        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 10-57; MB Docket No. 10-21; RM-11590]
        Television Broadcasting Services; Birmingham, AL

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by Alabama Educational Television Commission (“AETC”), the licensee of noncommercial educational station WBIQ (TV), channel *10, Birmingham, Alabama. AETC requests the substitution of channel *39 for channel *10 at Birmingham.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before February 8, 2010, and reply comments on or before February 16, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Barry S. Persh, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Adrienne Y. Denysyk, adrienne.denysyk@fcc.gov, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 10-21, adopted January 5, 2010, and released January 12, 2010. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/). This document may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-478-3160 or via the company's Web site at http://www.BCPIWEB.com. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

        This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts (other than ex parte presentations exempt under 47 CFR 1.1204(a)) are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1208 for rules governing restricted proceedings.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Television, Television broadcasting.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.

            § 73.622
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.622(i), the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments under Alabama, is amended by adding channel *39 and removing channel *10 at Birmingham.

            Federal Communications Commission.

            Clay C. Pendarvis,
            Associate Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2010-1251 Filed 1-21-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AI26
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Critical Habitat Designation for Four Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants in California and Southern Oregon

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period for the proposed rule and economic analysis to designate critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for four vernal pool crustaceans and eleven vernal pool plants in 36 counties in California and one county in Oregon. We are reopening the comment period for the proposed rule and the draft economic analysis to allow interested parties additional time to submit comments and information to us for our consideration in making the final determination of critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this re-opening of the comment period, and will be fully considered in the final rule.

          DATES:
          We will accept comments on the proposed critical habitat designation and the economic analysis until March 28, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments and information should be submitted to Wayne White, Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage, Room W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825. Written comments may also be sent by fax to 916/414-6710 or hand-delivered to our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at the above address. You may also send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to fw1_vernalpool@fws.gov.

          You may view comments and materials received , as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, by appointment, during normal business hours in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at the above address. You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and the draft economic analysis from the above address, by calling (916) 414-6600, or from our Web site at http://sacramento.fws.gov/.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Arnold Roessler or Susan Moore, at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office address above (telephone (916) 414-6600; facsimile (916) 414-6710).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On September 24, 2002, we published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for four vernal pool crustaceans and eleven vernal pool plants (67 FR 59884). The four vernal pool crustaceans involved in this critical habitat designation are the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi). The eleven vernal pool plant species are Butte County meadowfoam (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica), Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens), Hoover's spurge (Chamaesyce hooveri), succulent (or fleshy) owl's-clover (Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta), Colusa grass (Neostapfia colusana), Greene's tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei), hairy Orcutt grass (Orcuttia pilosa), Sacramento Orcutt grass (Orcuttia viscida), San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis), slender Orcutt grass (Orcuttia tenuis), and Solano grass (Tuctoria mucronata). We proposed a total of 128 units of critical habitat for these 15 species, totaling approximately 672,920 hectares (ha) (1,662,762 acres (ac)) in 36 counties in California and one county in Oregon. All the species listed above live in vernal pools (shallow depressions that hold water seasonally), swales (shallow drainages that carry water seasonally), and ephemeral freshwater habitats. None are known to occur in riverine waters, marine waters, or other permanent bodies of water. The vernal pool habitats of these species have a discontinuous distribution west of the Sierra Nevada that extends from southern Oregon through California into northern Baja California, Mexico. The species have all adapted to the generally mild climate and seasonal periods of inundation and drying which help make the vernal pool ecosystems of California and southern Oregon unique. Critical habitat receives protection from destruction or adverse modification through required consultation under section 7 of the Act with regards to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the Interior shall designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
        The public comment period for the September 24, 2002, proposal originally closed on November 25, 2002, and was extended by the November 21, 2002, notice of availability of the draft economic analysis to close on December 23, 2002. The draft economic analysis estimates the foreseeable economic impacts of the critical habitat designation on government agencies and private businesses and individuals. The Service will not make any final decisions about exclusions based on economic impact, until it has obtained public comment on the economic analysis and produced an addendum to the economic analysis containing its final conclusions. The Service is interested in comments from the public on the economic analysis, on whether any of the areas identified in the economic analysis as having economic effects should be excluded for economic reasons, and whether those or any other areas should be excluded for other reasons.

        For further information regarding background biological information on the 15 vernal pool species, please refer to our proposed rule published in the Federal Register on September 24, 2002, (67 FR 59884).
        Public Comments Solicited

        We solicit additional information and comments that may assist us in making a final decision on the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the four vernal pool crustaceans and eleven vernal pool plants. We intend that any final action resulting from our proposal will be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we are reopening the comment period to solicit additional information from the general public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:

        (1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including whether the benefits of designation will outweigh any threats to the species due to designation and whether areas under consideration require additional special management;
        (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of any of the vernal pool crustaceans or vernal pool plants and what habitat is essential to the conservation of these species and why;
        (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat; in particular, in Oregon, we seek information related to potential of selected parcels to contribute to the species recovery, considering their zoning, adjacent land uses, watershed integrity, and potential for edge effects (related to shape of parcel);
        (4) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat, in particular, any impacts on small entities or families;

        (5) Economic and other values associated with designating critical habitat for vernal pool crustaceans and vernal pool plants such as those derived from non-consumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping, bird-watching, enhanced watershed protection, improved air quality, increased soil retention, “existence values,” and reductions in administrative costs);
        (6) Whether any areas should be excluded pursuant to section 4(b)(2);
        (7) Whether our approach to critical habitat designation could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concern and comments; and
        (8) Assumptions reflected in the economic analysis regarding land use practices and current, planned, or reasonably foreseeable activities in the subject areas, including comments or information relating to the potential effects that the designation could have on private landowners as a result of actual or foreseeable State and local government responses due to the California Environmental Quality Act.

        If you wish to comment on this proposed rule, you may submit your comments and materials by any one of several methods (see
          ADDRESSES). Please submit electronic mail comments as an ASCII file and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: Vernal Pool Critical Habitat” and your name and return address in your electronic message. Please note that the electronic address fw1_vernalpool@fws.gov will be closed out at the termination of the public comment period. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your electronic message, contact us directly by calling our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at phone number (916) 414-6600.
        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. To the extent consistent with applicable law, we will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be made available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

        The comment period, which originally closed on December 23, 2002 (67 FR 70202), will now close on the date specified above in the DATES section.
        Author
        The primary author of this notice is Susan Moore, (see
          ADDRESSES section).

