        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [I.D. 110102J]
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fisheries; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna; Petition for Rulemaking

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS announces receipt of, and requests public comment on, a petition from the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (Petitioner) to initiate rulemaking to amend the current Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) allocation criteria and to create a winter time-period subquota. The Petitioner has requested that NMFS commence the rulemaking process as soon as possible.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, on December 18, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on the petition should be sent to Brad McHale, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA  01930-2298.  Mark on the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Petition for Rulemaking.”  Comments may also be sent via a facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9340.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.  Copies of the letter constituting the petition are available upon request at the address mentioned above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Brad McHale, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9260.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Petition for Rulemaking
        On October 16, 2002, the Petitioner submitted a request to NMFS to initiate rulemaking for a regulatory amendment to 50 CFR 635.27 that would allocate 23 percent of the General category BFT quota to a new December 1 through January 31 time-period subquota.  In 2002, the initial General Category quota equaled 647 mt, thus 23 percent would equal 150 mt.  The Petitioner states that the quota allocated to the late season General category fishery does not provide reasonable opportunity to harvest BFT when they appear off the South Atlantic coast.  The Petitioner believes that there is inequity in the current General category BFT management scheme and that it is necessary to create a General category December through January subquota to ensure fair and equitable treatment to all General category permit holders.  The Petitioner explains that the current allocation of General category quota disadvantages General category permit holders who wish to commercially pursue BFT in the South Atlantic, confounds the collection of fishery data, and confounds management for optimum yield.
        The Petitioner notes that the proposed amendment  could remedy the above inequities, address concerns over National Standard 4, benefit all U.S. BFT fishermen, and have significant economic benefits to South Atlantic fishing communities.  The Petitioner also recognizes the proposed amendment could have some negative effects on participants who exploit available quota during earlier time-period subquotas.  However, the Petitioner believes that the negative impacts could be mitigated if New England fishermen elect to pursue the BFT as they move south of the South Atlantic states.
        The Petitioner acknowledges that operating under the National Standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is a NOAA priority and policy.  To that end, the Petitioner believes that the proposed amendment addresses serious issues related to several National Standards.  The Petitioner also believes that the proposed amendment is consistent with specific objectives contained in the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks (HMS FMP), including improved coordination of domestic conservation and management of the highly migratory species fisheries, considering the multi-species nature of these fisheries, overlapping regional and individual participation, international management concerns, and other relevant factors, as well as maintaining the fishing season and geographic range of the fishery within its historic context to improve scientific monitoring and enhance fishing opportunities.  In addition, the Petitioner notes that the 2002 quota specifications and General category effort controls acknowledge that the BFT fishery has changed in recent years with higher catch rates in the fall/winter.  According to Petitioner, the proposed amendment would allow more time to harvest the General category subquota and minimize the need to increase harvest limits to levels that could negatively affect prices to U.S. fishermen in international markets.
        Issue Background
        The request made by the Petitioner has been recently discussed in several public forums.  During the development of the issue of opening a southern commercial handgear BFT fishery, the HMS Advisory Panel and public extensively discussed establishing a set-aside quota for a North Carolina General category fishery.  However, the HMS AP did not reach consensus on whether or not to allow a new southern commercial fishery.  At that time, NMFS maintained its position that allowing new gear types and large scale fisheries for BFT would not be consistent with rebuilding overfished stocks and preventing overfishing.  In analyzing a variety of long-term effort controls in the BFT fishery, the HMS FMP concluded that the status quo management regime for the General category would assist attainment of optimum yield and address allocation issues by lengthening the season over time and space in a category with high participation and catch rates.
        During the 2002 HMS AP meeting, representatives from North Carolina presented a proposal to allocate General category BFT quota during a time and/or in an area so that North Carolina fishermen would have local access to the commercial handgear fishery.  The HMS AP again extensively discussed the issue but did not reach consensus.
        During the comment period for the 2002 BFT Quota Specifications and General Category Effort controls, NMFS received numerous comments, stating that North Carolina should have its own winter General category set-aside quota.  These comments also stated that the current General category allocation scheme discriminates between residents of different states and fails to provide equitable fishing opportunities across different geographical areas.  Commenters also requested that there be a December through January time-period subquota established for southern states.
        At that time, NMFS maintained the current quota allocation scheme and did not implement a specific set-aside quota for North Carolina.  NMFS stated it would continue to assess the order of magnitude and scope of the fishing activities that would be associated with a North Carolina General category BFT fishery and would continue to work with the HMS AP to address potential solutions.
        Request for Comments
        This document solicits comments from the public regarding the need to proceed with rulemaking to amend the current General category BFT quota allocation schedule and the provision that closes the General category BFT fishery on December 31 of each year.   NMFS is specifically requesting that the public provide comments on the social, economic, and biological impacts this regulatory amendment would have on the General category BFT Fishery.  NMFS will consider this information in determining whether to proceed with the development of amended regulations requested by the petition.

