        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-00-8248]
        RIN No. 2127-AF36
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Fuel System Integrity

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

          ACTION:
          Extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          This document grants a request to extend the comment period on an agency proposal to amend the rear and side impact test procedures specified in the federal motor vehicle safety standard on fuel system integrity. The proposed amendment would replace the current test requiring the rear of the test vehicle to be impacted by a flat, rigid barrier at 48 kilometers per hour (30 miles per hour) with a test requiring only a portion of the rear of the test vehicle to be impacted by a lighter, deformable barrier at 80 km/h (50 mph). The proposal also would specify that the test procedure used in the standard on side impact protection be used for the standard on fuel system integrity. The agency is extending the comment period an additional 30 days.

          DATES:
          Comments on the November 13, 2000 proposal, 65 FR 67693, Docket No. NHTSA-00-8248, must be received by the agency on or before the close of business on February 12, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:

          You should mention the docket number of this document in your comments and submit your comments in writing to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Alternatively, you may submit your comments electronically via e-mail at http://dms.dot.gov.

          You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324 and visit it from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For non-legal issues, you may call Dr. William J. J. Liu, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, (Telephone 202-366-2264) (FAX 202-366-4329).
          For legal issues, you may call Mr. Dion Casey, NCC-20, Rulemaking Division, Office of Chief Counsel, (Telephone 202-366-2992) (FAX 202-366-3820).

          You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On November 13, 2000, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to amend the rear impact test in Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. The current test procedure requires the entire rear of the vehicle to be impacted by a flat, rigid barrier at speeds up to 48 km/h (30 mph). Under the proposal, NHTSA would replace that full rear impact test procedure with an offset rear impact test procedure requiring only a portion of the rear of the vehicle to be impacted with a lighter, deformable barrier at 80 km/h (50 mph). The agency has tentatively concluded that the new, more stringent test procedure will save lives and prevent injuries.
        In the NPRM, the agency also proposed to change Standard No. 301's procedure for side impact tests. Currently, the standard specifies a side impact test procedure that differs from the test procedure in our standard on side impact protection (Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection). Under the proposal, NHTSA would specify that the test procedure in Standard No. 214 be used for Standard No. 301 as well. The agency has tentatively concluded that this change will provide a more realistic test, increase safety, and reduce testing costs.
        The NPRM specified a comment closing date of January 12, 2001 (60 days after the date of publication). However, on December 8, 2000, the agency received a request for an extension of the comment closing date from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance). The Alliance stated that it wishes to provide comments on the proposal, but will be unable to do so in a timely fashion due to the complexity of the issues involved and the traditional holiday shutdowns in the U.S., Europe, and Japan. Specifically, the Alliance requests additional time to allow its members to conduct testing and gather data so that the Alliance may respond more fully to the proposal.
        The agency may grant a person's petition for an extension of a comment period if the petition shows good cause for the extension, and if the extension is consistent with the public interest. 49 CFR 553.19. The agency concludes that the petitioner has made that showing and that an extension is in the public interest. An extension would aid the Alliance and other interested parties in fully responding to the proposed changes to Standard No. 301. Accordingly, this notice extends the comment closing date to February 12, 2001.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority is at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.

          Issued on: December 12, 2000.
          Stephen R. Kratzke,
          Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

      [FR Doc. 00-31976 Filed 12-14-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 0906221072-91133-01]
        RIN 0648-AX95
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Commercial Shark Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
           Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
           This proposed rule would adjust quotas and opening dates for the 2010 fishing season for sandbar sharks, non-sandbar large coastal sharks (LCS), small coastal sharks (SCS), and pelagic sharks based on any over- and/or underharvests experienced during the 2008 and 2009 Atlantic commercial shark fishing seasons. The purpose of this proposed action is to provide advance notice of quotas and opening dates for the Atlantic commercial shark fishery and address any over- and/or underharvests that may have occurred in the Atlantic shark fishery during the 2008 and 2009 fishing seasons.

          DATES:
          Written comments will be accepted until November 27, 2009. NMFS will hold three public hearings on this proposed rule on November 16 in Manteo, NC, November 18 in Belle Chasse, LA, and November 23 in Jupiter, FL to receive comments from fishery participants and other members of the public regarding this proposed rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          The public hearings will be held at 407 Budleigh Street, Manteo, NC; 8398 Highway 23, Belle Chasse, LA; and 705 Military Trail, Jupiter, FL. You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AX95, by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov

          • Fax: 301-713-1917, Attn: Karyl Brewster-Geisz or Guy DuBeck
          • Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Proposed Rule for 2010 Atlantic Commercial Shark Fishing Season.”

          Instructions: No comments will be posted for public viewing until after the comment period has closed. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Karyl Brewster-Geisz or Guy DuBeck by phone: 301-713-2347, or by fax: 301-713-1917.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Atlantic shark fishery is managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments under the Magnuson-Stevens Act are implemented via regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
        On June 24, 2008, NMFS published a final rule (73 FR 35778, corrected at 73 FR 40658, July 15, 2008) implementing Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. That final rule established the annual quotas for all Atlantic shark fisheries and also established adjusted base annual quotas for non-sandbar LCS and sandbar sharks through December 31, 2012, to account for large overharvests that occurred in 2007. That final rule also established accounting measures for under- and overharvests and redefined the regions in the shark fishery.
        As a result of that final rule, the Atlantic shark annual quotas and adjusted base annual quotas apply to all areas of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea, with the exception of non-sandbar LCS quota outside of the shark research fishery. The non-sandbar LCS quota outside the research fishery is split between two regions, the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. The boundary delineating these two regions is a line beginning on the east coast of Florida, at the mainland, at 25 20.4' N. lat. and proceeding due east. Any water and land to the south and west of that boundary is considered, for the purposes of quota monitoring and setting of quotas, to be within the Gulf of Mexico region. Any water and land to the north and east of that boundary, for the purposes of quota monitoring and setting of quotas, is considered to be within the Atlantic region.
        As described below, in addition to establishing quotas, NMFS is also proposing several changes to the start of the 2010 shark fishing season. In Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS changed the fishing seasons in part to rebuild overfished shark stocks and prevent overfishing. NMFS originally determined that the reduced retention limits for non-sandbar LCS in Amendment 2 would result in a year-round fishery. A year-round commercial fishery was expected to give the North Atlantic fishery participants opportunity to catch the quota during the summer months when the sharks migrate northward and for all participants to be able to land sharks incidentally year-round as they target species in other fisheries.
        In 2009, the commercial shark fishing season opened on January 23, 2009 (73 FR 79005, December 24, 2008), in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and the Atlantic regions for SCS, non-sandbar LCS and pelagic sharks. On June 6, 2009, the non-sandbar LCS fishing season closed in the GOM region (74 FR 26803, June 4, 2009) and on July 1, 2009 (74 FR 30479, June 26, 2009), the non-sandbar LCS fishing season closed in the Atlantic region. In the Atlantic region, due to the July 1, 2009, closing of the non-sandbar LCS fishery, the mid-Atlantic shark bottom longline (BLL) closure in Federal waters from January 1 - July 31, the state water closure in Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey from May 15 - July 15, and the limited availability of non-sandbar LCS in northern Atlantic waters at the beginning of the year, the fishery participants from North Carolina north did not have a non-sandbar LCS fishing season in 2009. In the GOM region, due to the June 6, 2009, closure of the non-sandbar LCS fishery and the Louisiana state water closure from April 1 - June 30, many fishery participants in the GOM did not have the opportunity to participate in the 2009 GOM non-sandbar LCS fishery. As such, NMFS has received requests from constituents that NMFS should consider the delay of the 2010 non-sandbar LCS fishing season until July to allow for more equitable shark fishing opportunities in 2010. Because the intent of Amendment 2 was to have the non-sandbar LCS quota available throughout the entire year, and given that this did not happen in 2009, NMFS proposes delaying the start of the 2010 shark fishery, as explained below. In addition to this rulemaking, NMFS is also considering future rulemaking to adjust the retention limits on a fishery-wide basis in order to meet the original intent of Amendment 2 of having the non-sandbar LCS quota last the entire year.