          Authority:

          The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: March 7, 2003.
          Craig Manson,
          Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 03-6370 Filed 3-12-03; 4:45 pm]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AU30
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Southern California Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana muscosa)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the southern California distinct vertebrate population segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa), and the availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat. The draft economic analysis estimates the potential total future impacts, including costs resulting from modifications to fishing and other types of activities, to range from $11.4 million to $12.9 million (undiscounted) over 20 years. Discounted future costs are estimated to be $7.5 million to $8.9 million over this same time period ($704,000 to $842,000 annually) using a real rate of seven percent, or $9.3 million to $10.8 million ($626,000 to $725,000 annually) using a real rate of three percent. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously submitted on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they have already been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in our final determination.

          DATES:
          We will accept public comments and information until July 24, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments and materials may be submitted to us by any one of the following methods:
          1. You may submit written comments and information to Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011.
          2. You may hand-deliver written comments and information to our Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the above address.
          3. You may fax your comments to 760/431-9624.

          4. You may send your comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to FW1CFWO_MYLFPCH@fws.gov. For directions on how to submit e-mail comments, see the “Public Comments Solicited” section.

          5. You may submit comments via the Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, at the address listed in ADDRESSES (telephone 760/431-9440; facsimile 760/431-9624).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments Solicited

        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period. We solicit comments on the original proposed critical habitat designation, published in the Federal Register on September 13, 2005 (70 FR 54106), and on our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:
        (1) Specific information on the southern California distinct vertebrate population segment (DPS) of the mountain yellow-legged frog, such as the locations of known occurrences of individuals or subpopulations; the dispersal behavior and distances of adults, juveniles and tadpoles; the developmental time of tadpoles and their habitat requirements throughout the year; genetic information on the mountain yellow-legged frog;, recreation impacts; and impacts of non-native predators;

        (2) The reasons any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether it is prudent to designate critical habitat;
        (3) Specific information as to whether the physical and biological features we have identified as being essential to the conservation of the frog are accurate and whether they exist on those areas we have identified as occupied;
        (4) If those unoccupied areas proposed to be designated are all essential to the conservation to the species;
        (5) Whether the benefit of exclusion of any particular area outweighs the benefit of inclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in particular the lands proposed for exclusion in the proposed rule (non-Federal lands within existing Public/Quasi Public (PQP) lands, proposed conceptual reserve design lands, and lands targeted for conservation within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan);
        (6) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
        (7) Information on any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any impacts on small entities or families;
        (8) Information on whether the draft economic analysis identifies all State and local costs attributable to the proposed critical habitat designation. If not, what other costs should be included;
        (9) Information on whether the draft economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a result of the listing of the species or the designation of critical habitat;
        (10) Information on whether the draft economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on regional costs associated with land- and water-use controls that may derive from the designation of critical habitat;
        (11) Information on whether the designation will result in disproportionate economic impacts to specific areas that should be evaluated for possible exclusion from any final critical habitat designation;
        (12) Information on whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all costs that could result from the critical habitat designation;
        (13) Information on whether there are areas that could be used as substitutes for the economic activities planned in critical habitat areas that would offset the costs and allow for the conservation of critical habitat areas; and
        (14) Information on whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments.

        All previous comments and information submitted during the initial comment period on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES section). Our final determination concerning designation of critical habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog will take into consideration all comments and any additional information received during both comment periods. On the basis of public comment on the critical habitat proposal, the draft economic analysis, and the final economic analysis, we may during the development of our final determination find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.

        If you wish to submit comments electronically, please submit them in an ASCII format and avoid the use of any special characters or any form of encryption. Also, please include “Attn: Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or submit your comments in writing using one of the alternate methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. Please note that the Internet address FW1CFWO_MYLFPCH@fws.gov will be closed at the termination of the public comment period.
        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments, but you should be aware that the Service may be required to disclose your name and address pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

        Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Copies of the proposed critical habitat rule for the mountain yellow-legged frog and the draft economic analysis are also available on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad. In the event that our Internet connection is not functional, please obtain copies of documents directly from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.
        Background
        On September 13, 2005, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (70 FR 54106) to designate critical habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog. We identified approximately 8,770 acres (ac) (3,549 hectares (ha)) of streams and riparian areas in southern California as containing features essential to the conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog. From this total, we proposed approximately 8,283 ac (3,352 ha) for designation as critical habitat in three units, including 14 subunits, in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties, California. Approximately 96 percent of the proposed lands are under Federal ownership on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands, and the remaining lands are split between State and private ownership. Approximately 487 ac (197 ha) of non-Federal lands covered under the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) in Riverside County contain features essential to the conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog and are proposed for exclusion pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The first comment period for the proposed critical habitat rule closed on November 14, 2005. For more information on this species, refer to the final rule listing this species as endangered, published in the Federal Register on July 2, 2002 (67 FR 44382).
        Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact to national security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We have prepared a draft economic analysis of the September 13, 2005 (70 FR 54106), proposed designation of critical habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog.
        The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic effects of actions relating to the conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including those attributable to designating critical habitat. It further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation for the mountain yellow-legged frog in areas containing features essential to the conservation of this species. The analysis considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures (e.g., lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). This analysis also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on small entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. Finally, this analysis looks retrospectively at costs that have been incurred since the date the species was listed as an endangered species and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years following the designation of critical habitat.
        Frog conservation activities are likely to primarily impact recreational activities, including trout fishing, hiking, camping, and rock climbing in the Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests. In particular, significant uncertainty exists regarding the potential impact to trout fishing. As a result, the draft economic analysis applies two methodologies to put upper and lower bounds on the range of potential costs. The lower-bound estimate assumes that anglers' overall welfare is unaffected, because numerous substitute fishing sites exist. The upper-bound estimate assumes that fishing trips currently taken to streams in essential habitat are foregone and not substituted elsewhere. The actual impact likely falls between these two bounds. The draft economic analysis assumes that the probability distribution of impacts between these bounds is continuous, and the distribution is not skewed toward either bound. With these two assumptions, the average of the two estimates represents the best estimate of trout fishing impacts.
        Total future impacts, including costs resulting from modifications to fishing and other types of activities, range from $11.4 million to $12.9 million (undiscounted) over 20 years. Assuming a three percent discount rate, present value impacts range from $9.3 million to $10.8 million over the 20-year period, or an annualized impact of $626,000 to $725,000. Assuming a seven percent discount rate, present value impacts range from $7.5 million to $8.9 million over the 20-year period, or an annualized impact of $704,000 to $842,000. Impacts are dominated by welfare losses and other costs related to recreational fishing, accounting for over 50 percent of the total impact. Lost fishing opportunities occur in Big Rock Creek, South Fork (Subunit 1B), Little Rock Creek (Subunit 1C), and San Jacinto River, North Fork (Subunit 3A). The costs of modifications to fire management practices, costs of modifying hiking trails, and welfare losses to rock climbers resulting from a temporary closure of Williamson Rock in the area of Little Rock Creek (Subunit 1C) account for approximately 30 and 40 percent of the total impact.
        Required Determinations—Amended
        Regulatory Planning and Review