          Dated: November 12, 2002.
          John H. Dunnigan,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-29215 Filed 11-15-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2017-0018; FXES11130900000 178 FF09E42000]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Remove the Bone Cave Harvestman From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to remove the Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (i.e., “delist” the species) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. However, we ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the Bone Cave harvestman or its habitat at any time.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made on May 4, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          A copy of the petition is available on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2017-0018, or by request from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; telephone 512-490-0057; or facsimile 512-490-0974. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        At the time we received the petition discussed below (June 2, 2014), the standard for substantial scientific or commercial information with regard to this 90-day petition finding was “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species, and we will subsequently summarize the status review in our 12-month finding.
        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be delisted for one of three reasons: Extinction, recovery, or the original data for classification were in error. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species for the purpose of listing, or recovered for the purpose of delisting, as result of an assessment of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
        Evaluation of a Petition To Delist the Bone Cave Harvestman, Which Is Listed as an Endangered Species Under the Act
        Species and Range
        The Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi) occurs in Travis and Williamson Counties, Texas, and was listed as an endangered species on September 16, 1988 (53 FR 36029). See 58 FR 43818, August 18, 1993, for more information.
        Petition History

        On June 2, 2014, we received a petition from John Yearwood, Kathryn Heidemann, Charles and Cheryl Shell, the Walter Sidney Shell Management Trust, the American Stewards of Liberty, and Steven W. Carothers requesting that we remove the endangered Bone Cave harvestman from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The petition clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required at that time in 50 CFR 424.14(a). The Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (“Services”) revised the regulations at 50 CFR 424.14 to clarify the procedures under which the Services evaluate petitions effective October 27, 2016 (81 FR 66462; September 27, 2016). We originally received the petition that is the subject of this document on June 2, 2014, with supplemental information received on October 6, 2016. We, therefore, evaluated this petition under the 50 CFR 424.14 requirements that were in effect prior to October 27, 2016, as those requirements applied when the petition and supplemental information were received. At that time, our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding was “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). On June 1, 2015, the Service published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (80 FR 30990) that the petition did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action was warranted. On December 15, 2015, the American Stewards of Liberty, Charles and Cheryl Shell, Walter Sidney Shell Management Trust, Kathryn Heidemann, and Robert V. Harrison, Sr., challenged the June 1, 2015, 90-day finding in Federal district court. The Service sought the court's permission to reconsider the 90-day finding. On December 22, 2016, the court ordered the Service to complete a 90-day finding and deliver that finding to the Federal Register on or before March 31, 2017, and subsequently extended to May 1, 2017. This finding addresses the court's order and the 2014 petition.

        Recently, we began publishing multiple 90-day petition findings in a single, batched Federal Register notice and using a template format for supplementary information for each finding, to ensure consistency and transparency among findings. We are providing the supporting information for this finding in both the former single-petition Federal Register notice format that was used for the prior finding, and the new batched-notice template format. Both of these rely on identical information and can be found along with this Federal Register notice at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2017-0018. The prior traditional Federal Register notice also includes some additional information not included in the petition review form with respect to information such as representation, redundancy, and resilience.
        Finding

        Based on our review of the petition, sources cited in the petition, and the additional information provided, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that delisting the Bone Cave harvestman may be warranted. Although this finding ends our formal consideration of the petition, we are in the process of conducting a species status assessment and 5-year status review of the Bone Cave harvestman. Specifically, section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires us to review each listed species' status at least once every 5 years. On April 15, 2015, we published a notice in the Federal Register initiating this review (80 FR 20241). The purpose of a 5-year review is to ensure that listed species have the appropriate level of protection under the Act. In this case, we are developing a species status assessment as a tool to inform the 5-year status review. The 5-year review will consider whether the species' status has changed since the time of its listing or its last status review and whether it should be reclassified as threatened or delisted. We invite the public, including the petitioners and other interested parties, to submit new data and information for consideration in this ongoing process.

        The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2017-0018 in the Supporting Documents section. This 90-day finding supersedes the Service's previous June 1, 2015, 90-day finding, and is made pursuant to the court's December 22, 2016, order; the 2014 petition; and the additional reference materials accompanying the petition.
        References Cited

        A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
        Authors
        The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Austin Ecological Services Field Office.
        Authority

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

          Dated: March 20, 2017.
          James W. Kurth,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2017-09010 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 594
        [Docket No. NHTSA 2006-2412; Notice 1]
        RIN [2127-AJ87]
        Schedule of Fees Authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30141

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document proposes fees for Fiscal Year 2007 and until further notice, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30141, relating to the registration of importers and the importation of motor vehicles not certified as conforming to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). These fees are needed to maintain the registered importer (RI) program.

          DATES:
          You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than June 5, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit your comments in writing to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

          Alternatively, you may submit your comments electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System (DMS) Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on “Help” to view instructions for filing your comments electronically. Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the docket and notice number of this document. You can find the number at the beginning of this document.

          Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5291). For legal issues, you may call Michael Goode, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (202-366-5263). You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324. You may visit the Docket in person from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Introduction
        On June 24, 1996, at 61 FR 32411, we published a notice that discussed in full the rulemaking history of 49 CFR part 594 and the fees authorized by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, Public Law 100-562, since recodified as 49 U.S.C. 30141-47. The reader is referred to that notice for background information relating to this rulemaking action. Certain fees were initially established to become effective January 31, 1990, and have been in effect and occasionally modified since then.
        The fees applicable in any fiscal year are to be established before the beginning of such year. We are proposing fees that would become effective on October 1, 2006, the beginning of FY 2007. The statute authorizes fees to cover the costs of the importer registration program, to cover the cost of making import eligibility decisions, and to cover the cost of processing the bonds furnished to the Department of Homeland Security (Customs). We last amended the fee schedule in 2004. See final rule published on September 28, 2004 at 69 FR 57869. Those fees apply to Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006.
        The proposed fees are based on time and costs associated with the tasks for which the fees are assessed and reflect the slight increase in hourly costs in the past two fiscal years attributable to the approximately 3.71 and 3.44 percent raises (including the locality adjustment for Washington, DC) in salaries of employees on the General Schedule that became effective on January 1, 2005, and on January 1, 2006, respectively.
        Requirements of the Fee Regulation
        Section 594.6—Annual Fee for Administration of the Importer Registration Program

        Section 30141(a)(3) of Title 49, U.S. Code provides that RIs must pay the annual fees established “* * * to pay for the costs of carrying out the registration program for importers. * * *” This fee is payable both by new applicants and by existing RIs. To maintain its registration, each RI, at the time it submits its annual fee, must also file a statement affirming that the information it furnished in its registration application (or in later submissions amending that information) remains correct (49 CFR 592.5(f)).
        In compliance with the statutory directive, we reviewed the existing fees and their bases in an attempt to establish fees that would be sufficient to recover the costs of carrying out the registration program for importers for at least the next two fiscal years. The initial component of the Registration Program Fee is the fee attributable to processing and acting upon registration applications. We have tentatively determined that this fee should be decreased from $293 to $266 for new applications. We have also tentatively determined that the fee for the review of the annual statement should be decreased from $208 to $159. The proposed adjustments reflect reduced “per hour” computer costs, which are attributed to the implementation of client-server Information Technology (IT) systems based on user-friendly personal computers (PCs). The proposed adjustments also reflect our time expenditures in reviewing both new applications and annual statements with accompanying documentation, as well as the inflation factor attributable to Federal salary increases and locality adjustments in the two years since the regulation was last amended.
        We must also recover costs attributable to maintenance of the registration program that arise from the need for us to review a registrant's annual statement and to verify the continuing validity of information already submitted. These costs also include anticipated costs attributable to the possible revocation or suspension of registrations and reflect the amount of time that we have devoted to those matters in the past two years.
        Based upon our review of these costs, the portion of the fee attributable to the maintenance of the registration program is approximately $411 for each RI, a decrease of $126. When this $411 is added to the $266 representing the registration application component, the cost to an applicant comes to $677, which is the fee we propose. This represents a decrease of $260 over the existing fee. When the $411 is added to the $159 representing the annual statement component, the total cost to the RI comes to $570, which represents a decrease of $175.
        Section 594.6(h) enumerates indirect costs associated with processing the annual renewal of RI registrations. The provision states that these costs represent a pro rata allocation of the average salary and benefits of employees who process the annual statements and perform related functions, and “a pro rata allocation of the costs attributable to maintaining the office space, and the computer or word processor.” For the purpose of establishing the fees that are currently in existence, indirect costs are $20.07 per man-hour. We are proposing to decrease this figure by $3.00, to $17.07. This proposed decrease is based on the difference between enacted budgetary costs within the Department of Transportation for the last two fiscal years, which were lower than the estimates used when the fee schedule was last amended, and takes account of further projected decreases over the next two fiscal years.
        Sections 594.7, 594.8—Fees To Cover Agency Costs in Making Importation Eligibility Determinations
        Section 30141(a)(3) also requires registered importers to pay other fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes to cover the costs of “* * * (B) making the decisions under this subchapter.” This includes decisions on whether the vehicle sought to be imported is substantially similar to a motor vehicle that was originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and certified by its original manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS, and whether the vehicle is capable of being readily altered to meet those standards. Alternatively, where there is no substantially similar U.S. certified motor vehicle, the decision is whether the safety features of the vehicle comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, the FMVSS based on destructive test information or such other evidence NHTSA deems to be adequate. These decisions are made in response to petitions submitted by RIs or manufacturers, or on the Administrator's own initiative.
        The fee for a vehicle imported under an eligibility decision made in response to a petition is payable in part by the petitioner and in part by other importers. The fee to be charged for each vehicle is the estimated pro-rata share of the costs in making all the eligibility determinations in a fiscal year.

