        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-07-26833]
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems Child Restraint Anchorage Systems

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public meeting, request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NHTSA is having a public meeting to bring together a roundtable of child restraint and vehicle manufacturers, retailers, technicians, researchers and consumer groups to discuss ways to improve child safety through improving the design and increasing the use of child restraint systems. Through a combination of presentations by invited speakers and group discussions among roundtable attendees, the group will focus on the following topics at this meeting: improving Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH) system designs, improving child side impact safety, and educating the public about LATCH. This notice announces the date, time and location of the meeting.

          DATES:

            Public Meeting: The public meeting will be held on February 8, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC.

            Comments: Written comments may be submitted to the agency and must be received no later than April 9, 2007.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ms. Debbie Ascone, Office of Vehicle Safety, NHTSA, telephone 202-366-4383, e-mail Debbie.Ascone@dot.gov, or Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA, telephone 202-366-2992, e-mail Dee.Fujita@dot.gov. Both officials may also be reached at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

          ADDRESSES:

            Public meeting: The public meeting will be held at the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024, telephone 202-484-1000.

            Written comments: Written comments must refer to the docket number of this notice and be submitted by any of the following methods:
          • Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. DOT, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001.
          • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324 and visit the Docket from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.

          Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion under the heading “How do I prepare and submit comments?” at the end of this notice. Please see also the discussion there of confidential business information.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        In March 1999, NHTSA issued a final rule that established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 225, “Child restraint anchorage systems,” which requires motor vehicle manufacturers to provide motorists with a new means of installing child restraints (64 FR 10786; March 5, 1999) in nearly all new passenger vehicles. The new means, named the “LATCH” 1
           system by industry, is a standardized child restraint anchorage system designed to be used exclusively for securing child restraints. Each vehicle LATCH system consists of an upper anchor point (top tether anchor) and two lower anchor points. Each lower anchor point includes a six millimeter (mm) diameter straight rod, or “bar,” that is located near the intersection of the seat cushion and seat back (“seat bight”) in a recessed position where they will not be felt by seated adult occupants.

            1 Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH) system.

        Each vehicle with at least two seating positions behind the front seat must have full LATCH systems (consisting of the two rigid lower bars and the top tether anchor) in at least two rear seating positions. If the vehicle has a third rear seating position, the vehicle must also have a top tether anchor at a third rear seating position.
        The rule also required child restraint systems manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 to have components capable of attaching to the LATCH system. In addition, the rule required child restraints manufactured after that date to continue to be capable of being attached to a vehicle by way of the vehicle's belt system.
        The LATCH system was phased into new vehicles from 1999 to 2002, beginning with the tether anchor in passenger cars in 1999 and ending with full implementation of the LATCH system for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (including sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and vans), and light trucks and buses in September 2002.2

          Id.

            2 NHTSA estimated the benefits of the rule to be 36 to 50 lives saved per year, and 1,231 to 2,929 injuries prevented. Based on an estimated average total annual cost of $152 million, the cost per equivalent life saved was estimated to be from $2.1 to $3.7 million.