        In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues. However, because the draft economic analysis indicates the potential economic impact associated with a designation of all habitat with features essential to the conservation of this species would total no more than $842,000 per year, applying a seven percent discount rate, we do not anticipate that this final rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the time line for publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not formally review the proposed rule.

        Further, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal Agencies promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to Circular A-4, once it has been determined that the Federal regulatory action is appropriate, the agency will need to consider alternative regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical habitat is a statutory requirement pursuant to the Act, we must then evaluate alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when promulgating a designation of critical habitat.
        In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from the designation of critical habitat providing that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species. As such, we believe that the evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in a designation constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (e.g., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposed rule, we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation so that we would have the factual basis for our determination.
        According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
        To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., recreational fishing, hiking, rock climbing, and residential development). We considered each industry or category individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are not affected by the designation.
        If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final, Federal agencies must consult with us if their activities may affect designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process.
        Our draft economic analysis determined that costs involving conservation measures for the mountain yellow-legged frog would be incurred for activities involving: (1) Recreational trout fishing activities; (2) recreational hiking activities; (3) recreational rock climbing activities; (4) residential development activities; (5) fire management activities; and (6) other activities on Federal lands. Of these six categories, impacts of frog conservation are not anticipated to affect small entities in three of these categories: Residential development, fire management, and other activities on Federal lands. As stated in our economic analysis, residential development is unlikely to be impacted by frog conservation activities for several reasons, including the unsuitability of large-scale development of these private lands due to their location in mountainous areas and the easy incorporation into building designs of a 50-foot buffer around streams to protect mountain yellow-legged frog habitat. Further, since neither Federal nor State governments are defined as small entities by the Small Business Administration (SBA), the economic impacts borne by the USFS and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) resulting from implementation of frog conservation activities or modifications to activities on Federal lands, including installation of signs and relocation of hiking trails, fire suppression efforts, monitoring recreational mining activity, development of hazardous spills management plans, and surveying and monitoring activities, are not relevant to the SBRFA analysis. The total miles of hiking trails potentially affected by frog conservation activities represent a small percentage, less than three percent, of the total miles of hiking trails available to National Forest visitors. Therefore, the draft economic analysis assumes that adequate substitute hiking trails are available to offset potential restrictions placed on recreational hiking within critical habitat and does not estimate any welfare losses to recreational hikers. Accordingly, the small business analysis focuses on economic impacts to recreational trout fishing and rock climbing activities.

        The draft economic analysis considers two scenarios to bound the range of potential economic impacts on recreational trout fishing activities. Under the first scenario—the lower- bound estimate—-future costs are limited to compliance costs associated with installing fish barriers and removing nonnative trout. The directly regulated entities under this scenario include the USFS and CDFG, both of which are large government agencies. As a result, the directly affected entities are not subject to this SBRFA analysis. Under the second scenario—the upper-bound estimate—economic impacts are also estimated for recreational trout anglers whose activities may be interrupted by frog conservation activities resulting in a decrease in the number of trout fishing trips. This second scenario concludes that fishing trips may decrease by as many as 7,100 to 14,300 trips per year. If fewer recreational fishing trips occur to areas within critical habitat, local establishments providing services to anglers may be indirectly affected by mountain yellow-legged frog conservation activities. Decreased visitation may reduce the amount of money spent in the region across a variety of industries, including food and beverage stores, food service and drinking places, accommodations, transportation and rental services.