        Inflation and General Schedule raises must also be taken into account in the computation of costs. We have reduced costs by issuing a single Federal Register notice to announce import eligibility decisions made on multiple vehicles and realized reduced “per hour” computer costs, which are attributed to the implementation of client-server IT systems based on user-friendly PCs. Despite the cost savings that have accrued from these developments, RIs have imported fewer vehicles each year since we last amended the fee schedule. This has increased the pro-rata share of petition costs that are to be assessed against the importer of each vehicle covered by the decision to grant import eligibility. The agency has also devoted an increasing share of staff time in the past two years to the review and processing of import eligibility petitions owing to a proportionately greater number of comments being submitted in response to these petitions, as well as complications that result when the petitioner or one or more commenters request confidentiality for information they submit to the agency. Additional staff time is also needed to analyze the petitions and any comments received owning to new requirements being adopted in the FMVSS. Despite these factors, we are proposing no increase in the current fee of $175 that covers the initial processing of a “substantially similar” petition. Instead, as discussed below, we are proposing to address these additional costs by increasing the pro-rata share of petition costs that are assessed against the importer of each vehicle covered by the decision to grant import eligibility. Likewise, we are also proposing to maintain the existing fee of $800 to cover the initial costs for processing petitions for vehicles that have no substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart.
        In the event that a petitioner requests an inspection of a vehicle, the fee for such an inspection would remain $827 for vehicles that are the subject of either type of petition.
        Importers of vehicles determined to be eligible for importation pay, upon the importation of those vehicles, a pro-rata share of the total cost for making the eligibility decision. The importation fee varies depending upon the basis on which the vehicle is determined to be eligible. For vehicles covered by an eligibility decision on the agency's own initiative (other than vehicles imported from Canada that are covered by VSA Nos. 80-83, for which no eligibility decision fee is assessed), the fee would remain $125. NHTSA determined that the costs associated with previous eligibility determinations on the agency's own initiative would be fully recovered by October 1, 2006. We would apply the fee of $125 per vehicle only to vehicles covered by determinations made by the agency on its own initiative on or after October 1, 2006.

        The agency's costs for making an import eligibility decision pursuant to a petition are borne in part by the petitioner and in part by the importers of vehicles imported under the petition. In 2005, the most recent year for which complete data exists, the agency expended $79,626 in making import eligibility decisions based on petitions. The petitioners paid $8,575 of that amount in the processing fees that accompanied the filing of their petitions, leaving the remaining $71,051 to be recovered from the importers of the 192 vehicles imported that year under petition-based import eligibility decisions. Dividing $71,051 by 192 yields a pro-rata fee of $370 for each vehicle imported under an eligibility decision that resulted from the granting of a petition.
        However, the agency believes that the volume of petition-based imports for the next two fiscal years should not be projected on the basis of a single year, particularly one in which the volume of petitioned-based imports was atypically low. The agency therefore took the average number of petition-based imports over the past 15 years to project the number of such vehicles that would be imported in Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008. Further, we anticipate that petitions filed during Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008 would also more closely reflect the average number of petitions received each year since 1991, the first year that the agency received RI petitions. Based on these estimates, we anticipate that nearly 600 vehicles would be imported under petition-based eligibility decisions and that 42 petition-based import eligibility decisions would be made.
        Based on these estimates, the agency's costs for processing these petitions would increase to no more than $140,000. Petitioners would pay slightly more than $15,000 of that amount in the processing fees that accompany the filing of their petitions, leaving the remaining $125,000 to be recovered from the importers of the nearly 600 vehicles to be imported each year under petition-based import eligibility decisions. Dividing $125,000 by 600 yields a pro-rata fee of $208 for each vehicle imported under an eligibility decision that results from the granting of a petition.
        Based on our estimates for Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008, the pro rata fee to be paid by the importer of each such vehicle would increase from $150 to $208, representing an increase of $58 from the existing fee for each vehicle imported. The same $208 fee would be paid regardless of whether the vehicle was petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(a), based on the substantial similarity of the vehicle to a U.S. certified model, or was petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(b), based on the safety features of the vehicle complying with, or being capable of being modified to comply with all applicable FMVSS.
        Section 594.9—Fee To Recover the Costs of Processing the Bond
        Section 30141(a)(3) also requires a registered importer to pay any other fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes “* * * to pay for the costs of—(A) processing bonds provided to the Secretary of the Treasury * * *” upon the importation of a nonconforming vehicle to ensure that the vehicle would be brought into compliance within a reasonable time, or if it is not brought into compliance within such time, that it be exported, without cost to the United States, or abandoned to the United States.
        The Department of Homeland Security (Customs) now exercises the functions associated with the processing of these bonds. The statute contemplates that we would make a reasonable determination of the costs that Department incurs in processing the bonds. In essence, the cost to Customs is based upon an estimate of the time that a GS-9, Step 5 employee spends on each entry, which Customs has judged to be 20 minutes.
        Based on General Schedule salary and locality raises that were effective in January 2005 and 2006 and the inclusion of costs for benefits, we are proposing that the processing fee be increased by $0.47, from $9.30 per bond to $9.77. This fee would reflect the direct and indirect costs that are actually associated with processing the bonds.
        Section 594.10—Fee for Review and Processing of Conformity Certificate
        Each RI is currently required to pay $18 per vehicle to cover the costs the agency incurs in reviewing a certificate of conformity. We estimate that these costs would decrease to an average of $13 per vehicle because of lower contractor costs and reduced “per hour” computer costs, which are attributed to the implementation of client-server IT systems based on user-friendly PCs. Based on these estimates, we are proposing to reduce the fee charged for vehicles for which a paper entry and fee payment is made, from $18 to $13, a difference of $5 per vehicle. However, if an RI enters a vehicle through the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) system, has an e-mail address to receive communications from NHTSA, and pays the fee by credit card, the cost savings that we realize allow us to significantly reduce the fee to $6. We propose to maintain the fee of $6 per vehicle if all the information in the ABI entry is correct.
        Errors in ABI entries not only eliminate any time savings, but also require additional staff time to be expended in reconciling the erroneous ABI entry information to the conformity data that is ultimately submitted. Our experience with these errors has shown that staff members must examine records, make time-consuming long distance telephone calls, and often consult supervisory personnel to resolve the conflicts in the data. We have calculated this staff and supervisory time, as well as the telephone charges, to amount to approximately $42 for each erroneous ABI entry. Adding this to the $6 fee for the review of conformity packages on automated entries yields a total of $48, representing no change in the fee that is currently charged when there are one or more errors in the ABI entry or in the statement of conformity.
        Effective Date
        The proposed effective date of the final rule is October 1, 2006.
        Rulemaking Analyses
        A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
        (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
        (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
        (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
        (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

        NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is not significant. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rulemaking document under Executive Order 12886. Further, NHTSA has determined that the rulemaking is not significant under Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. Based on the level of the fees and the volume of affected vehicles, NHTSA currently anticipates that the costs of the final rule would be so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation. The action does not involve any substantial public interest or controversy. There would be no substantial effect upon State and local governments. There would be no substantial impact upon a major transportation safety program. A regulatory evaluation analyzing the economic impact of the final rule establishing the registered importer program, adopted on September 29, 1989, was prepared, and is available for review in the docket.
        B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBFEFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        The agency has considered the effects of this proposed rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and certifies that if the proposed amendments are adopted they would not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.
        The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The proposed amendments would primarily affect entities that currently modify nonconforming vehicles and which are small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act; however, the agency has no reason to believe that these companies would be unable to pay the fees proposed by this action. In some instances, these fees would be only modestly increased (and in most instances decreased) from the fees now being paid by these entities. Moreover, consistent with prevailing industry practices, these fees should be passed through to the ultimate purchasers of the vehicles that are altered and, in most instances, sold by the affected registered importers. The cost to owners or purchasers of nonconforming vehicles that are altered to conform to the FMVSS may be expected to increase (or decrease) to the extent necessary to reimburse the registered importer for the fees payable to the agency for the cost of carrying out the registration program and making eligibility decisions, and to compensate Customs for its bond processing costs.
        Governmental jurisdictions would not be affected at all since they are generally neither importers nor purchasers of nonconforming motor vehicles.
        C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
        Executive Order 13132 on “Federalism” requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.” Executive Order 13132 defines the term “policies that have federalism implications” to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implication, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
        The proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rulemaking action.
        D. National Environmental Policy Act
        NHTSA has analyzed this action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The action would not have a significant effect upon the environment because it is anticipated that the annual volume of motor vehicles imported through registered importers would not vary significantly from that existing before promulgation of the rule.
        E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
        Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 “Civil Justice Reform,” this agency has considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive effect. NHTSA concludes that this proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Judicial review of a rule based on this proposal may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review.
        F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

        Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with the base year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written assessment is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and to adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Because a final rule based on this proposal would not require the expenditure of resources beyond $100 million annually, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

        G. Plain Language
        Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:

        —Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
        —Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated?
        —Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon that is unclear?
        —Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of heading, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
        —Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
        —Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
        —What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

        If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this document.
        H. Paperwork Reduction Act
        Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This proposal would require no information collections.
        I. Executive Order 13045
        Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us. This rulemaking is not economically significant.
        J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

        Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
        After conducting a search of available sources, we have concluded that there are no voluntary consensus standards applicable to this proposed rule.
        K. Comments
        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 be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

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

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

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

        You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given near the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES.
        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 heading of this document. Example: if the docket number were “NHTSA-2000-1234,” you would type “1234.”
        (4) After typing the docket number, click on “search.”
        (5) The next page contains docket summary information for the docket you selected. Click on the comments you wish to see. You may download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, instead of the word processing documents, the “pdf” versions of the documents are word searchable. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for new material.
        L. 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 that appears in the heading on the first page of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
        In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 594 as follows:

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

          PART 594—SCHEDULE OF FEES AUTHORIZED BY 49 U.S.C. 30141
          1. The authority citation for part 594 would continue to read as follows:

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 30141, 31 U.S.C. 9701; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          2. Section 594.6 would be amended by;
          (a) Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a);
          (b) Revising paragraph (b);
          (c) Revising paragraph (d);
          (d) Revising the final sentence of paragraph (h); and
          (e) Revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:

            § 594.6
            Annual fee for administration of the registration program.
            (a) Each person filing an application to be granted the status of a Registered Importer pursuant to part 592 of this chapter on or after October 1, 2006, must pay an annual fee of $677, as calculated below, based upon the direct and indirect costs attributable to:

            (b) That portion of the initial annual fee attributable to the processing of the application for applications filed on and after October 1, 2006, is $266. The sum of $266, representing this portion, shall not be refundable if the application is denied or withdrawn.