        Implementing LATCH

        The agency recognized early on that educating consumers about the new LATCH system would be crucial to the success of the system. After issuing the LATCH final rule, NHTSA met regularly with vehicle and child restraint manufacturers, retailers, and consumer groups on developing public information and marketing strategies to educate consumers about the new LATCH products becoming available on the market, including the correct use of the products. The groups last met in June and July 2002, in the months leading up to September 1 date on which the LATCH regulation became fully effective.
        LATCH Use Survey and Report
        To assess the progress made since 2002 and identify the possible needs for additional steps, NHTSA conducted a survey from April to October 2005 on the types of restraint systems that were being used to keep children safe while riding in passenger vehicles. The results of that survey were discussed in a report on the use and misuse of LATCH (“Child Restraint Use Survey—LATCH Use and Misuse,” Docket 26735) published in December 2006. NHTSA was interested in whether drivers of LATCH-equipped vehicles were using LATCH to secure their child restraints to the vehicle, and if so, whether they were properly installing the restraints. In the survey, the make/model and the type of restraint installed in each seating position were recorded for each vehicle, and the demographic characteristics and the type of child restraint system were collected for each occupant. In addition, information was gathered about the drivers' knowledge of booster seats and LATCH, along with their opinions on how easy it was for them to use LATCH.
        A key finding of the survey was that of the child restraints located in a seating position equipped with an upper tether anchor, 55 percent were attached to the vehicle using the upper tether. Other findings included:
        (a) In 13 percent of the LATCH equipped vehicles in which there was a child restraint, the restraint was placed in a seat position not equipped with lower anchors—instead, the vehicle seat belt was used to secure the restraint to the vehicle.
        (b) Among the 87 percent who placed the child safety seat at a position equipped with lower anchors, 60 percent used the lower attachments to secure the restraint to the vehicle.
        (c) Of those drivers with experience using both lower attachments and seat belts, (1) 81 percent of upper tether users and 74 percent of lower attachment users said upper tether and/or lower attachments were easy to use, and (2) 75 percent preferred the lower attachments over seat belts.
        (d) Sixty-one (61) percent of upper tether nonusers and 55 percent of lower attachment nonusers cited their lack of knowledge—not knowing what the anchorages were, that they were available in the vehicle, the importance of using them, or how to use them properly—as the reason for not using them.
        The LATCH report found that consumers who have experience with LATCH like it, and that LATCH is helping to reduce the insecure installation of child restraints. However, the report also indicated that proper use of LATCH is not inherently evident to parents. Many parents do not use LATCH because they do not know about it or understand its importance. Some use both the LATCH system and the seat belt system to install their child restraints. There is also some confusion about where LATCH anchors can be found. In addition, there were differing degrees of difficulty using the anchors depending on location and configuration of the child seat hardware.
        Public Meeting
        In light of the LATCH report, NHTSA is having a public meeting to bring together a roundtable of child restraint and vehicle manufacturers, retailers, technicians, researchers and consumer groups to discuss ways to make LATCH easier to use and better known. Through a combination of presentations by invited speakers and group discussions among roundtable participants, the group will focus on the following topics at this meeting: LATCH design improvements, child side impact safety improvements, and initiatives to educate the public about LATCH and seat belt use.
        The meeting will be open to the public, but participation in the roundtable will be limited and by invitation only in order to ensure that all of the topics can be addressed in the time available. However, the floor will be open to the audience attending the meeting during the final part of the meeting. Anyone wishing to supplement their oral comments may do so by submitting written comments.
        Roundtable participants should focus on the issues and questions listed below.
        Regarding LATCH Design
        The requirements for the top tether anchor were harmonized with Canadian and Australian requirements, particularly with respect to the zones within which the anchor may be located. The lower LATCH anchor bars must be located not so far forward on the vehicle seat so as to injure an adult occupant sitting on the seat, but not so rearward as to be too difficult to access. The presence of lower bars that are not visible without compressing the seat cushion or seat back must be indicated by a permanent mark on the vehicle seat back at each bar's location to help parents locate and use the bars.
        NHTSA allows vehicle manufacturers to decide which rear seating positions are equipped with the two full LATCH systems. It does not require a full LATCH system to be in a center rear seating position. This flexibility was provided because, if two full LATCH systems are provided in the rear seat of a sedan-type vehicle, it may not be feasible to fit the lower anchor bars of the two LATCH systems side-by-side in two adjacent seating positions, or practical to fit two child restraints adjacent to each other in the rear seat of small vehicles. NHTSA does require the top tether anchor at the third rear seating position to be at the center position, to provide parents an improved means of attaching child restraints in a center rear seat.
        Invited speakers are asked to speak to the following questions:
        Tether Anchors
        • What are the design considerations/constraints for locating tether anchors in various types of vehicles? Why do some SUVs, vans and trucks have tether anchors under the seat, etc., which consumers have found difficult to access when installing their child restraints?
        • What can be done to make access to the upper and lower anchors easier or make the anchors more visible?
        • What would be the feasibility and/or implications of further restricting where tether anchors may be placed by amending Standard 225?
        Lower Anchors
        • What feedback are you obtaining from consumers? Are you getting complaints?
        • NHTSA has not had any complaints that the lower anchors are causing occupant discomfort. Would it be feasible and desirable to amend the seat bight depth requirement to require that anchors be located more forward in the seat bight? Would this make the installation and/or removal of child restraint systems easier?
        • Are there any technical or other reasons why consumers who wish to place their child restraint in a rear center seat location using the inboard lower anchors from the outboard seating locations should not do so? If the child restraint can be snugly secured with this installation to “create” a middle LATCH seating position, is there any reason that doing this should be considered misuse?

