        Additional background and rationale for the measures discussed above are contained in EFH Amendment 3, the availability of which was announced in the Federal Register (70 FR 54518, September 15, 2005).
        Classification
        At this time, NMFS has not determined that EFH Amendment 3, which this proposed rule would implement, is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. In making that determination, NMFS will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period on EFH Amendment 3 and the comment period on this proposed rule.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        NMFS prepared an IRFA as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows.

        This action would identify EFH, identify HAPCs, and establish gear and fishing restrictions to protect these habitats. The purpose of this action is to prevent, minimize, or mitigate adverse fishing impacts to EFH and HAPCs. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the rule.
        No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified.
        Almost all commercial and for-hire fishing operations in the Gulf of Mexico could be affected by the proposed action either through directly altering their gear usage or fishing locations, or indirectly by affecting fishery-wide harvest patterns. These commercial fishing operations include the shrimp, reef fish, spiny lobster, and stone crab fisheries. Participation in multiple fisheries by individual entities is common. Fishing for pelagic species is conducted predominantly near the surface with virtually no impact on bottom habitat; therefore, pelagic fisheries would not be impacted by the effects of the proposed rule. However, operations that fish for both pelagic and bottom species will be captured in the following discussion.
        The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business as one that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation, and has annual receipts not in excess of $3.5 million in the case of commercial harvesting entities or $6.0 million in the case of for-hire entities, or has fewer than 500 employees in the case of fish processors or fewer than 100 employees in the case of fish dealers.
        The number of shrimp vessels operating in the Gulf of Mexico in the Federal shrimp fishery has historically been estimated to be as high as 3,500 to 5,000 vessels, while the number of smaller shrimp boats operating in state waters has been estimated at about 13,000. However, many of these shrimp fishing operations are not currently fishing due to poor economic conditions in the fishery, and less than 3,000 vessels are currently permitted to operate in the Federal fishery. More precise numbers for state vessels are not available. Detailed economic and social information has not been collected from Gulf shrimp fishermen for over 10 years, although a socioeconomic survey of the shrimp fishery is presently underway. The historical estimate of average gross revenues for shrimp vessels is approximately $82,000. Given the economic conditions currently experienced by the fishery, present average revenues are likely substantially less. Although there are several businesses that operate a fleet of shrimp vessels, the actual size and number of such businesses is unknown.
        As of October 2003, there were 1,158 active commercial reef fish permits for the Gulf of Mexico. An average vessel is estimated to generate revenues of approximately $65,000. Average revenue performance within the fleet varies, however, depending upon the gear utilized and the area fished, ranging from a low of approximately $24,000 for vertical line vessels fishing in the eastern Gulf to $117,000 for bottom longline vessels fishing Gulf-wide.
        In 2001, 2,235 fishermen possessed a spiny lobster trap certificate. Total revenues in the 2001 fishery were approximately $15 million, or an average of less than $7,000 per fisherman. Landings in 2001 were markedly lower than historical performance. Using peak revenues of approximately $30 million in 1999 and the same number of fisherman results in average revenues of less than $14,000 per participant.
        From 1985-94, an average of 720 fishing craft operated in the stone crab fishery. Of these craft, an average of 234 were vessels greater than 5.0 net tons (4.5 metric tons), and 486 were smaller boats. More recent estimates are not available. The highest annual total ex-vessel revenues from stone crab landings were registered in 1997 at $31.9 million, or an average of approximately $44,000 per vessel. On the assumption that the majority of harvests are made by the larger vessels, if all landings are attributed to the 234 average participating larger vessels, then the average gross revenue would amount to about $136,427.
        As of October 2003, there were 1,552 active for-hire vessel permits in the Gulf of Mexico, encompassing both charter and headboat operations. On average, charter boats are estimated to generate gross revenues ranging from $58,000 in the eastern Gulf to $81,000 in the western Gulf, or an overall average of $64,000. Headboats are estimated to generate gross revenues ranging from $281,000 in the eastern Gulf to $550,000 in the western Gulf, or an overall average of $400,000.
        Fish dealers may also be affected by the measures in this proposed amendment to the extent that the measures affect harvests. There are 142 federally permitted dealers in the Gulf region. Average employment information per reef fish dealer is not known. Although dealers and processors are not synonymous entities, total employment in 1997 for reef fish processors in the Southeast was estimated at approximately 700 individuals, both part- and full-time. It is assumed all processors must be dealers, yet a dealer need not be a processor. Further, processing is a much more labor-intensive exercise than dealing. Therefore, given the employment estimate for the processing sector, it is assumed that the average employment within the dealer sector would not surpass the SBA employment benchmark.
        Based on the SBA benchmark standards and the gross revenue and employment profiles presented above for the various fisheries, all commercial and for-hire fishing vessels and reef fish dealers potentially affected by the proposed regulations are considered small entities.
        None of the measures considered in this amendment would alter existing reporting and recordkeeping requirements. None of the proposed compliance requirements would require additional professional skills.
        The proposed rule could directly or indirectly affect all commercial and for-hire entities that operate in the Gulf of Mexico. All of these entities are considered small business entities. The proposed rule will, therefore, affect a substantial number of small entities.
        The outcome of “significant economic impact” can be ascertained by examining two issues: disproportionality and profitability. The disproportionality question is, do the regulations place a substantial number of small entities at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities? All the vessel operations affected by the proposed rule are considered small business entities, so the issue of disproportionality does not arise.