            (d) That portion of the initial annual fee attributable to the remaining activities of administering the registration program on and after October 1, 2006, is set forth in paragraph (i) of this section. This portion shall be refundable if the application is denied, or withdrawn before final action upon it.

            (h) * * * This cost is $17.07 per man-hour for the period beginning October 1, 2006.
            (i) Based upon the elements and indirect costs of paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section, the component of the initial annual fee attributable to administration of the registration program, covering the period beginning October 1, 2006, is $411. When added to the costs of registration of $266, as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the costs per applicant to be recovered through the annual fee are $677. The annual renewal registration fee for the period beginning October 1, 2006, is $570.
            3. Section 594.7 would be amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

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

            (e) For petitions filed on and after October 1, 2006, the fee payable for seeking a determination under paragraph (a)(1) of this section is $175. The fee payable for a petition seeking a determination under paragraph (a)(2) of this section is $800. If the petitioner requests an inspection of a vehicle, the sum of $827 shall be added to such fee. No portion of this fee is refundable if the petition is withdrawn or denied.

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

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

            (b) If a determination has been made pursuant to a petition, the fee for each vehicle is $208. The direct and indirect costs that determine the fee are those set forth in §§ 594.7(b), (c), and (d).
            (c) If a determination has been made on or after October 1, 2006, pursuant to the Administrator's initiative, the fee for each vehicle is $125. * * *
            5. Section 594.9 would be amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

            § 594.9
            Fee for reimbursement of bond processing costs.

            (c) The bond processing fee for each vehicle imported on and after October 1, 2006, for which a certificate of conformity is furnished, is $9.77.
            5. Section 594.10 would be amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

            § 594.10
            Fee for review and processing of conformity certificate.

            (d) The review and processing fee for each certificate of conformity submitted on and after October 1, 2006 is $13. However, if the vehicle covered by the certificate has been entered electronically with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the Automated Broker Interface and the registered importer submitting the certificate has an e-mail address, the fee for the certificate is $6, provided that the fee is paid by a credit card issued to the registered importer. If NHTSA finds that the information in the entry or the certificate is incorrect, requiring further processing, the processing fee shall be $48.

            Ronald Medford,
            Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.

       [FR Doc. E6-5740 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 100105009-0053-01]
        RIN 0648-AY51
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Fisheries; 2010 Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Specifications

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

          ACTION:
           Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
           NMFS proposes 2010 specifications for the Atlantic deep-sea red crab fishery, including a target total allowable catch (TAC) and a fleet-wide days-at-sea (DAS) allocation. The implementing regulations for the Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery Management Plan (FMP) require NMFS to publish specifications for up to a period of 3 years and to provide an opportunity for public comment. The intent of this rulemaking is to specify the target TAC and other management measures in order to manage the red crab resource for fishing year (FY) 2010.

          DATES:
           Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. eastern standard time, on March 22, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
           You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AY51, by any one of the following methods:

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

          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Regional Administrator.
          • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on 2010 Red Crab Specifications.”

          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.