        • Will you be increasing over time the proportion of your fleet that is equipped with lower anchors in the center-rear position?

        Child Seat Designs
        • Are there child restraint hook designs that consumers find easier to install/remove?
        • What would be the feasibility and/or implications of incorporating the most consumer friendly hooks in all child restraints?
        Regarding LATCH Ease-of-Use
        NHTSA is interested in improving information in its ease-of-use ratings for child restraints and could include information about features of LATCH hardware. We are also considering exploring the addition of information to the annual NHTSA publication, “Buying a Safer Car for Child Passengers,” on the number of seating positions with LATCH and on other matters related to LATCH, such as the degree of accessibility of the anchors.
        Invited speakers are asked to speak to the following questions:
        • What are the considerations in developing more consumer-friendly child restraint hooks or other features (e.g., what are the trade-offs in child restraint cost, ease-of-use ratings, and retail sales)?
        • NHTSA is considering providing consumer information on LATCH anchor locations and the numbers of lower anchor-equipped seating positions in each vehicle make/model. What are your comments on this initiative?
        • Should NHTSA provide consumer information on including use of inboard lower anchors to “create” a middle LATCH seating position?
        • In the past, the agency has determined that given the number of child restraints and vehicle make/models, it was not feasible for the agency to test and provide vehicle child restraint ease-of-use ratings. Are there other approaches the agency should consider? Are there voluntary initiatives underway or being jointly considered by the child restraint and vehicle manufacturers that would provide useful consumer information regarding child restraint and vehicle ease-of-use compatibility?
        Regarding Child Side Impact Protection
        In 2002, NHTSA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on work in developing a child restraint side impact protection standard (67 FR 21836; May 1, 2002; Docket 12151). The rulemaking was withdrawn because considerably more work was needed to support a Federal motor vehicle standard on child side impact, including data analyses as to how children are being injured or killed in side impacts, potential countermeasures that would be available to reduce side impact intrusion, and the appropriate child test dummy and associated injury criteria for side impact testing (68 FR 37620, 37624). NHTSA's research into side impact protection has continued as an ongoing agency program.
        NHTSA will present the status of its current research effort, and other panelists that have knowledge of the side impact issue will be invited to participate on the panel.
        Regarding LATCH Education
        NHTSA would like to develop educational messages to improve consumers' awareness of the benefits of the top tether and the convenience of the LATCH lower anchors. We also seek cooperation and coordination of efforts between NHTSA, child restraint and vehicle manufacturers, retailers, and educators, to develop and promote communications strategies that will reach parents and caregivers of young children.
        Invited speakers are asked to speak to the following questions:
        • What questions have users asked your organization with regard to—
         Tether use;
         Lower anchor use;
         Center rear seat use?
        • What public information and marketing strategies are being conducted to inform consumers of proper or optimal use of child restraints?
        • What could organizations do to reach consumers more broadly and provide more useful information to consumers about child restraint installation?
        • What information should we provide consumers regarding the effectiveness of seat belts versus LATCH in securing child restraints?
        Other Procedural Matters
        The meeting will be open to the public with advanced registration for seating on a space-available basis. Individuals wishing to register to assure a seat in the public seating area should provide their name, affiliation, phone number and e-mail address to Ms. Ascone using the contact information at the beginning of this notice. Should it be necessary to cancel the meeting due to inclement weather or other emergency, NHTSA will take all available measures to notify registered participants by e-mail or telephone.
        The meeting will be held at a site accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations such as sign language interpreters should contact Ms. Ascone by January 31, 2007.
        A transcript of the meeting and other information received by NHTSA at the meeting will be placed in the docket for this notice at a later date.
        Draft Agenda
        8:30-9 Welcome and Opening Remarks.
        9-9:10 Panel I. LATCH systems (overview)—NHTSA.
        9:10-10:15 Invited speakers on LATCH systems.
        10:15-10:30 Break.
        10:30-10:40 Panel II. Ease-of-use issues/initiatives—NHTSA.
        10:40-11:30 Invited speakers on LATCH ease-of-use (EOU).
        11:30-12 Roundtable discussion and questions from floor.
        12-1 Lunch on your own.
        1-1:10 Panel III. Child side impact safety (overview)—NHTSA.
        1:10-1:50 Invited speakers on side impact.
        1:50-2:05 Break.
        2:10-2:20 Panel IV. Educational needs (overview)—NHTSA.
        2:20-3:20 Invited speakers on LATCH education.
        3:20-3:50 Roundtable discussion and open floor.
        3:50-4:15 Next steps; wrap-up.