        The profitability question is: Do the regulations significantly reduce profit for a substantial number of small entities? The designation of EFH or HAPCs would not have any direct effect on fishing activity or profits because designation itself does not impose fishing restrictions. The anchoring prohibition would primarily affect vessels using vertical lines over the live coral areas of Pulley Ridge, the East and West Flower Gardens, and the McGrail Bank. Landings data do not provide precise harvest or fishing locations, and the proposed restricted areas generally lie within larger geographical statistical grids. Total harvests from the grid within which Pulley Ridge lies (NMFS Statistical Area 2) accounted for only 3.1 percent of average annual total reef fish harvests from 2000-2002, and, although not quantified, similar results are expected for the other protected areas. Because Pulley Ridge--and, similarly, other protected areas--does not encompass the entirety of the statistical area within which it lies, any harvest reduction attributed to the anchoring restriction would be expected to be less than the total area contribution.
        The prohibition on the use of bottom trawls, bottom longlines, and buoy gear would primarily affect fishermen using these gears in the coral areas of Pulley Ridge, Stetson Bank, and McGrail Bank. As previously stated, the coral areas within Pulley Ridge lie completely within the broader NMFS Statistical Area 2. Logbook data for the entire area show the value of all longline reef fish and shark landings from 2000 through 2003 averaged $662,000, or 4.1 percent of the Gulf-wide total for these species. However, it is not anticipated that these landings and revenues would be removed from the fishery because it is expected that most, if not all, of this fishing effort will relocate to adjacent areas where fishing activity already exceeds that of NMFS Statistical Area 2. This relocation may have some minor, but unquantifiable, effect on fishing costs. Relocation of buoy gear fishing would similarly be expected to affect fishing costs. However, it is unknown how much, if any, buoy gear fishing occurs in the proposed protected areas. Similar effects would be expected regarding Stetson Bank and McGrail Bank.
        The prohibition on bottom trawls is not expected to affect fishing behavior because trawl fishermen are expected to currently avoid these areas because shrimp generally are not abundant over coral and the costs associated with gear entanglement and damage are prohibitive to efficient trawling activity.
        It is not anticipated that any trap fishermen (fish, lobster, or stone crab) would be impacted by the proposed measures because this gear is not believed to be utilized to any significant degree in the proposed restricted areas.
        The requirement for a weak link in the tickler chain of bottom trawls used over all habitats is expected to have minor impacts on gear costs and may reduce harvests and increase costs if gear is lost due to entanglement and link separation. Successful trawling operation encourages the avoidance of entanglements. A weak link may increase this behavior, potentially changing where trawling occurs, costs of operation, and harvest rates. It is not possible, however, to quantify these effects.
        Several alternatives were considered to the gear restrictions intended to prevent, minimize, or mitigate adverse fishing impacts on the EFH. The no-action alternative would have eliminated the potential adverse impacts of the proposed actions but would not have achieved the Council's objectives. The second alternative to the gear restrictions would have prohibited bottom trawling over coral reefs, required aluminum doors on trawls, limited the length and deployment rate (number of sets per day) of bottom longline sets on hard bottom, required circle hooks on vertical lines and limited sinker weights, and required buoys on anchors. This alternative would not have sufficiently achieved the Council's objectives for habitat protection and would have contained provisions that were either impractical in terms of conducting an economically viable fishery, e.g. limiting the deployment of gear, or increased the adverse economic impacts to fishery participants over those impacts in the proposed rule.
        In addition to the requirements of the second alternative, the third alternative would have limited tickler chains, headropes, and vessel length for trawl vessels, and prohibited trotlines when using traps or pots. Although this alternative would have increased the habitat protection over the second alternative, the adverse economic impacts of the second alternative would not have been reduced.
        The fourth alternative would have increased the headrope and vessel length restrictions of the third alternative and prohibited the use of tickler chains on all bottoms; prohibited the use of all traps, pots, bottom longline, and buoy gear on coral reefs; and prohibited the use of anchors on coral. This alternative would have increased the inefficiency of trawl gear and would have resulted in lower catch rates and lower economic returns, thereby increasing the adverse impacts to fishery participants.
        The fifth alternative would have prohibited the use of all gear and fishing activities that have adverse impacts on EFH in the EEZ. Although resulting in the greatest protection to the environment, the restrictions of this alternative were greater than the Council believed necessary to achieve the objectives of the action and would have imposed an excessive economic burden on fishery participants.
        The final alternative would have established restrictions applicable to fishing over live hard bottom and would have limited the length and deployment rate of bottom longline sets, prohibited trotlines when using traps or pots, prohibited all anchoring, and enacted a seasonal closure for shrimp trawl fishing. The longline and anchoring provisions of this alternative are impractical in terms of conducting an operationally and economically viable fishery, and the longline provisions could reduce the economic efficiency of vessels, thereby increasing adverse economic impacts without clearly demonstrable benefits. Further, a seasonal shrimp trawling closure to protect EFH and HAPCs is difficult to justify given (1) the inability to determine, absent vessel monitoring systems, exactly where fishing effort occurs and (2) the apparent low fishing pressure in the areas that are the most likely candidates for closure. Overall, this alternative would not meet the Council's objectives as well as the proposed rule.
        Copies of the IRFA are available (see ADDRESSES).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands.