        The other proposed change to the 2010 shark fishing season results from the implementation of draft Amendment 3 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (73 FR 36392, July 24, 2009). In Amendment 3, NMFS proposes measures to establish new non-blacknose SCS and blacknose shark quotas in order to rebuild blacknose sharks and end overfishing of this species and to establish a mechanism for implementing annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs). In this current action, NMFS also proposes delaying the opening of the 2010 SCS fishing season to allow for the implementation of Amendment 3. A delay would ensure the SCS fishery opens under the measures that may be established in Amendment 3, which would help in the rebuilding of blacknose sharks that are currently overfished and experiencing overfishing. In addition, for stocks that were determined to be overfished before July 12, 2009, ACLs must be established before the 2010 fishing year. As such, a delay would allow time for the establishment of ACLs before the start of the 2010 fishing season, which is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Accounting for Under- and Overhavests
        Consistent with 50 CFR 635.27(b)(1)(vii)(A), if the available quota in a particular region or in the research fishery for non-sandbar LCS is exceeded in any fishing season, NMFS will deduct an amount equivalent to the overharvest(s) from the quota in that region or in the research fishery for the following fishing season or, depending on the level of overharvest(s), NMFS may deduct an amount equivalent to the overharvest(s) spread over a number of subsequent fishing seasons to a maximum of five years, in the specific region or research fishery where the overharvest occurred. If the available quota for sandbar sharks, SCS, porbeagle sharks, and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) is exceeded in any fishing season, NMFS will deduct an amount equivalent to the overharvest(s) from the following fishing season or, depending on the level of overharvest(s), NMFS may deduct an amount equivalent to the overharvest(s) spread over a number of subsequent fishing seasons to a maximum of five years. If the blue shark quota is exceeded, NMFS will reduce the annual commercial quota for pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) by the amount that the blue shark quota is exceeded prior to the start of the next fishing season or, depending on the level of overharvest(s), NMFS will deduct an amount equivalent to the overharvest(s) spread over a number of subsequent fishing seasons to a maximum of five years.
        If an annual quota for sandbar sharks, SCS, blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, or pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) is not exceeded, NMFS may adjust the annual quota depending on the status of the stock or quota group. If the annual quota for non-sandbar LCS is not exceeded in either region or in the research fishery, NMFS may adjust the annual quota for that region or the research fishery depending on the status of the stock or quota group. If the stock/complex (e.g., sandbar sharks, porbeagle sharks, non-sandbar LCS, or blue sharks) or specific species within a quota group (e.g., blacknose sharks within the SCS complex) is declared to be overfished, to have overfishing occurring, or to have an unknown status, NMFS will not adjust the following fishing year's quota for any underharvest, and the following fishing year's quota will be equal to the base annual quota (or the adjusted base quota for sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS until December 31, 2012).
        Currently, blacknose sharks within the SCS complex and sandbar sharks have been determined to be overfished with overfishing occurring. Porbeagle sharks have been determined to be overfished. Blue sharks and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) have an unknown stock status. Finally, blacktip sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region were determined to not be overfished with no overfishing occurring. However, blacktip sharks are included in the non-sandbar LCS complex for the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions, the status of which has been determined to be unknown. Therefore, since the individual species, complexes, and species within a complex have all been determined to be either overfished, overfished with overfishing occurring, or unknown, no underharvests from the 2009 Atlantic commercial shark fishing season will be applied to the 2010 annual quotas or adjusted base quotas. Thus, the 2010 proposed quotas would be equal to the base annual quota for porbeagle sharks, blue sharks, and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) or the adjusted base annual quota for sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS, minus any potential overharvests that occurred in the 2008 and 2009 fishing seasons. The 2010 proposed SCS quota and possibly the SCS complex quota, could change depending on the measures established in the final rule for implementing Amendment 3 to the Consolidated HMS FMP.
        2010 Proposed Quotas
        This rule proposes minor changes to the overall adjusted base and annual commercial quotas due to overharvests in 2008 and 2009. The proposed 2010 quotas by species and species group are summarized in Table 1.
        BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