          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 Paul Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. The specifications document is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           Moira Kelly, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9218.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The FMP includes a specification process that requires the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) to recommend, on a triennial basis, a target TAC and a fleet DAS allocation that is consistent with that target TAC. In FY 2009, NMFS published an emergency rule to modify the target TAC and fleet DAS to be consistent with the recommendations of the Data Poor Stocks Working Group and Review Panel (Working Group). The Working Group recommended a reduction in the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) to 3.75-4.19 million lb (1,700-1,900 mt). In keeping with the FMP in setting the target TAC at 95% of MSY, NMFS implemented a target TAC of 3.56 million lb (1,615 mt), and reduced the fleet DAS allocation from 780 DAS to 581 DAS. The fleet DAS allocation is divided equally among the vessels active in the fishery, which can vary from year to year. For FY 2009, the allocation was initially divided among four vessels; however, NMFS allowed the fourth vessel to opt out of the fishery for the FY and reallocated the fleet DAS to the remaining three vessels. It is expected that only three vessels will be active in the red crab fishery in FY 2010. The Council has requested waiving the 6-month notification requirement for opting out of the red crab fishery for FY 2010.
        In September 2009, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) accepted the Working Group's recommendation that MSY for red crab should be set within the range 3.75-4.19 million lb (1,700-1,900 mt), and recommended that the interim acceptable biological catch (ABC) be set commensurate with recent catch. The SSC determined recent catch to be the amount of red crab landed in FY 2007, which was 2.83 million lb (1,284 mt). The landings in FY 2007 were the lowest since the implementation of the FMP in 2002. During the Council's review of the SSC's recommendation at its September 2009 meeting, there was some concern among Council members that a quorum of SSC members was not present during the red crab discussion. As a result, the Council approved a motion to “send the red crab ABC back to the SSC for further analysis after new peer review information is available and that a quorum is present throughout SSC deliberations.” Further, at its November 2009 meeting, the Council approved a follow-up motion to “direct the PDT and the SSC to review the SSC recommended interim ABC for red crab to determine if it should be revised.” To date, the SSC has not reviewed its interim ABC recommendation, nor as any new peer-reviewed information been made available.
        As described in the FMP, and specified at § 648.260(b)(2), if the effective date of a final rule falls after the start of the FY on March 1, fishing may continue under the specifications for the previous year. Because the specifications currently in place under the emergency action will expire on February 28, 2010, the target TAC and DAS allocation will revert to those specified in the regulations (5.928 million lb (2,688 mt) and 780 DAS, respectively) if the effective date of the final rule is after March 1. However, any DAS used by a vessel on or after March 1 will be counted against the DAS allocation the vessel ultimately receives for FY 2010.
        Proposed Specifications
        Despite the recommendation from the SSC that the target TAC not exceed an ABC of 2.83 million lb (1,284 mt), the Council recommended a target TAC and fleet DAS allocation equal to the 2009 emergency rule, 3.56 million lb (1,615 mt) and 581 DAS, respectively. The Council vote reflected the majority view of members that the ABC recommendation by the SSC is inappropriate, and that setting the ABC equal to a single year's landings, rather than a range of recent year's landings, is improper. The Council based its target TAC on the MSY advice from the Working Group, rather than that recommended by the SSC, because the Council considers the advice of the Working Group to provide an acceptably low risk of avoiding overfishing. The Council considers it their role to determine an acceptable level of risk of overfishing after receiving scientific information about what is the level of overfishing. To be consistent with the Council's SSC recommendation and relevant Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) provisions, NMFS is instead proposing to set the target TAC for FY 2010 equal to the SSC's recommended ABC (2.83 million lb; 1,284 mt) and a recalculated fleet DAS allocation of 464 DAS. This is the maximum allowable level of fishing effort that is consistent with the SSC recommendation; however, should the SSC revise its ABC recommendation prior to publication of final specifications for FY 2010, NMFS would consider revising these specifications to the levels recommended by the Council, so long as the revised specifications remain consistent with the advice of the SSC.
        NMFS considers the best available science, as required under National Standard 2, is best represented by a recommendation from an SSC based on its review of the available scientific information. The Council's SSC accepted the Working Group's results and has recommended setting the overfishing limit (OFL) equal to the MSY range proposed by the Working Group. The SSC also concluded that “[g]iven the data-poor nature of the stock assessment, the SSC derived an interim ABC on the basis of status quo catch . . . Landings in 2007 were 1,284 mt [2.83 million lb], which is 68-76 percent of the approximate OFL. This magnitude of catch provides a 24- to 32-percent buffer between OFL and ABC, which is consistent with general guidance on buffers for data-moderate to data-poor stocks.” The SSC also noted “that there should be a substantial buffer between OFL and ABC for data-poor stocks, an ABC based on the 2002-2007 average landings would contradict the [Working Group's advice]. Therefore, the SSC recommendation is for an interim ABC that is based on 2007 landings until a better estimate of OFL can be determined.”
        Other Proposed Measures
        The Council has proposed waiving the 6-month notification requirement to opt out of the red crab fishery. Currently, vessel owners must inform NMFS of their intention to opt out of the fishery 6 months prior to the start of the next fishing; i.e., by September 1. The Council feels that because the specifications decisions were not made until November, it would seem unfair to industry to require vessel owners make business decisions without knowing what the target TAC would be for the upcoming FY. NMFS is proposing to adopt this waiver for FY 2010.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this preamble and in the SUMMARY. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).