        The draft economic analysis uses regional economic modeling—in particular a software package called IMPLAN—to estimate the total economic effects of the reduction in economic activity in recreational fishing-related industries in the counties (Los Angeles and Riverside Counties) associated with mountain yellow-legged frog conservation activities. Based on the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation for California, average expenditures per fishing trip are approximately $38 (in 2005 dollars), with the bulk of these expenditures occurring in the food service and gasoline industries. This per-trip estimate of expenditures is combined with the number of fishing trips potentially lost due to frog conservation activities (7,100 to 14,300 trips per year) to estimate total expenditures of $271,000 to $543,000 due to recreational trout fishing in proposed critical habitat areas. According to IMPLAN, these recreational fishing-related expenditures contribute between $471,000 and $943,000 per year to the regional economy. When compared to the total output of the industry sectors directly impacted by these expenditures (e.g., groceries, restaurants, gasoline stations, and lodging) in the regional economy of Los Angeles and Riverside Counties (or $29.4 billion), the potential loss generated by a decrease in recreational trout fishing trips is less than one-hundredth of one percent.
        The economic analysis also estimates welfare losses to rock climbers as the result of a temporary 1-year closure of Williamson Rock, adjacent to Little Rock Creek (Subunit 1C) in Los Angeles County. The analysis concludes that a 1-year closure will result in the loss of approximately 10,600 to 14,600 rock climbing trips in 2006. If fewer rock climbing trips occur to areas within proposed critical habitat, local establishments providing services to rock climbers may be indirectly affected by frog conservation activities. Decreased visitation may reduce the amount of money spent in the region across a variety of industries, including food and beverage stores, food service and drinking places, and gas and transportation services.
        To determine the potential regional economic impacts of decreases in rock climbing trips, the draft economic analysis again used IMPLAN to quantify the dollar value of goods and services produced and employment generated by consumer expenditures. Ideally, this analysis would develop and use a per-trip estimate of expenditures for rock climbing based on the existing economics literature. However, no such data are available. Instead, this analysis uses the average expenditures of approximately $26.23 per trip reported by the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation for California. This per-trip estimate of expenditures is then combined with the number of rock climbing trips potentially lost due to frog conservation activities (a 1-year loss of 10,600 to 14,600 trips per year) to estimate total expenditures of $278,000 to $382,000 due to rock climbing in proposed critical habitat areas. According to IMPLAN, these rock climbing-related expenditures contribute between $480,000 and $660,000 per year to the regional economy. When compared to the total output of the industry sectors directly impacted by these expenditures (e.g., groceries, restaurants, and gasoline stations) in the regional economy of Los Angeles County (or $21.6 billion), the potential loss generated by a decrease in rock climbing trips is less than one-hundredth of one percent.
        We may exclude areas from the final designation if it is determined that designation of critical habitat in these localized areas would have an impact to a substantial number of businesses and a significant proportion of their annual revenues. Based on the above data, we have determined that this proposed designation would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As such, we are certifying that this proposed designation of critical habitat would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Please refer to Appendix A of our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts to small business entities.
        Executive Order 13211
        On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 because it raises novel legal and policy issues. On the basis of our draft economic analysis, the proposed critical habitat designation is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. Please refer to Appendix A of our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation for a more detailed discussion of potential effects on energy supply.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
        In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), the Service makes the following findings:
        (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, Tribal governments, or the private sector and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”

        The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above on to State governments.
        (b) The draft economic analysis does not identify or examine small governments that fall within proposed critical habitat because there were no estimates of impacts to small governments. Consequently, we do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
        Takings
        In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (“Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights”), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of proposing critical habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog. Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. In conclusion, the designation of critical habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog does not pose significant takings implications.
        Author

        The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: June 26, 2006.
          Matt Hogan,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. E6-10458 Filed 6-30-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 544
        [Docket No.: NHTSA-2004-17217]
        RIN 2127-AJ29
        Insurer Reporting Requirements; List of Insurers Required To File Reports

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document proposes to amend appendices A, B, and C of 49 CFR part 544, insurer reporting requirements. The appendices list those passenger motor vehicle insurers that are required to file reports on their motor vehicle theft loss experiences. An insurer included in any of these appendices would be required to file three copies of its report for the 2001 calendar year before October 25, 2004. If the passenger motor vehicle insurers remain listed, they must submit reports by each subsequent October 25.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted not later than June 8, 2004. Insurers listed in the appendices are required to submit reports on or before October 25, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by docket number: NHTSA-2004-17217 and/or RIN number: 2127-AJ29, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Protal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Agency Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Docket Management System.
          • Fax: (202) 493-2251
          • Mail: Dockets, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: Plaza Level Room 401, (PL #401), of Nassif Building, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 1-800-647-5527
          You may visit the Docket from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Rosalind Proctor, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, by electronic mail to rproctor@nhtsa.dot.gov. Ms. Proctor's telephone number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background
        Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33112, Insurer reports and information, NHTSA requires certain passenger motor vehicle insurers to file an annual report with the agency. Each insurer's report includes information about thefts and recoveries of motor vehicles, the rating rules used by the insurer to establish premiums for comprehensive coverage, the actions taken by the insurer to reduce such premiums, and the actions taken by the insurer to reduce or deter theft. Under the agency's regulation, 49 CFR part 544, the following insurers are subject to the reporting requirements:
        (1) Issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose total premiums account for 1 percent or more of the total premiums of motor vehicle insurance issued within the United States;
        (2) Issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose premiums account for 10 percent or more of total premiums written within any one state; and
        (3) Rental and leasing companies with a fleet of 20 or more vehicles not covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers of motor vehicles, other than any governmental entity.
        Pursuant to its statutory exemption authority, the agency exempted certain passenger motor vehicle insurers from the reporting requirements.
        A. Small Insurers of Passenger Motor Vehicles
        Section 33112(f)(2) provides that the agency shall exempt small insurers of passenger motor vehicles if NHTSA finds that such exemptions will not significantly affect the validity or usefulness of the information in the reports, either nationally or on a state-by-state basis. The term “small insurer” is defined, in section 33112(f)(1)(A) and (B), as an insurer whose premiums for motor vehicle insurance issued directly or through an affiliate, including pooling arrangements established under state law or regulation for the issuance of motor vehicle insurance, account for less than 1 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the United States. However, that section also stipulates that if an insurance company satisfies this definition of a “small insurer,” but accounts for 10 percent or more of the total premiums for all motor vehicle insurance issued in a particular state, the insurer must report about its operations in that state.
        In the final rule establishing the insurer reports requirement (52 FR 59; January 2, 1987), 49 CFR part 544, NHTSA exercised its exemption authority by listing in appendix A each insurer that must report because it had at least 1 percent of the motor vehicle insurance premiums nationally. Listing the insurers subject to reporting, instead of each insurer exempted from reporting because it had less than 1 percent of the premiums nationally, is administratively simpler since the former group is much smaller than the latter. In appendix B, NHTSA lists those insurers required to report for particular states because each insurer had a 10 percent or greater market share of motor vehicle premiums in those states. In the January 1987 final rule, the agency stated that it would update appendices A and B annually. NHTSA updates the appendices based on data voluntarily provided by insurance companies to A.M. Best, which A.M. Best,1
           publishes in its State/Line Report each spring. The agency uses the data to determine the insurers' market shares nationally and in each state.

            1 A.M. Best Company is a well-recognized source of insurance company ratings and information. 49 U.S.C. 33112(i) authorizes NHTSA to consult with public and private organizations as necessary.