          EP28OC09.010

          EP28OC09.011

        BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

        Based on dealer reports received as of September 15, 2009, only the non-sandbar LCS quota in the Atlantic region was exceeded during the 2009 Atlantic commercial shark fishing season. The 2010 proposed quotas for the respective shark complexes/species are subject to change in the final rule for this action, based on the final Amendment 3 to the Consolidated HMS FMP and any overharvests in the 2009 season revealed once all of the 2009 landings data has been received and analyzed. In the final rule, NMFS will adjust the quotas based on dealer reports received as of October 30, 2009. All dealer reports that are received by NMFS after that date will be used to adjust the 2011 quotas, as appropriate.
        1. Proposed 2010 Quotas for Non-sandbar LCS and Sandbar Sharks Within the Shark Research Fishery
        The 2010 adjusted base annual commercial quotas within the shark research fishery are 37.5 mt dw (82,673 lb dw) for non-sandbar LCS and 87.9 mt dw (193,784 lb dw) for sandbar sharks. This proposed rule would not change any of the overall adjusted base commercial quotas.
        Within the shark research fishery, as of September 15, 2009, preliminary reported landings of non-sandbar LCS were at 98.7 percent (37 mt dw), and sandbar shark reported landings were at 90.6 percent (79.7 mt dw). These reported landings do not exceed the 2009 quota. Therefore, based on preliminary estimates and consistent with the current regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(b)(1)(vii), the 2010 proposed quotas do not need to be reduced based on any overharvests.
        Under 50 CFR 635.27(b)(1)(vii)(A), because the individual species, complexes, or species within a complex have been determined to be either overfished, overfished with overfishing occurring, or have an unknown status, underharvests for these species and/or complexes would not be applied to the 2010 quotas. Therefore, the 2010 proposed quotas would be the adjusted base annual quotas for non-sandbar LCS and sandbar sharks within the shark research fishery (37.5 mt dw (82,673 lb dw) and 87.9 mt dw (193,784 lb dw), respectively).
        2. Proposed 2010 Quotas for the Non-sandbar LCS in the Gulf of Mexico Region
        The 2010 adjusted base annual quota for non-sandbar LCS in the Gulf of Mexico region is 390.5 mt dw (860,896 lb dw). As of September 15, 2009, preliminary reported landings were at 81.2 percent (317.2 mt dw) for non-sandbar LCS in the Gulf of Mexico region. These reported landings do not exceed the 2009 quota. However, since the status of this complex is unknown, any underharvest would not be applied to the 2010 adjusted base annual quota. Therefore, the 2010 proposed quota would be the adjusted base annual quota for non-sandbar LCS in the Gulf of Mexico region or 390.5 mt dw (860,896 lb dw).
        3. Proposed 2010 Quotas for the Non-sandbar LCS in the Atlantic Region
        The 2010 adjusted base annual quota for non-sandbar LCS in the Atlantic region would be 174.8 (385,364 lb dw). As of September 15, 2009, preliminary reported landings were at 106.9 percent (200.8 mt dw) for non-sandbar LCS in the Atlantic region. These landings exceed the 2009 quota by 13 mt dw (28,660 lb dw). As such, the overharvest would be applied to the 2010 adjusted base annual quota. Therefore, the 2010 proposed quota would be the adjusted base annual quota for non-sandbar LCS in the Atlantic region or 174.8 (385,364 lb dw) (187.8 mt dw annual base quota - 13 mt dw of 2009 overage = 174.8 mt dw 2010 adjusted annual quota).
        4. Proposed 2010 Quotas for SCS and Pelagic Sharks
        The 2010 annual commercial quotas for small coastal sharks, blue sharks, and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) are 454 mt dw (1,000,888 lb dw), 273 mt dw (601,856 lb dw), and 488 mt dw (1,075,856 lb dw), respectively. This proposed rule would not change the overall annual commercial quotas for porbeagle sharks and SCS. However, NMFS has proposed changes to the SCS quota in Amendment 3 (73 FR 36392, July 24, 2009). The quotas established in Amendment 3 would supersede the quotas established in this rule. The change for the 2010 porbeagle shark quota, which accounts for the additional overharvest experienced during the 2008 fishing season, would be 1.5 mt dw (3,307 lb dw).
        As of December 31, 2008, the final reported landings of porbeagle sharks were 2.2 mt dw (4,471 lb dw) (127 percent of the 2008 1.7 mt dw (3,748 lb dw) annual base quota). In the final rule establishing the 2009 quotas (73 FR 79005, December 29, 2008), NMFS accounted for an overharvest of porbeagle sharks of 0.3 mt dw (601 lb dw). That final rule used data that was reported as of November 15, 2008. Between that date and December 31, 2008, an additional 0.2 mt dw was reported landed. As such, this additional overharvest of 0.2 mt dw (441 lb dw) is proposed to be deducted from the 2010 porbeagle shark quota. Per 50 CFR 635.27(b)(1)(vii)(A), if the available quota is exceeded in any fishing season, NMFS will deduct an amount equivalent to the overharvest(s) from the following fishing season or, depending on the level of overharvest(s), NMFS may deduct an amount equivalent to the overharvest(s) spread over a number of subsequent fishing seasons to a maximum of five years. Given that the additional small overharvest of 0.2 mt dw (441 lb dw) was not accounted for in the 2009 quota (12 percent of the annual base porbeagle quota), NMFS is proposing to deduct the additional 2008 overharvest from the 2010 annual base commercial porbeagle quota. The 2010 adjusted annual commercial porbeagle quota would be 1.5 mt dw (3,307 lb dw) (1.7 mt dw annual base quota - 0.2 mt dw 2008 overage = 1.5 mt dw 2010 adjusted annual quota).
        As of September 15, 2009, preliminary reported landings of SCS, blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle and blue sharks) were at 39.7 percent (180.1 mt dw), 0.5 percent (1.4 mt dw), 12.2 percent (0.2 mt dw), and 14.3 percent (69.7 mt dw), respectively. These landings do not exceed the available quotas. However, under 50 CFR 635.27(b)(1)(vii)(A), because the individual species, complexes, or species within a complex have been determined to be either overfished, overfished with overfishing occurring, or have an unknown status, underharvests for these species and/or complexes would not be applied to the 2009 quotas. Therefore, the 2010 proposed quotas would be the annual quotas for SCS, blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, and pelagic sharks (other than blue and porbeagle sharks) (454 mt dw (1,000,888 lb dw), 273 mt dw (601,856 lb dw), 1.5 mt dw (3,307 lb dw), and 488 mt dw (1,075,856 lb dw), respectively).
        Proposed Fishing Season Notification for the 2010 Atlantic Commercial Shark Fishing Season