        There are no large entities that participate in this fishery, as defined in section 601 of the RFA; therefore, there are no disproportionate effects on small versus large entities. Information on costs in the fishery are not readily available, and individual vessel profitability cannot be determined directly; therefore, changes in gross revenues were used as a proxy for profitability. In the absence of quantitative data, qualitative analyses were conducted.
        The participants in the commercial sector are the owners of vessels issued limited access red crab vessel permits. There are five limited access red crab vessel permits, although only three vessels participated in the fishery in FY 2009.
        The IRFA in the Draft EA analyzed three alternatives (including the no action alternative) for establishing a target TAC and fleet-wide DAS allocation for FY 2010. Alternative 1 (status quo) would set the MSY, OY, target TAC, and DAS allocation equal to those adopted through emergency action on April 6, 2009. If the status quo alternative were adopted, MSY would be 3.75 million lb (1,700 mt), OY and the target TAC would be 3.56 million lb (1,615 mt), and the fleet DAS would be 582. If the DAS were allocated equally to the four vessels that have been active in recent years, the DAS per vessel would be 146. If only three vessels remain in the fishery, the resulting DAS allocation would be 194 DAS for each active vessel. Alternative 2 would adopt the SSC's recommended interim ABC value of 2.83 million lb (1,284 mt) as the target TAC for FY 2010. The corresponding fleet DAS would be 464, based on the fleet average daily landings per charged DAS for the years 2006-2008 (6,106 lb/DAS; 2,770 kg/DAS). The fleet DAS would be divided by the five current limited access permits, or less depending on the number of permits that declare out of the fishery. As noted above, one of the limited access permits has been declared out of the fishery each year since 2004 and a second vessel opted out for FY 2009 as well. If four vessels remain in the fishery, the resulting DAS allocation would be 116 DAS for each active vessel. If only three vessels remain in the fishery, the resulting DAS allocation would be 155 DAS for each active vessel. If no action were taken (Alternative 3), MSY would revert to the 6.24-million-lb (2,830-mt) value established by the FMP, and OY and the target TAC for FY 2010 would revert to 5.93 million lb (2,689 mt). The fleet-wide DAS allocation would be 780 DAS. If these DAS were distributed equally to the four limited access vessels that have been active in the fishery in recent years, the allocation per vessel would be 195 DAS. If a second vessel were to opt out for FY 2010, the allocation for each of the remaining three vessels would be 260 DAS.
        Under the Council's recommended specifications, approximately $730,000 of additional potential revenue could be available to the red crab fleet compared to NMFS's proposed specifications, and approximately $2.4 million less potential revenue than the No Action alternative. The current target TAC that would be maintained by the Council's alternative is greater than the average of the past 4 years' landings, 2 of which were higher, and 2 lower. For the past 2 years, the fleet has landed less than the target TAC that would result from the Council's recommended specifications. Whereas a limited market has been responsible for the shortfall in landings compared to the target TAC, red crab vessel owners have invested heavily in a new processing plant in New Bedford, MA, and have developed new marketing outlets with hopes to increase demand for their product.
        The loss in revenue to the red crab fleet from NMFS's proposed specifications compared to the no action alternative would potentially be approximately $3.1 million. Potential losses from alternative fisheries that may result from the need to readjust vessel time among fisheries are uncertain. The loss in revenue to the red crab fleet from this target TAC compared to the Council recommended target TAC would potentially be approximately $730,000.
        The target TAC prescribed by the FMP would allow for approximately $3.1 million more potential revenue for the red crab fleet in the short-term compared to NMFS's proposed target TAC, and approximately $2.4 million more revenue compared to the Council's recommended target. However, not implementing a target TAC consistent with the Working Group's advice could create potentially negative long-term economic effects due to overexploitation.

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

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

        Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: February 12, 2010.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
          1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

            2. In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(13)(i)(B)(2)(ii) is revised to read as follows:

            § 648.4
            Vessel permits.
            (a) * * *
            (13) * * *
            (i) * * *
            (B) * * *
            (2) * * *
            (ii) A limited-access permit holder may choose to declare out of the red crab fishery for the next fishing year by submitting a binding declaration on a form supplied by the Regional Administrator, which must be received by NMFS at least 180 days before the last day of the current fishing year. NMFS will presume that a vessel intends to fish during the next fishing year unless such binding declaration is received at least 180 days before the last day of the current fishing year. Any limited-access permit holder who has submitted a binding declaration must submit either a new binding declaration or a renewal application for the year after which they were declared out of the fishery. For the 2010 fishing year only, the 6-month notification requirement is waived, and a vessel may be declared out of the fishery at any time prior to fishing under a limited access red crab DAS.
            3. In § 648.260, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:

            § 648.260
            Specifications.
            (a) * * *
            (1) Target total allowable catch. The target TAC for fishing year 2010 will be 2.830 million lb (1,283 mt), unless modified pursuant to this paragraph.
            4. In § 648.262, paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as follows:

            § 648.262
            Effort-control program for red crab limited access vessels.
            (b) * * *
            (2) For fishing year 2010. Each limited access permit holder shall be allocated 93 DAS unless one or more vessels declares out of the fishery consistent with § 648.4(a)(13)(i)(B)(2) or the TAC is adjusted consistent with § 648.260.

      [FR Doc. 2010-3270 Filed 2-18-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 00-586; MM Docket No. 99-212; RM-9640]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Amelia, LA

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; denial.

          SUMMARY:
          This document denies a petition for rule making filed by Mountain West Broadcasting proposing the allotment of FM Channel 249C3 to Amelia, Louisiana, as that locality's first local aural transmission service. Petitioner failed to establish the availability of a suitable location for tower construction as the required site restriction located 18.4 kilometers south of the community at coordinates 29-30-21 NL and 91-03-46 WL to accommodate Channel 249C3 at Amelia is in marshland. See 64 FR 31173, June 10, 1999. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-212, adopted March 8, 2000, and released March 17, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.

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

      [FR Doc. 00-7828 Filed 3-30-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P