        How can I submit comments on this subject?
        It is not necessary to attend or to speak at the public meeting to be able to comment on the issues. NHTSA invites readers to submit written comments which the agency will consider in its deliberations on LATCH.
        How do I prepare and submit comments?
        Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
        Your primary comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). However, you may attach additional documents to your primary comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

        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.

        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, send three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5219, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
        In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit them electronically, in the manner described at the beginning of this notice.
        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 above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
        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 check the docket for new material.
        How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
        You may read the comments by visiting Docket Management in person at Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.

          You may also see the comments on the Internet by taking the following steps:

        Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov).
        On that page, click on “Simple Search.”
        On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm/) type in the five-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on “Search.”
        On the next page, which contains docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may also download the comments.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 30111, 30168; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

          Issued on January 19, 2007.
          Nicole R. Nason,
          Administrator.

       [FR Doc. E7-1021 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1073; FRL-9263-8]
        Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions clarify permitting requirements, and update and revise exemptions from New Source Review (NSR) permitting requirements, for various air pollution sources. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

          DATES:
          Any comments must arrive by March 11, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1073, by one of the following methods:
          1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
          2. E-mail: R9airpermits@epa.gov.

          3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air—3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

            Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

            Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3534, yannayon.laura@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
        Table of Contents

          I. The State's Submittal
          A. What rules did the State submit?
          B. Are there other versions of these rules?
          C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules and rule revisions?
          II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
          A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
          B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
          C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
          D. Public Comment and Final Action
          III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. The State's Submittal
        A. What rules did the State submit?
        Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal, including the dates they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

          Table 1—Submitted Rules

            Local agency
            Rule No.
            Rule title
            Amended
            Submitted

            ICAPCD
            201
            Permits Required
            10/10/06
            08/24/07

            ICAPCD
            202
            Exemptions
            10/10/06
            08/24/07

        On September 17, 2007, EPA determined that the submittal for ICAPCD Rules 201 and 202 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
        B. Are there other versions of these rules?
        We approved an earlier version of Rule 201 into the SIP on January 3, 2007 (72 FR 9). There are no previous versions of Rule 202 in the SIP, but SIP approved Rule 103, also contains permit exemptions. Rule 103 was approved into the SIP on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842). The ICAPCD originally adopted new Rule 202 on June 1, 1977 and also adopted revisions on September 7, 1993 and September 14, 1999. Both of these revisions were submitted to EPA, however EPA has not taken action on either of these submittals. While we can act on only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.
        C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules and rule revisions?
        Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and other air pollutants which harm human health and the environment. Permitting rules were developed as part of the local air district's programs to control these pollutants.
        The purpose of District Rule 201 (Permits Required) is to identify when, and what permits, a source must obtain prior to construction and operation.
        The purpose of District Rule 202 (Exemptions) is to identify processes, articles, machines, equipment, or other contrivances for which an Authority to Construct (ATC) or Permit to Operate (PTO) is not required. Rule 202 also requires recordkeeping to verify and maintain any exemption.
        II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
        A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
        The relevant statutory provisions for our review of the submitted rules include CAA section 110(a) and section 110(l). Section 110(a) requires that SIP rules be enforceable, while section 110(l) precludes EPA approval of SIP revisions that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. In addition, we have reviewed the submitted rules for compliance with EPA implementing regulations for NSR, including 40 CFR 51.160 through 40 CFR 51.165.
        B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
        EPA has reviewed the submitted rules in accordance with the Rule Evaluation criteria described above. Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR subpart I, all major stationary sources are required to obtain an ATC permit prior to construction. For minor sources, EPA believes that emissions from the types and sizes of equipment and operations exempted from NSR permit requirements are consistent with the flexibility afforded to states to regulate only those sources as necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). While several new provisions have been added to Rule 202 that could be seen as a relaxation of the SIP because more sources are specifically exempted from Rule 207 permit requirements, in practice most of these sources have never been required to obtain a NSR ATC permit due to their small size or state law prohibitions. Because these rules will not actually worsen air quality, and will in fact require many agricultural sources to obtain permits and be subject to control requirements for the first time, EPA believes that these revisions are a long overdue update to the SIP which will provide an overall strengthening of the SIP without interfering with the District's ability to attain and maintain the NAAQS, and are therefore approvable under 110(l) of the CAA.
        The TSD has more information on our evaluation.
        C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
        The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rules.
        D. Public Comment and Final Action