        The 2010 Atlantic commercial shark fishing season for the shark research, blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle and blue sharks) in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, is proposed to open on the effective date of the final rule for this action. NMFS is proposing different opening dates for the SCS and the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic non-sandbar LCS seasons. NMFS considered two alternatives for opening the SCS fishing season: alternative A1, open the 2010 SCS sharks fishing season on or about January 1, 2010 (No Action alternative) and alternative A2, open the 2010 SCS fishing season on the effective date of the final rule for Amendment 3 (Preferred alternative).
        Alternative A1, the no action alternative, would open the 2010 SCS fishery on the effective date of the final rule for this current action, which is anticipated to be on or about January 1, 2010. Alternative A1 would not allow time for Amendment 3 to be implemented, which would cause blacknose sharks to continue to be overfished.
        Alternative A2, the preferred alternative, would keep the SCS fishery closed until the effective date of the final rule for Amendment 3. This delayed opening would allow the SCS fishery to open under the quotas that would be finalized in Amendment 3, which would help rebuild blacknose sharks sooner than under the No Action Alternative. Alternative A2 would also allow the mechanism for establishing ACLs and AMs to be finalized before opening the SCS fishery consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Specifically, for stocks that were determined to be overfished before July 12, 2009, ACLs must be established before the 2010 fishing year. A delay in the 2010 SCS fishing season would allow ACLs to be established under Amendment 3 to be implemented before the start of the fishing season.
        In 2009, the non-sandbar LCS fishing season did not remain open year-round as expected. Because of this, many fishermen in both the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic did not have an opportunity to participate in the non-sandbar LCS fishery. NMFS considered three alternatives to address this situation while NMFS assesses the necessity of keeping the shark season open year-round, which was the intent of Amendment 2. These alternatives are: alternative B1, open the 2010 LCS on or about January 1, 2010 (No Action alternative); alternative B2, open the 2010 non-sandbar LCS fishery in the Atlantic region on July 15, 2010, and open the 2010 non-sandbar LCS fishery in the Gulf of Mexico region on January 1, 2010; and alternative B3, open the 2010 non-sandbar LCS fishery in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions on July 15, 2010 (Preferred Alternative).
        Alternative B1, the no action alternative, would open the 2010 non-sandbar LCS fishery on the effective date of the final rule for this current action. Alternative B1 may not allow for the equitable distribution of the non-sandbar LCS quotas among fishery participants in all states of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions if catch patterns similar to 2009 are seen in 2010.
        Alternative B2 would open the 2010 non-sandbar LCS fishery in the Atlantic region on July 15, 2009, and open the 2010 non-sandbar LCS fishery in the Gulf of Mexico region on the effective date of the final rule for this current action. This alternative would allow fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico region to have access to the non-sandbar LCS quotas at the beginning of 2010 when non-sandbar LCS are present in waters off the Gulf of Mexico. Gillnet fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico region would be able to harvest non-sandbar LCS with gillnets prior to the implementation of Amendment 3, which proposes to prohibit landing sharks with gillnet gear. In addition, alternative B2 would allow fishermen in the North Atlantic to have a fishing opportunity for non-sandbar LCS in 2010 with the delayed opening in the Atlantic region. Alternative B2 may not allow for the equitable distribution of the non-sandbar LCS quota in the Gulf of Mexico region due to state water closures off the coast of Louisiana from April 1 through June 30.
        Alternative B3, the preferred alternative, would open the non-sandbar LCS fishery in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic regions on July 15, 2010. In 2009, the non-sandbar LCS fishery in the Atlantic region was only open approximately five and a half months, which did not allow fishery participants in the North Atlantic to have a fishing season as the quota was taken before these sharks moved northward into their waters. In addition, fishermen in the North Atlantic were also limited in their fishing opportunities due to state and Federal water closures. In the Gulf of Mexico, in 2009, the non-sandbar fishery was open for approximately four months, and many fishermen experienced state water closures during this time frame and were limited in their ability to participate in the GOM non-sandbar LCS fishery. Thus, delaying the start of the 2010 non-sandbar LCS fishery in both the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions would provide equitable fishing opportunities among shark fishery participants in all states to catch the non-sandbar LCS quota.
        The preferred alternatives, A2 and B3, which would delay the SCS and non-sandbar LCS fishing seasons, could result in direct negative economic impacts on shark fishermen who would not be able to fish for SCS until Amendment 3 is implemented or for non-sandbar LCS until July 15, 2010. In addition, shark dealers and other entities that deal with shark products could experience negative economic impacts as SCS and non-sandbar LCS products would not be available at the beginning of the season. Gillnet fishermen could also experience negative economic impacts as they would not be able to fish for sharks prior to the implementation of Amendment 3 in 2010, and may not be able to fish for shark with gillnets after the implementation of Amendment 3 in 2010, depending on the final management measures implemented under Amendment 3. The preferred alternatives could result in direct negative social impacts as fishermen would have to fish in other fisheries where they hold permits, to make up for lost SCS and non-sandbar LCS revenues during the beginning of the 2010 fishing season and indirect negative social impacts on shark dealers and other entities that deal with shark products as they may have to diversify during the beginning of the season when SCS and non-sandbar LCS shark products would not be available. However, NMFS currently prefers alternatives A2 and B3 because fishermen in the North Atlantic and portions of the Gulf of Mexico, who had very limited access to the 2009 SCS and non-sandbar LCS quotas, could experience direct positive economic impacts as they would have access to the SCS and non-sandbar LCS quotas in 2010. Delaying the 2010 SCS fishing season under preferred alternative A2 could also allow for the rebuilding of blacknose sharks to begin sooner than under the no action alternative. Thus, delaying the SCS and non-sandbar LCS seasons under the preferred alternatives would allow for a more equitable distribution of the quotas among constituents in all regions, which was the original intent of Amendment 2, and would allow for the fastest rebuilding of blacknose sharks of all the alternatives considered in this rulemaking.

        All of the shark fisheries would remain open until December 31, 2010, unless NMFS determines that the fishing season landings for sandbar shark, non-sandbar LCS, blacknose, non-blacknose SCS, blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, or pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) has reached, or is projected to reach, 80 percent of the available quota. At that time, consistent with 50 CFR 635.27(b)(1), NMFS will file for publication with the Office of the Federal Register a notice of closure for that shark species group and/or region that will be effective no fewer than 5 days from date of filing. From the effective date and time of the closure until NMFS announces, via a notice in the Federal Register, that additional quota is available, the fishery for the shark species group and, for non-sandbar LCS, region would remain closed, even across fishing years, consistent with 50 CFR § 635.28(b)(2).
        Request for Comments
        Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted via http://www.regulations.gov, mail, or fax. Comments may also be submitted at a public hearing (see Public Hearings and Special Accommodations below). NMFS solicits comments on this proposed rule by November 27, 2009 (see DATES and ADDRESSES). NMFS will hold three public hearings for this proposed rule. These hearings will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gu DuBeck at (301) 713-2347 at least 7 days prior to the hearing date. The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public hearings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each public hearing, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the hearing room; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and attendees should not interrupt one another). The NMFS representative will attempt to structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and, if they do not, they will be asked to leave the hearing.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        In compliance with Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), NMFS has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this proposed rule to analyze the impacts of delaying the 2010 SCS and non-sandbar LCS fishing seasons as adjustments to the non-sandbar LCS and porbeagle quotas based on overharvests from the previous fishing season have already been analyzed in Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. The IRFA analyzes the anticipated economic impacts of the preferred actions and any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that could minimize economic impacts on small entities. A summary of the IRFA is below. The full IRFA and analysis of social and economic impacts are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        In compliance with section 603(b)(1) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the purpose of this proposed rulemaking is, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to adjust the 2010 proposed quotas for non-sandbar LCS, sandbar sharks, SCS, blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, or pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) based on overharvests from the previous fishing year. These adjustments are being implemented according to the regulations implemented in the final rule for Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. Thus, NMFS would expect few, if any, economic impacts to fishermen other than those already analyzed in Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP based on the quota adjustments. In addition, NMFS is considering delaying the 2010 non-sandbar LCS shark fishery season in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic regions to allow for a more equitable distribution of the available quotas among constituents as well as delay the opening of the 2010 SCS fishing season to allow for the implementation of Amendment 3, which would implement new blacknose and non-blacknose SCS quotas to rebuild the blacknose shark stock and end overfishing of this species. While there are direct negative economic impacts associated with the proposed measures, delaying the opening of the 2010 SCS, and non-sandbar LCS fishing seasons could ensure that North Atlantic fishermen have access to the 2010 quotas and will allow for more equitable access to the quotas by all fishery participants.
        In compliance with section 603(b)(2) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the objectives of this proposed rulemaking are to: (1) adjust the annual quotas for non-sandbar LCS in the Atlantic region and porbeagle sharks due to minor overharvests in 2008 and 2009; (2) delay of the 2010 non-sandbar LCS fishing season to allow for more equitable shark fishing opportunities in 2010; and, (3) delay the opening of the 2010 SCS fishing season to allow for the implementation of Amendment 3, which would implement new blacknose and non-blacknose SCS quotas to rebuild the blacknose shark stock and end overfishing of this species. A delay would also allow time for the establishment of ACLs before the start of the 2010 fishing season.
        Section 603(b)(3) requires Federal agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. NMFS considers all HMS permit holders to be small entities because they either had average annual receipts less than $4.0 million for fish-harvesting, average annual receipts less than $6.5 million for charter/party boats, 100 or fewer employees for wholesale dealers, or 500 or fewer employees for seafood processors. These are the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards for defining a small versus large business entity in this industry.
        The commercial shark fishery is comprised of fishermen who hold a shark directed or incidental limited access permits (LAP) and the related industries including processors, bait houses, and equipment suppliers, all of which NMFS considers to be small entities according to the size standards set by the SBA. The proposed rule would apply to the approximately 223 directed commercial shark permit holders, 279 incidental commercial shark permit holders, and 100 commercial shark dealers as of March 18, 2009. Based on the 2008 ex-vessel price, the 2010 Atlantic shark commercial baseline quota could result in revenues of $11,987,348. The adjustment due to the overharvests would result in $555 loss in revenues in porbeagle fishery and $3,306 loss in revenue in the non-sandbar LCS fishery. These revenues are similar to the gross revenues analyzed in Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP.
        This proposed rule does not contain any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements (5 U.S.C. 603 (b)(4)). Similarly, this proposed rule would not conflict, duplicate, or overlap with other relevant Federal rules (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(5)). Fishermen, dealers, and managers in these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, domestic laws, and other FMPs. These include, but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. NMFS does not believe that the new regulations proposed to be implemented would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any relevant regulations, Federal or otherwise.