        B. Self-Insured Rental and Leasing Companies

        In addition, upon making certain determinations, NHTSA grants exemptions to self-insurers, i.e., any person who has a fleet of 20 or more motor vehicles (other than any governmental entity) used for rental or lease whose vehicles are not covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers of passenger motor vehicles, 49 U.S.C. 33112(b)(1) and (f). Under 49 U.S.C. 33112(e)(1) and (2), NHTSA may exempt a self-insurer from reporting, if the agency determines:
        (1) The cost of preparing and furnishing such reports is excessive in relation to the size of the business of the insurer; and 33112(e)(1) and (2),
        (2) The insurer's report will not significantly contribute to carrying out the purposes of Chapter 331.

        In a final rule published June 22, 1990 (55 FR 25606), the agency granted a class exemption to all companies that rent or lease fewer than 50,000 vehicles, because it believed that the largest companies' reports sufficiently represent the theft experience of rental and leasing companies. NHTSA concluded that smaller rental and leasing companies' reports do not significantly contribute to carrying out NHTSA's statutory obligations and that exempting such companies will relieve an unnecessary burden on them. As a result of the June 1990 final rule, the agency added appendix C, consisting of an annually updated list of the self-insurers subject to part 544. Following the same approach as in appendix A, NHTSA included, in appendix C, each of the self-insurers subject to reporting instead of the self-insurers which are exempted. NHTSA updates appendix C based primarily on information from Automotive Fleet Magazine and Business Travel News.
          2

            2 Automotive Fleet Magazine and Business Travel News are publications that provide information on the size of fleets and market share of rental and leasing companies.

        C. When a Listed Insurer Must File a Report
        Under part 544, as long as an insurer is listed, it must file reports on or before October 25 of each year. Thus, any insurer listed in the appendices must file a report by October 25, and by each succeeding October 25, absent an amendment removing the insurer's name from the appendices.
        II. Proposal
        1. Insurers of Passenger Motor Vehicles
        Appendix A lists insurers that must report because each had 1 percent of the motor vehicle insurance premiums on a national basis. The list was last amended in a final rule published on October 14, 2003 (68 FR 59132). Based on the 2001 calendar year data market shares from A.M. Best, we propose to make no changes to appendix A.
        Each of the 19 insurers listed in appendix A are required to file a report before October 25, 2004, setting forth the information required by part 544 for each State in which it did business in the 2001 calendar year. As long as these 19 insurers remain listed, they will be required to submit reports by each subsequent October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before.
        Appendix B lists insurers required to report for particular States for calendar year 2001, because each insurer had a 10 percent or greater market share of motor vehicle premiums in those States. Based on the 2001 calendar year data for market shares from A.M. Best, we propose to make no changes to appendix B.
        The eight insurers listed in appendix B are required to report on their calendar year 2001 activities in every State where they had a 10 percent or greater market share.

        These reports must be filed by October 25, 2004, and set forth the information required by part 544. As long as these eight insurers remain listed, they would be required to submit reports on or before each subsequent October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before.
        2. Rental and Leasing Companies

        Appendix C lists rental and leasing companies required to file reports. Based on information in Automotive Fleet Magazine and Business Travel News for 2000, NHTSA proposes to add ANC Rental Corporation and remove Associates Leasing Inc., and the Consolidated Service Corporation. Each of the 17 companies (including franchisees and licensees) listed in appendix C would be required to file reports for calendar year 2001 no later than October 25, 2004, and set forth the information required by part 544. As long as those 17 companies remain listed, they would be required to submit reports before each subsequent October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before.
        III. Regulatory Impacts
        1. Costs and Other Impacts
        This notice has not been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. NHTSA has considered the impact of this proposed rule and determined that the action is not “significant” within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This proposed rule implements the agency's policy of ensuring that all insurance companies that are statutorily eligible for exemption from the insurer reporting requirements are in fact exempted from those requirements. Only those companies that are not statutorily eligible for an exemption are required to file reports.

        NHTSA does not believe that this proposed rule, reflecting current data, affects the impacts described in the final regulatory evaluation prepared for the final rule establishing part 544 (52 FR 59; January 2, 1987). Accordingly, a separate regulatory evaluation has not been prepared for this rulemaking action. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for 2003 (see http://www.bls.gov/cpi), the cost estimates in the 1987 final regulatory evaluation were adjusted for inflation. The agency estimates that the cost of compliance is $92,000 for any insurer added to appendix A, $36,800 for any insurer added to appendix B, and $10,616.80 for any insurer added to appendix C. If this proposed rule is made final, for appendix A, the agency would propose no change; for appendix B, the agency would propose no change; and for appendix C, the agency would propose to add one company and remove two companies. The agency estimates that the net effect of this proposal, if made final, would be a cost decrease to insurers, as a group of approximately $10,616.80.Interested persons may wish to examine the 1987 final regulatory evaluation. Copies of that evaluation were placed in Docket No. T86-01; Notice 2. Any interested person may obtain a copy of this evaluation by writing to NHTSA, Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or by calling (202) 366-4949.
        2. Paperwork Reduction Act

        The information collection requirements in this proposed rule were submitted and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This collection of information is assigned OMB Control Number 2127-0547 (“Insurer Reporting Requirements”) and approved for use through July 31, 2006, and the agency will seek to extend the approval afterwards.
        3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The agency also considered the effects of this rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale for the certification is that none of the companies proposed for appendices A, B, or C are construed to be a small entity within the definition of the RFA. “Small insurer” is defined, in part under 49 U.S.C. 33112, as any insurer whose premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance account for less than 1 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the United States, or any insurer whose premiums within any State, account for less than 10 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the State. This notice would exempt all insurers meeting those criteria. Any insurer too large to meet those criteria is not a small entity. In addition, in this rulemaking, the agency proposes to exempt all “self insured rental and leasing companies” that have fleets of fewer than 50,000 vehicles. Any self insured rental and leasing company too large to meet that criterion is not a small entity.
        4. Federalism
        This action has been analyzed according to the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined that the proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
        5. Environmental Impacts
        In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, NHTSA has considered the environmental impacts of this proposed rule and determined that it would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
        6. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
        The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading, at the beginning, of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
        7. 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 includes consideration of the following questions:
        • Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
        • Are the requirements in the proposal clearly stated?
        • Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
        • 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 proposal easier to understand?
        If you have any responses to these questions, you can forward them to me several ways:
        a. Mail: Rosalind Proctor, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590;
        b. E-mail: rproctor@nhtsa.dot.gov; or
        c. Fax: (202) 493-2290.
        IV. Comments
        Submission of Comments
        1. How Can I Influence NHTSA's Thinking on This Proposed Rule?