          Dated: September 21, 2005.
          John Oliver
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

        1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 622.31, paragraph (l) is added to read as follows:

          § 622.31
          Prohibited gear and methods.

          (l) A bottom trawl that does not have a weak link in the tickler chain may not be used to fish in the Gulf EEZ. For the purposes of this paragraph, a weak link is defined as a length or section of the tickler chain that has a breaking strength less than the chain itself and is easily seen as such when visually inspected.

        3. In § 622.34, paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(1), and (j) are revised, and paragraphs (r), (s), and (t) are added to read as follows:

          § 622.34
          Gulf EEZ seasonal and/or area closures.

          (d) Tortugas marine reserves HAPC. The following activities are prohibited within the Tortugas marine reserves HAPC: Fishing for any species and bottom anchoring by fishing vessels.
          (1) EEZ portion of Tortugas North. The area is bounded by rhumb lines connecting the following points: From point A at 24°40′00″ N. lat., 83°06′00″ W. long. to point B at 24°46′00″ N. lat., 83°06′00″ W. long. to point C at 24°46′00″ N. lat., 83°00′00″ W. long.; thence along the line denoting the seaward limit of Florida's waters, as shown on the current edition of NOAA chart 11434, to point A at 24°40′00″ N. lat., 83°06′00″ W. long.

          (j) West and East Flower Garden Banks HAPC. The following activities are prohibited year-round in the HAPC: Fishing with a bottom longline, bottom trawl, buoy gear, dredge, pot, or trap and bottom anchoring by fishing vessels.
          (1) West Flower Garden Bank. West Flower Garden Bank is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:

              Point
              North lat.
              West long.

              A
              27°55′22.8″
              93°53′09.6″

              B
              27°55′22.8″
              93°46′46.0″

              C
              27°49′03.0″
              93°46′46.0″

              D
              27°49′03.0″
              93°53′09.6″

              A
              27°55′22.8″
              93°53′09.6″

          (2) East Flower Garden Bank. East Flower Garden Bank is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:

              Point
              North lat.
              West long.

              A
              27°59′14.4″
              93°38′58.2″

              B
              27°59′14.4″
              93°34′03.5″

              C
              27°52′36.5″
              93°34′03.5″

              D
              27°52′36.5″
              93°38′58.2″

              A
              27°59′14.4″
              93°38′58.2″

          (r) Pulley Ridge HAPC. Fishing with a bottom longline, bottom trawl, buoy gear, pot, or trap and bottom anchoring by fishing vessels are prohibited year-round in the area of the HAPC bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:

              Point
              North lat.
              West long.

              A
              24°58′18″
              83°38′33″

              B
              24°58′18″
              83°37′00″

              C
              24°41′11″
              83°37′00″

              D
              24°40′00″
              83°41′22″

              E
              24°43′55″
              83°47′15″

              A
              24°58′18″
              83°38′33″

          (s) Stetson Bank HAPC. Fishing with a bottom longline, bottom trawl, buoy gear, pot, or trap and bottom anchoring by fishing vessels are prohibited year-round in the HAPC, which is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:

              Point
              North lat.
              West long.

              A
              28°10′38.3″
              94°18′36.5″

              B
              28°10′38.3″
              94°17′06.3″

              C
              28°09′18.6″
              94°17′06.3″

              D
              28°09′18.6″
              94°18′36.5″

              A
              28°10′38.3″
              94°18′36.5″

          (t) McGrail Bank HAPC. Fishing with a bottom longline, bottom trawl, buoy gear, pot, or trap and bottom anchoring by fishing vessels are prohibited year-round in the HAPC, which is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:

              Point
              North lat.
              West long.

              A
              27°59′06.0″
              92°37′19.2″

              B
              27°59′06.0″
              92°32′17.4″

              C
              27°55′55.5″
              92°32′17.4″

              D
              27°55′55.5″
              92°37′19.2″

              A
              27°59′06.0″
              92°37′19.2″

      [FR Doc. 05-19169 Filed 9-23-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S