        Under section 603(c), agencies are required to describe any alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives and which minimize any significant economic impacts. These impacts are discussed below and in Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the proposed action. Additionally, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 (c) (1)-(4)) lists four general categories of significant alternatives that would assist an agency in the development of significant alternatives. These categories of alternatives are: (1) establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use of performance rather than design standards; and, (4) exemptions from coverage of the rule for small entities.
        In order to meet the objectives of this proposed rule, consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NMFS cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements only for small entities because all the entities affected are considered small entities. Thus, there are no alternatives discussed that fall under the first and fourth categories described above. NMFS does not know of any performance or design standards that would satisfy the aforementioned objectives of this rulemaking while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Thus, there are no alternatives considered under the third category. As described below, NMFS analyzed several different alternatives in this proposed rulemaking and provides rationale for identifying the preferred alternative to achieve the desired objective.
        The alternatives considered and analyzed have been grouped into two major categories. These categories include SCS and non-sandbar LCS. Under the SCS category, the alternatives include: (A1) allow the 2010 SCS fishing season to open upon the effective date of the final rule for the 2010 Atlantic shark specifications; and, (A2) open the 2010 SCS fishing season on the effective date of the final rule for Amendment 3 to the Consolidated HMS FMP. Under the non-sandbar LCS category, the alternatives include: (B1) allow the 2010 non-sandbar LCS fishery in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions to open upon the effective date of the final rule for the 2010 Atlantic shark specifications; (B2) open the 2010 non-sandbar LCS fishery in the Atlantic region on July 15, 2009 and open the 2010 non-sandbar LCS fishery in the Gulf of Mexico region upon the effective date of the final rule for the 2010 Atlantic shark specifications; and, (B3) Open the 2010 non-sandbar LCS fishery in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions on July 15, 2009.
        The potential impacts these alternatives may have on small entities have been analyzed and are discussed below. The preferred alternatives include A2 and B3. A summary of the analyses follows. The economic impacts that would occur under these preferred alternatives were compared with the other alternatives to determine if economic impacts to small entities could be minimized while still accomplishing the stated objectives of this rule.
        The proposed changes to the opening dates for the SCS and non-sandbar LCS were analyzed for each proposed alternative. Under alternative A1, the No Action alternative, NMFS would not delay the opening of the 2010 SCS fishing season and there would be no additional economic impacts to directed and incidental shark permit holders that were not analyzed in Amendment 2. In addition, under the No Action alternative, gillnet fishermen would be able to harvest SCS with gillnets until the implementation of Amendment 3, depending on what management measures are finalized in Amendment 3. The annual quota for SCS of 454 mt dw (1,000,888 lb dw) would be available upon the effective date of the final rule for the 2010 Atlantic shark specifications to fishermen in all regions of the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. Based on the analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for draft Amendment 3, the average annual gross revenues from 2004 through 2007 from all SCS meat and fins was $833,634. However, fishermen would most likely not harvest the entire current SCS quota of 454 mt dw and realize these gross revenues by the time the final rule for Amendment 3 is implemented in 2010.
        Depending on the level of SCS harvest prior to the implementation of Amendment 3, once Amendment 3 is implemented, there may be no non-blacknose SCS and blacknose shark quota available for the rest of 2010 due to the reduced quotas proposed in draft Amendment 3. Any SCS overharvests that occur prior to Amendment 3 implementation would lower the quotas for the 2011 fishing season and create more severe economic losses in 2011. Finally, due to the availability of SCS later in the year in the waters off the North Atlantic, fishermen in the North Atlantic would likely not have a SCS fishing season in 2010. Given this, NMFS does not prefer alternative A1 at this time.
        Under alternative A2, NMFS would delay the start of the 2010 SCS fishing season until implementation of the final rule for Amendment 3. There may be economic losses associated with the delay in the season, especially for fishermen in the southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico that would have access to SCS at the beginning of 2010 and rely on SCS gross revenues at the beginning of the season. Depending on the quotas implemented under Amendment 3 for blacknose shark and non-blacknose SCS, economic losses could range from $126,174 to $172,197 for blacknose sharks and $502,145 to $661,513 for non-blacknose SCS. Depending on the final measures implemented under Amendment 3, gillnet fishermen could lose gross revenues from lost SCS fishing opportunities in 2010. Estimated losses for shark gillnet fishermen could be between $90,059 to $90,501 for blacknose sharks and $275,008 to $287,427 for non-blacknose SCS. However, these losses are independent of this proposed action and were fully analyzed in the DEIS for draft Amendment 3. In addition, shark dealers and other entities that deal with shark products could experience negative economic impacts as SCS products would not be available at the beginning of the season. This would be most prevalent in areas of the southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico where SCS are available early in the fishing season. The delay in the SCS fishing seasons could causes changes in ex-vessel prices. From 2004 through 2008, the average ex-vessel price of SCS meat in January is approximately $0.58, whereas the average ex-vessel price in mid- to late-Spring is $0.69. Fin prices are not reported by species. As such, the ex-vessel price data for shark fins is the same for SCS and LCS. The average price for fins in January is $16.36. When the SCS fishery opens in mid- to late-Spring, the average price for fins would be $7.35.