        In developing our rules, NHTSA tries to address the concerns of all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rule. We invite you to provide views on our proposal, new data, a discussion of the effects of this proposal on you, or other relevant information. We welcome your views on all aspects of this proposed rule. Your comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below:
        • Explain your views and reasoning clearly.
        • Provide solid technical and cost data to support your views.
        • If you estimate potential costs, explain how you derived the estimate.
        • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
        • Offer specific alternatives.
        • Include the name, date, and docket number with your comments.
        2. How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
        Your comments must be written 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 exceed 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments concisely. You may attach necessary documents to your comments. We have no limit on the attachments' length.

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

        Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Dockets Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on “Help & Information” or “Help/Info” to obtain instructions for filling the document electronically.
        3. 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 mail the postcard.
        4. How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

        If you wish to submit any information under a confidentiality claim, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim as confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter addressing the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
        5. Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

        NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above 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.
        6. How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

        You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated above, in the same location. You may also see 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 beginning of this document. Example: If the docket number was “NHTSA 1998-1234,” you would type “1234.” After typing the docket number, click on “search.”
        4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. The “pdf” versions of the documents are word searchable.
        V. Conclusion
        Based on the foregoing, we are proposing to amend appendices A, B, and C of 49 CFR part 544, insurer reporting requirements.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 544
          Crime insurance, insurance, insurance companies, motor vehicles, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 544 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 544—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 544 is proposed to read as follows:

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 33112; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          2. Paragraph (a) of § 544.5 is proposed to read as follows:

            § 544.5
            General requirements for reports.

            (a) Each insurer to which this part applies shall submit a report annually before October 25, beginning on October 25, 1986. This report shall contain the information required by § 544.6 of this part for the calendar year 3 years previous to the year in which the report is filed (e.g., the report due by October 25, 2004 will contain the required information for the 2001 calendar year).

            3. Appendix A to part 544 is proposed to read as follows:
            Appendix A—Insurers of Motor Vehicle Insurance Policies Subject to the Reporting Requirements in Each State in Which They Do Business

              Allstate Insurance Group
              American Family Insurance Group
              American International Group
              California State Auto Association
              CGU Group
              CNA Insurance Companies
              Erie Insurance Group
              Berkshire Hathaway/GEICO Corporation Group
              Great American P & C Group
              Hartford Insurance Group
              Liberty Mutual Insurance Companies
              Metropolitan Life Auto & Home Group
              Nationwide Group
              Progressive Group
              SAFECO Insurance Companies
              State Farm Group
              Travelers/Citigroup Company
              USAA Group
              Farmers Insurance Group

            4. Appendix B to part 544 is proposed to read as follows:
            Appendix B—Issuers of Motor Vehicle Insurance Policies Subject to the Reporting Requirements Only in Designated States

              Alfa Insurance Group (Alabama)
              Arbella Mutual Insurance (Massachusetts)
              Auto Club (Michigan)
              Commerce Group, Inc. (Massachusetts)
              Kentucky Farm Bureau Group (Kentucky)
              New Jersey Manufacturers Group (New Jersey)
              Southern Farm Bureau Group (Arkansas, Mississippi)
              Tennessee Farmers Companies (Tennessee)

            5. Appendix C to part 544 is proposed to read as follows:

            Appendix C—Motor Vehicle Rental and Leasing Companies (Including Licensees and Franchisees) Subject to the Reporting Requirements of Part 544

              Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc.
              ANC Rental Corporation 3

                  3 Indicates a newly listed company, which must file a report beginning with the report due October 25, 2004.

              ARI (Automotive Resources International)
              Avis, Rent-A-Car, Inc.
              Budget Rent-A-Car Corporation
              Dollar Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc.
              Donlen Corporation
              Enterprise Rent-A-Car
              GE Capital Fleet Services
              Hertz Rent-A-Car Division (subsidiary of The Hertz Corporation)
              Lease Plan USA, Inc.
              National Car Rental System, Inc.
              PHH Vehicle Management Services/PHH Arval
              Ryder TRS
              Thrifty Rental Car System Inc.
              U-Haul International, Inc. (Subsidiary of AMERCO)
              Wheels Inc.

            Issued on: April 1, 2004.
            Stephen R. Kratzke,
            Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 04-7794 Filed 4-8-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 150126074-5074-01]
        RIN 0648-XD742
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Bluefish Fishery; 2015 Atlantic Bluefish Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed specifications; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes specifications for the 2015 Atlantic bluefish fishery, including catch restrictions for commercial and recreational fisheries. This action is necessary to establish effective catch constraints for the fishing year consistent with regulatory and statutory requirements. The intent of this action is to establish the allowable 2015 harvest levels and other management measures to achieve the target fishing mortality rate, consistent with the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0048, by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0048, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to John Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

          Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publically accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Copies of the specifications document, including the Environmental Assessment and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/IRFA) and other supporting documents for the specifications, are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The specifications document is also accessible via the Internet at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Reid Lichwell, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9112.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Atlantic bluefish fishery is jointly managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission). The management unit for bluefish specified in the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) is U.S. waters of the western Atlantic Ocean. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and J. The regulations requiring annual specifications are found at § 648.162.
        The annual specifications process requires that the Council's Bluefish Monitoring Committee and its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) review the best available scientific information and make specification recommendations to the Council. These groups have reviewed the 2014 updated bluefish stock assessment, which is summarized in the Environmental Assessment and supporting documents. Based on the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee and SSC, the Council makes its specification recommendations to the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator. Because this FMP is a joint plan, the Commission also meets during the annual specification process to adopt complementary measures.

        The Council's recommendations must include supporting documentation concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations. NMFS is responsible for reviewing these recommendations to ensure that they achieve the FMP objectives and are consistent with applicable law. NMFS then conducts rulemaking through the Federal Register to propose measures, solicit public comment and publish final measures.