        Delaying the 2010 SCS fishing season until the implementation of Amendment 3 would allow the blacknose shark stock to rebuild as quickly as possible, and would translate into higher SCS quotas with higher associated gross revenues in the shortest time period possible. In addition, since both blacknose sharks and non-blacknose SCS are present in waters off the North Atlantic later in the year, delaying the opening of the 2010 SCS fishing season could help ensure that North Atlantic fishermen have access to the non-blacknose SCS and blacknose shark quotas implemented under Amendment 3, allowing for more equitable access to the quotas by all constituents. Thus, while there are direct negative economic impacts associated with alternative A2, NMFS prefers this alternative at this time.
        Under alternative B1, the No Action alternative, NMFS would not delay the opening of the 2010 non-sandbar LCS fishing seasons and there would be no additional economic impacts to directed and incidental shark permit holders that were not previously analyzed under Amendment 2. However, one of the main objectives of Amendment 2 was to allow for a year-round shark fishery in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions to help reduce discards of sharks and allow an opportunity to fishermen in all regions to be able to harvest the available quota. Alternative B1 would likely not meet this objective if the 2010 catches and catch rates are similar to 2009. Therefore, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time.
        Under alternative B2, NMFS would delay the opening of the non-sandbar LCS fishery in the Atlantic region until July 15, 2009, but would open the non-sandbar LCS fishery in the Gulf of Mexico region upon the effective date of the final rule for the 2010 Atlantic shark specifications. Alternative B2 could result in negative economic impacts to fishermen in the southeast Atlantic if those fishermen depend on shark revenues early in the shark fishing season as they would not be able to land non-sandbar LCS when non-sandbar LCS would be present in waters off the southeast Atlantic. In addition, alternative B2 could result in negative economic impacts to gillnet fishermen in the Atlantic region who would potentially not be able to harvest non-sandbar LCS with gillnets in 2010, depending on final management measures implemented under Amendment 3. However, under alternative B2, fishermen in the North Atlantic would have fishing opportunities for non-sandbar LCS in 2010 as was the intent of Amendment 2. The non-sandbar LCS quota in the Atlantic region and its associated gross revenues of an estimated $381,525 based on 2008 ex-vessel prices would be more equitably distributed among Atlantic states by delaying the opening of the non-sandbar LCS fishery until July 15, 2009, under alternative B2.
        The economic impacts of alternative B2 in the Gulf of Mexico region would be the same as analyzed under Amendment 2. In addition, gillnet fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico region could harvest non-sandbar LCS with gillnets prior to the implementation of Amendment 3, which may prohibit the landing of sharks with gillnet gear. However, state waters off Louisiana are closed to large coastal shark fishing from April 1 through June 30 of each year. During 2009, the non-sandbar LCS fishery closed on June 6, 2009. Thus, allowing the Federal non-sandbar LCS fishery in the Gulf of Mexico to be open at the beginning of the year in 2010 may result in negative economic impacts for Louisiana State fishermen if the non-sandbar LCS quota is harvested before the re-opening of Louisiana state waters in 2010. Therefore, NMFS does not prefer alternative B2 at this time.
        Under alternative B3, NMFS would delay the opening of the non-sandbar LCS fishery in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions until July 15, 2009. Alternative B3 could result in negative economic impacts to fishermen in the southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico if those fishermen depend on shark revenues early in the shark fishing season as they would not be able to land non-sandbar LCS when non-sandbar LCS would be present in waters off these regions. In addition, alternative B3 could result in negative economic impacts to gillnet fishermen in the Atlantic region who may not be able to harvest non-sandbar LCS with gillnets during 2010, depending on final management measures implemented under Amendment 3. Based on the analysis in the DEIS for draft Amendment 3, this could result in lost non-sandbar LCS revenues of $106,479 to $109,479 for gillnet fishermen. Also, shark dealers and other entities that deal with shark products could experience negative economic impacts as non-sandbar LCS products would not be available at the beginning of the season. This would be most prevalent in areas of the southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico where non-sandbar LCS are available early in the fishing season. The delay in the non-sandbar LCS fishing seasons could causes changes in ex-vessel prices. From 2004 through 2008, the average ex-vessel price of LCS meat in January is approximately $0.57, while the average ex-vessel price in July is $0.48. The average price for fins in January is $16.36. When the LCS fishery opens in July, the average price for fins would be $19.06.
        However, under alternative B3, fishermen in the North Atlantic would have fishing opportunities for non-sandbar LCS in 2010 as was the intent of Amendment 2. The non-sandbar LCS quota in the Atlantic region and its associated gross revenues of an estimated $381,525, based on 2008 ex-vessel prices, would be more equitably distributed among Atlantic states by delaying the opening of the non-sandbar LCS fishery until July 15, 2009, under alternative B3. In addition, state waters off Louisiana are closed to LCS fishing from April 1 through June 30 of each year. Therefore, opening the Federal non-sandbar LCS fishery in the Gulf of Mexico on July 15, 2010, may allow for a more equitable distribution of the non-sandbar LCS quota in the Gulf of Mexico region, estimated to be worth $839,376 based on 2008 ex-vessel prices. Given alternative B3 helps to meet the original intent of Amendment 2 and would allow fishermen in all regions to have more reasonable access to the available non-sandbar LCS quotas, NMFS prefers alternative B3 at this time.

          Dated: October 23, 2009.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E9-25989 Filed 10-27-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [ I.D. 092602H]
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs)

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

          ACTION:
          Notification of a proposal for EFPs to conduct experimental fishing; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has made a preliminary determination that the subject EFP application contains all the required information and warrants further consideration.  The Regional Administrator has also made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under the EFP would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP).  However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue the EFP.  Therefore, NMFS announces that the Regional Administrator proposes to issue an EFP that would allow one vessel to conduct fishing operations that are otherwise restricted by the regulations governing the fisheries of the Northeastern United States.  The experiment proposes to conduct a study of an experimental bycatch reduction device in order to develop otter trawl gear for the NE multispecies fishery that would result in reduced catch of Atlantic cod.  The EFP would allow these exemptions for one commercial vessel, for not more than 5 days of sea trials.  All experimental work would be monitored by Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences personnel.
          Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs.

          DATES:
          Comments on this document must be received on or before October 21, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Manomet EFP Proposal for Rigid Mesh Bycatch Reduction Device.”  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to 978-281-9135.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Tom Warren, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9347.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        An application for an EFP was submitted by Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences on August 19, 2002.

        The EFP would allow for exemptions from the Gulf of Maine (GOM) Regulated Mesh Area gear requirements at 50 CFR 648.80(a)(3)(i) and the days-at-sea (DAS) requirements at § 648.82(a).  The EFP would exempt one federally permitted commercial fishing vessel from the following two requirements of the FMP: The requirement to use a minimum mesh size of 6.0-inch (15.2-cm) diamond mesh or 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) square mesh in the body and extension of a trawl net while fishing in the GOM Regulated Mesh Area; and the requirement to use a DAS while targeting groundfish.
        The goal of this study is to assess the utility of this bycatch reduction device for the groundfish fishery when fishing in the GOM.   The specific trawl design to be tested is a rigid mesh panel inserted between the extension and codend of a trawl net and extending around the entire circumference of the net.  The panel would be 2 m in length, with elongate meshes 2.4-inches (60-mm) by 7.9-inches (200-mm).  The vessel would target mixed groundfish (yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, American plaice, Atlantic cod, and summer flounder).  All undersized fish would be returned to the sea as quickly as possible after measurement.  The incidental catch is expected to be comprised of skates, dogfish, sculpin and sea robin.  The incidental catch of these species is expected to be minimal and efforts will be made to return all incidentally caught species to the sea as quickly as possible.
        The applicant requested that the research be conducted in the GOM in the area north of 42° 30′ N. lat. and west of 69° 00′ W. long.  However, due to the severely overfished condition of the Cape Cod stock of yellowtail flounder, NMFS will confine the research to the area north of the stock boundary 42° 50′ N. lat.  The vessel would conduct a total of approximately 25 tows of 20 to 30 minutes duration over 5 sea days.  The experimental design would be an alternate tow design (experimental net and conventional net in alternate tows, following an A-B-B-A pattern).  Both codends would be constructed of 6.5” (165 mm) diamond mesh.  The tows would be recorded using a video camera in order to verify proper net functioning and to record fish behavioral reactions.  Fish retained would be counted, weighed and measured, and all legal catch sold.  The vessel will be exempted from 5 DAS in order to provide compensation for a portion of the cost of the research.
        If the research results from the experiment are promising, the applicant intends to conduct future research to fine-tune the use of the net and conduct fleetwide trials with the hope of integrating a bycatch reduction device requirement into the FMP.
        Based on the results of this EFP, this action may lead to future rulemaking.

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

          Dated:  September 30, 2002.
          Virginia M. Fay,
          Acting Director, Office of Substainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-25335  Filed 10-3-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 01-2490, MM Docket No. 01-307, RM-10307]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Camp Wood, TX

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This document requests comments on a petition filed by Linda Crawford proposing the allotment of Channel 271A at Camp Wood, Texas. The coordinates for Channel 271A at Camp Wood are 29-48-01 and 100-02-35. There is a site restriction 14.8 kilometers (9.2 miles) north of the community. Since Camp Wood is located within 320 kilometers of the U.S.-Mexican border, concurrence of the Mexican Government will be requested for the allotment at Camp Wood.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before December 17, 2001, and reply comments on or before January 2, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, as follows: Linda Crawford, 3500 Maple Avenue, No. 1320, Dallas, Texas 75219.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 01-307, adopted October 17, 2001 and released October 26, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

        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 are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contact.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio 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 and 336.

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Texas, is amended by adding Channel 271A at Camp Wood.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            John A. Karousos,
            Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 01-28206 Filed 11-8-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 54
        [CC Docket No. 96-45; FCC 03-115]
        Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Promoting Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular Areas

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          This document is being issued in order to ensure that enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support is targeted to the most underserved segments of our Nation. The Commission sought comment on the same questions present herein in the Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks to bolster the record on how to define the geographic areas that are adjacent to reservations or are otherwise part of the reservation's community of interest, in a manner that is consistent with our goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support to the most underserved segments of the Nation.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before August 15, 2003. Reply comments are due on or before September 2, 2003. Written comments by the public on the proposed information collections are due on or before September 2, 2003. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed information collections on or before September 15, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, William F. Caton, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, or via the Internet to vhuth@omb.eop.gov.
            See
            Supplementary Information for further filing instructions.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Shannon Lipp, Attorney, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 96-45, FCC 03-115, released on May 21, 2003. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was also released with a companion Order on Reconsideration and Report and Order (Order). The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20554.
        I. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
        1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we seek further comment on potential modifications to our rules regarding availability of enhanced Federal Lifeline and Link-Up assistance to qualifying low-income consumers living “near reservations.”
        A. Discussion

        2. We seek further comment on the proposals in the record to identify geographic areas that are adjacent to the reservations, consistent with the goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up to the most underserved areas of the Nation. As set forth in the Tribal Stay and Order, 65 FR 58721, October 2, 2000, the term “near reservation,” as defined by BIA at the time of adoption of the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 65 FR 47941, August 4, 2000, and codified in our rules in this Order, includes wide geographic areas that do not possess the same characteristics that warrant the targeting of support to reservations, such as geographic isolation, high rates of poverty, and low telephone subscribership. As several commenters note, this definition of “near reservation” incorporates many highly populated, urban areas across the Nation, including major cities such as Phoenix, Sacramento, Seattle, and Las Vegas. As set forth in the Tribal Stay and Order, we continue to find that using this definition of “near reservation” will not target enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up appropriately.
        3. We issue this FNPRM to obtain more detailed information on proposals contained in the current record, as well as additional proposals that may be more consistent with our goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support to only the most underserved areas of our Nation and that may impose fewer administrative burdens. For instance, USCC recommends excluding major metropolitan areas from the enhanced low-income programs by excluding Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs) from receiving enhanced low-income support. Washington UTC suggests that enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support be provided in the entirety of any telephone exchange that contains all or any portion of a tribal reservation. In addition, Smith Bagley, Inc. (SBI) proposes that a person qualify for enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up benefits if he or she resides within 50 miles of a recognized Native American reservation and in a county that has a population density of no more than 50 persons per square mile.
        4. We seek comment on data that addresses whether these proposed target areas share the same characteristics of reservation areas. For example, SBI fails to explain why it recommends choosing a population density of 50 persons per square mile. We seek record support regarding these issues. Moreover, the proposals of USCC, Washington UTC, and SBI may not adequately ensure that the enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support mechanisms are targeted only to those areas that share the same attributes as reservations. For example, we believe that these proposals may not exclude large cities from the definition of “near reservation.” We seek comment on how these proposals may be tailored to exclude such large cities.

        5. We seek comment on how to minimize any administrative burdens raised by these proposals. For example, SBI proposes that the Commission produce and distribute maps outlining all areas that are within a 50 mile radius of a reservation in which the county contains less than 50 persons per square mile. We believe that the Commission may not be the appropriate entity to undertake such tasks because it has no particular expertise with regard to such mapmaking. In addition, we are not aware of any current map that contains all reservations as defined by the Commission. We seek comment on alternative sources for such maps. We seek comment on the feasibility of having prospective ETCs bear the cost and burden of producing their own maps showing the areas in which they request ETC designation.