        Proposed Specifications
        Updated Model Estimates

        Overfishing for bluefish is defined as fishing mortality that exceeds the fishing mortality rate that allows maximum sustainable yield (FMSY), or when the maximum F threshold is exceeded. The stock is considered overfished if the biomass (B) falls below the minimum biomass threshold, defined as 1/2 BMSY. Amendment 1 to the FMP established that the long-term target F is 90 percent of FMSY (FMSY = 0.19; therefore Ftarget = 90 percent of FMSY, or 0.17), and the long-term target biomass is BMSY = 324 million lb (147,052 mt).

        The stock assessment model was updated in July 2014 in order to estimate the current status of the bluefish stock (i.e., 2013 biomass and F estimates). This update was used by the Monitoring Committee and the SSC to recommend 2015 specifications. The results of the assessment update were as follows: (1) An estimated stock biomass for 2013, B2013 = 273 million lb (123,716 mt); and (2) an estimated fishing mortality rate for 2013, F2013 = 0.118. Based on the updated 2013 estimate of bluefish stock biomass, the bluefish stock is not considered overfished: B2013 is less than BMSY, but well above the minimum biomass threshold of 162 million lb (73,526 mt). The updated model results also conclude that the Atlantic bluefish stock is not experiencing overfishing; i.e., the most recent F (F2013 = 0.118) is less than the maximum F overfishing threshold (FMSY = 0.19). Bluefish was declared rebuilt in 2009.
        Proposed 2015 Catch Limits
        Based upon the results of the assessment update and the Council's risk policy, the SSC recommended an acceptable biological catch (ABC) of 21.544 million lb (9,772 mt) for 2015. The Council recommended no deductions to account for management uncertainty; therefore, ABC=ACL=ACT. The ACT is initially allocated between the recreational fishery (83 percent) and the commercial fishery (17 percent). After deducting an estimate of recreational discards (commercial discards are considered negligible), the recreational harvest limit (RHL) would be 13.073 million lb (5,930 mt) and the commercial quota would be 5.119 million lb (2,322 mt).
        The FMP specifies that if 17 percent of the TAL is less than 10.500 million lb (4,763 mt), and the recreational fishery is not projected to land its harvest limit for the upcoming year, the commercial fishery may be allocated up to 10.500 million lb (4,763 mt) as its quota, provided that the combination of the projected recreational landings and the commercial quota does not exceed the TAL. Under such a scenario, the RHL would then be adjusted so that the TAL remains unchanged.
        The Council projected an estimated 2015 annual recreational harvest of 13.073 million lb (5,930 mt). As such, it is expected that a transfer of up to 1.460 million lb (662 mt) from the recreational sector to the commercial sector could be approved. This option represents the preferred alternative recommended by the Council. We intend to evaluate final Marine Recreational Information Program data regarding the 2014 recreational harvest as they become available. The 2015 transfer amount may be changed for the final rule depending on our analysis of the final 2014 recreational landings data. If such a change occurs, we will provide additional data and explanation in the final rule.
        The Council is not recommending allocating research set-aside quota for 2015; therefore, no additional adjustments to commercial or recreational allocations are needed. The final proposed commercial quota for 2015 is 5.119 million lb (2,322 mt), which would be a 31-percent decrease from 2014 (7.458 million lb, 3,383 mt), and the proposed RHL is 13.073 million lb (5,930 mt), which would be a 3-percent decrease from the 2014 RHL (13.52 million lb, 6,133 mt).
        Proposed Recreational Possession Limit
        NMFS proposes not to change the current recreational possession limit, consistent with the recommendation by the Council. This would maintain a daily recreational possession limit of up to 15 fish per person for 2015.
        Proposed State Commercial Allocations
        The proposed state commercial allocations for the recommended 2015 commercial quota are shown in Table 1, based on the percentages specified in the FMP. There were no states that exceeded their quota in 2014; therefore, no accountability measures are expected to be implemented for the 2015 fishing year.

          Table 1—Proposed Bluefish Commercial State-by-State Allocations for 2015

            State
            Percent share
            2015 Proposed commercial quota
              (lb)

            2015 Proposed commercial quota
              (kg)

            ME
            0.6685
            34,221
            15,522

            NH
            0.4145
            21,218
            9,624

            MA
            6.7167
            343,828
            155,958

            RI
            6.8081
            348,507
            158,080

            CT
            1.2663
            64,822
            29,402

            NY
            10.3851
            531,613
            241,136

            NJ
            14.8162
            758,441
            344,023

            DE
            1.8782
            96,145
            43,611

            MD
            3.0018
            153,662
            69,700

            VA
            11.8795
            608,112
            275,835

            NC
            32.0608
            1,641,192
            744,432

            SC
            0.0352
            1,802
            817

            GA
            0.0095
            486
            220

            FL
            10.0597
            514,956
            233,580

            Total
            100.0001
            5,119,134
            2,322,000

        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Bluefish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        These proposed specifications are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
        An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. The IRFA is summarized here.
        Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered
        A description of the action and why it is being considered are contained at the beginning of this preamble and in the SUMMARY.
        Statement of the Objective of, and Legal Basis for, This Proposed Rule
        The statement of the objective and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this preamble and in the SUMMARY.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which This Proposed Rule Would Apply
        The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business in the commercial harvesting sector as a firm with receipts (gross revenues) of up to $5.5 million for shellfish and $20.5 million for finfish businesses. A small business in the recreational fishery is a firm with receipts of up to $7.5 million.
        According to the 2011-2013 Northeast affiliate ownership database, 1,009 fishing businesses or affiliated firms (vessels grouped together by a common owner) landed bluefish during the 2011-2013 period, with 1,001 of those businesses categorized as small business and 8 categorized as large business. However, the affiliate database used to identify small/large business firms that have recently participated in the bluefish fishery does not contain detailed ownership data for business entities in the South Atlantic Region. As such, the South Atlantic Trip Ticket reports were used to identify vessels participating in the bluefish fishery within the region. The South Atlantic Trip Ticket reports identified 790 vessels that landed bluefish in North Carolina and 1,338 vessels that landed bluefish on Florida's east coast in 2013.1
           Bluefish landings in South Carolina and Georgia were near zero in 2013, representing a negligible proportion of the total bluefish landings along the Atlantic Coast. Therefore, this analysis assumed that no vessel activity for these two states took place in 2013. In recent years, approximately 2,000 party/charter vessels have been active in the bluefish fishery and/or have caught bluefish.