        6. We also seek comment on additional proposals for defining the geographic areas that are near reservations to ensure that enhanced Lifeline and Link Up support is targeted to qualifying low-income consumers living in areas adjacent to, or near, reservations that share many of the same characteristics as the reservations. We request that commenters provide detailed information to assist us in determining how enhanced Lifeline and Link Up support should be targeted. Such information should include the population of the geographical area, the number of income-eligible subscribers, the distance of each area from the nearest reservation, whether there is any legal recognition of that area by the BIA, whether the area includes or is part of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), and the level of telephone subscribership in the area. Wireline Competition Bureau staff have estimated, through analysis of recent Census data of a sampling of zip codes in near reservation areas, that the level of telephone subscribership in Indian households is lower than the level of telephone subscribership for all households. We ask commenters to provide their own data comparing the level of telephone subscribership in Indian households in near reservation areas with the level of telephone subscribership in all households in near reservation areas, or comment on the Bureau's preliminary estimates. Bureau staff have also estimated that a greater percentage of Indian households in near reservation areas have incomes under $25,000, compared to all households in near reservation areas. We ask commenters to provide their own data comparing the percentage of low-income Indian households in near reservation areas with the percentage of all low-income households in near reservation areas, or comment on the Bureau's preliminary estimates. We note that the Bureau's most recent penetration report indicates that there is a correlation between low levels of household income and low levels of telephone subscribership.

        7. Finally, we seek comment on the effect of any proposed “near reservation” definitions on the ETC designation process. As explained, we conclude that, pending resolution of the “near reservation” definition, petitions for ETC designation relating to near reservation areas will not be considered as petitions relating to tribal lands. Petitioners seeking ETC designation in such areas must follow the procedures outlined in the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for non-tribal lands prior to submitting a request for designation to the Commission under section 214(e)(6). The Commission reached this conclusion because it believed that near reservation areas do not invoke the same jurisdictional concerns and principles of tribal sovereignty that are associated with areas within the boundaries of reservations. Accordingly, we request that any proposed definitions of “near reservation” also include a discussion of the impact of such definition on the ETC designation process.
        II. Procedural Matters
        A. Paperwork Reduction Act
        8. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains a proposed information collection. As part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections contained in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due on or before September 2, 2003. OMB comments are due on or before September 15, 2003. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
        B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

        9. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic effect on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadline for comments on the FNPRM provided in the Comment Filing Procedures section. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
        1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

        10. This FNPRM is being issued in order to ensure that enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support is targeted to the most underserved segments of our Nation. The Commission sought comment on the same questions present herein in the Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. This FNPRM seeks to bolster the record on how to define the geographic areas that are adjacent to reservations or are otherwise part of the reservation's community of interest, in a manner that is consistent with our goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support to the most underserved segments of the Nation. This action is taken pursuant to the Act's mandate that “[c]onsumers in all regions of the Nation * * * have access to telecommunications and information services. * * *”
        2. Legal Basis
        11. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the FNPRM is contained in sections 1-4, 201-205 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
        3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply
        12. In the IRFA at paragraphs 11-31 of Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we described and estimated the number of small entities that would be affected by the determination to stay application of the enhanced low-income programs to “near reservation” areas and to consider alternative definitions. The proposals discussed in this FNPRM apply to the same entities. We therefore incorporate by reference paragraphs 11-31 of the Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
        4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

        13. The measures under consideration in this FNPRM may, if adopted, result in additional reporting or other compliance requirements. A modified definition of “near reservation” may impact reporting requirements for carriers eligible to receive enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up. For example, such carriers may be required to compile maps or derive other means to determine whether qualifying low-income customers fall within any designated geographic areas. In addition, if the current stay is lifted and an alternative definition of “near reservation” is adopted, eligible carriers may be required to submit data regarding an increased number of qualifying low-income consumers. Such increased reporting requirements would be offset by increased opportunities to receive universal service support.
        5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
        14. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

        15. In the FNPRM, we outline the various alternative proposals that have been suggested to the Commission in response to the Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. We seek comment on the cost and benefits of each of these alternative proposals, including the potential administrative burdens involved in implementing such proposals on eligible carriers. The Commission's rules relating to the receipt of enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support apply equally to all eligible carriers providing service to qualifying low-income consumers. The proposals presented herein are consistent with these standards.
        6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules
        16. None.
        C. Filing of Comments and Reply Comments

        17. We invite comment on the issues and questions set forth in the FNPRM. Pursuant to § 1.415 and § 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments on or before August 15, 2003, and reply comments on or before September 2, 2003. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.

        18. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in reply. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Parties also should send four (4) paper copies of their filings to Sheryl Todd, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, Rm. 5-A520, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

        19. Written comments by the public on the proposed information collections are due on or before September 2, 2003. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed information collections on or before September 15, 2003. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Edward Springer, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to edward.springer@omb.eop.gov.

        20. 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 202-418-0531 (voice), 202-418-7365 (tty).
        III. Ordering Clauses
        21. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4, 214(e), and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and 254, and § 1.429 of the Commission's rules, this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
        22. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Ruth A. Dancey,
          Special Assistant to the Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 03-17568 Filed 7-15-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 20
        RIN 1018-AH67
        Migratory Bird Hunting; Temporary Approval of Tin Shot as Nontoxic for Hunting Waterfowl and Coots During the 2000-2001 Season

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) published in the September 25, 2000, Federal Register, a proposal to grant temporary approval of tin shot as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots during the 2000-01 hunting season. Inadvertently, the deadline for public comment was stated as November 24, 2000. This correction amends the deadline for public comment to October 24, 2000.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule published September 25, 2000 (65 FR 57586) must be received no later than October 24, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:

          You should submit comments on the proposed rule to the Chief, Office of Migratory Bird Management (MBMO), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street, NW., ms 634-ARLSQ, Washington, DC 20240. You may inspect comments during normal business hours in Room 634, Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jon Andrew, Chief, Office of Migratory Bird Management, (703) 358-1714.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        We published in the September 25, 2000, Federal Register (65 FR 57586), a proposal under the authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742a-j) to grant temporary approval of tin shot as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots during the 2000-01 hunting season. Inadvertently, the deadline for public comment was stated as November 24, 2000, which provides for a 60-day comment period. The correct deadline for public comment is October 24, 2000. In the proposed rule, we stated that the comment period for the proposed rule had been shortened to 30 days. This timeframe will make it possible for tin shot, if temporarily approved, to be available for use by hunters during the 2000-01 hunting season, and will increase the number of nontoxic shot options available to hunters.

          Dated: October 13, 2000.
          Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
          Acting Director.

      [FR Doc. 00-27108 Filed 10-20-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P