            1 Some of these vessels were also identified in the Northeast dealer data; therefore, double counting is possible.

        Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of This Proposed Rule
        There is no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action.
        Federal Rule Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This Proposed Rule
        NMFS is not aware of any relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
        Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statues and Which Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
        The small entities that could be affected by this action include any business entity holding an active Federal permit for Atlantic bluefish, as well as owners of vessels that fish for Atlantic bluefish in state waters. There were 1,009 Northeast fishing businesses that landed bluefish from 2011-2013, 1,001 are considered small business entities; there would be no disproportionate impacts between large and small entities as a result of the proposed rule. There are 765 vessels in North Carolina that landed bluefish quota from 2011-2013; on average those vessels generated 10.8% of their ex-vessel revenue from bluefish landings. There are 1,227 vessels in on the east coast of Florida that landed bluefish quota from 2011-2013; on average those vessels generated 0.83% of their ex-vessel revenue from bluefish landings.
        The IRFA in the Draft EA for this action addressed two alternatives (including a no action/status quo alternative) for the 2015 Atlantic bluefish fishing year. Both quota alternatives considered in this analysis are based on various commercial harvest levels for bluefish. For analysis of impacts of the No Action Alternative, the current commercial quota of 7.458 million lb (3,383 mt) and RHL of 13.523 million lb (6,134 mt) for 2014 would be maintained. For analysis of impacts of the Preferred Action Alternative, the transfer of 1.457 million lb (661 mt) from the recreational sector to the commercial sector was used. The calculated TAL, commercial quota and the RHL for the Preferred Alternative (Council's preferred) and the No Action Alternative are shown in Table 2.

          Table 2—Proposed 2015 Atlantic Bluefish Specification Alternatives for TAL, Commercial Quota, and RHL

            Year
            Alternatives
            TAL
            million lb
            mt
            Commercial quota
            million lb
            mt
            RHL
            million lb
            mt

            2015
            Preferred Action
            18.192
            8,252
            5.119
            2,322
            13.073
            5,930

            2015
            No Action
            21.081
            9,888
            7.458
            3,383
            13.523
            6,134

        Commercial Fishery Impacts
        To assess the impact of the alternatives on commercial fisheries, the Council conducted a threshold analysis and analysis of potential changes in ex-vessel gross revenue that would result from each alternative, using Northeast dealer reports and South Atlantic Trip Ticket reports.

        Under the No Action Alternative, the 2015 specifications would have no aggregate change in allowable commercial landings or RHL relative to the 2014 limits. As such, it is expected that no change in revenues or fishing opportunities would occur. The No Action Alternative would likely result in quota constraints for vessels in New York and Massachusetts; however, these quota constraints would not have an economic impact due to the ability to transfer quota from state to state.
        Under the Preferred Alternative, 57 business entities were projected to incur revenue losses of 5 percent or more, 944 entities were projected to incur losses of less than 5 percent in 2015. Under Alternative 2 (non-preferred), 87 business entities were projected to incur revenue losses of 5 percent or more, 914 entities were projected to incur losses of less than 5 percent in 2015. For both alternatives, the majority of vessels with greater than 5 percent of revenue losses had total gross sales of $10,000 or less (average for all possible species combined not just bluefish in 2011-2013), which may indicate that the dependence on fishing for some of these vessels is small.
        The South Atlantic Trip Ticket Report data indicated that 765 vessels landed commercial bluefish quota in North Carolina from 2011-2013. On average, these vessels generated 10.8% of their total ex-vessel revenue from bluefish landings. The commercial landings are projected to decrease as a consequence of the 2015 allocation when compared to the 2014 allocation by approximately 31.4% under the Preferred Alternative and 50.9% under Alternative 2. On average, reduction in revenues due to the potential decrease in landings associated with the 2015 quota compared to the 2014 quota are expected to be approximately 3.4% for the Preferred Alternative and 5.5% for Alternative 2, for fishermen that land bluefish in North Carolina.
        In Florida, 1,227 vessels landed bluefish from 2011-2013, and 0.83% of their total ex-vessel revenue was generated from bluefish landings. On average, reduction in revenues due to the potential decrease in landings associated with the 2015 quota compared to the 2014 quota are expected to be approximately 0.3% for the Preferred Alternative and 0.4% for Alternative 2, for fishermen that land bluefish in Florida.
        If commercial quota is transferred from a state or states that do not land their entire bluefish quota for 2015, as was done in frequently in previous years, the number of affected entities could change. Transfers could lessen the adverse economic impact on vessels landing in the state(s) receiving quota transfers for both alternatives. Such transfers cannot be predicted or projected, as each occurs on a case by case agreement between states.
        Recreational Fishery Impacts
        It is very difficult to calculate the economic value of recreational fisheries. However, the Preferred Action Alternative RHL (13.073 million lb, 5,930 mt) is approximately 15 percent below the recreational landings for 2013 (15.388 million lb, 6,980 mt). Under the No Action Alternative, the recommended RHL for the recreational sector (13.523 million lb, 6,134 mt) is approximately 13 percent below the recreational landings for 2013 (15.388 million lb, 6,980 mt), and the RHL for Alternative 2 (14.530 million lb, 6, 591 mt) is approximately 5.5 percent below the recreational landings for 2013.
        While the proposed recreational harvest limit under the Preferred Alternative for 2015 is lower than the limit implemented in 2014 (13.523 million lb) and 2013 recreational landings (15.388 million lb), the projected landings for 2015 are expected to be similar to the proposed limit under this alternative. Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed RHL will not limit recreational catch or negatively impact recreational fishing revenue. It is not anticipated that this management measure will have any negative effects on recreational fishermen or affect the demand for party/charter boat trips. This alternative is not expected to significantly affect angler satisfaction nor expected to result in landings in excess of the recreational harvest limit. Overall, it is not expected that the final recreational management measures will significantly affect gross revenues of businesses providing goods and services to anglers participating in the party/charter boat, private/rental boat, and shore fisheries for bluefish.

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

          Dated: April 17, 2015.
          Eileen Sobeck,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-09684 Filed 4-24-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P