        Because EPA believes the submitted rules fulfill all relevant requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them as described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
        III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
        • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

        • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

        • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
        • Does not interfere with Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) because EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

        In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

          Authority:
           42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

          Dated: January 28, 2011.
          Jared Blumenfeld,
          Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 2011-2862 Filed 2-8-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AU33
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Spikedace and Loach Minnow

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period for the proposal to designate critical habitat for the spikedace (Meda fulgida) and loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) designation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This action will allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment on the proposed critical habitat, the draft economic analysis, draft environmental assessment, Tribal management plans and resolutions, and a management plan and economic analysis submitted by Phelps Dodge Corporation, as further discussed below.
          Comments previously submitted on the December 20, 2005 (70 FR 75546), proposed rule and on the June 6, 2006 (71 FR 32496), reopening of the comment period need not be resubmitted as they have been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

          DATES:
          We will consider all comments received from interested parties by October 16, 2006. Any comments received after the closing date may not be considered in the final determination on the proposal.

          ADDRESSES:

        Comments
        If you wish to comment on the proposed rule, draft economic analysis, draft environmental assessment, Tribal management plans and resolutions, or a management plan and economic analysis submitted by Phelps Dodge Corporation, you may submit your comments and materials, identified by RIN 1018-AU33, by any of the following methods:
        (1) E-mail: SD_LMComments@fws.gov. Include RIN 1018-AU33 in the subject line. Please include your name and return address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly by calling our Arizona Ecological Services Field Office at (602) 242-0210.
        (2) Fax: (602) 242-2513.
        (3) Mail, hand delivery, or courier: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021.
        (4) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

        You may obtain copies of the proposed rule, draft economic analysis, draft environmental assessment, Tribal management plans and resolutions, and the Phelps Dodge Corporation's management plan and economic analysis, by mail by contracting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or by visiting our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/arizonaes/. You may also review comments and materials received and review supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposed rule by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (telephone, 602-242-0210; facsimile, 602-242-2513).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        On December 20, 2005, we proposed to designate as critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow approximately 633 stream miles (mi) (1018.7 stream kilometers (km)), which includes various stream segments and their associated riparian areas, including the stream at bankfull width and a 300-foot (91.4 meters) buffer on either side of the stream (70 FR 75546). The proposed designation includes Federal, State, tribal, and private lands in Arizona and New Mexico.

        Critical habitat identifies specific areas containing features essential to the conservation of a listed species and that may require special management considerations or protections. If the proposed critical habitat designation is finalized, section 7(a)(2) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) would require that Federal agencies ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
        Section 4 of the Act requires that we consider economic and other relevant impacts prior to making a final decision on what areas to designate as critical habitat. During our second comment period (71 FR 32496, June 6, 2006) on the proposed designation of critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow, Phelps Dodge Corporation submitted documents that include management plans for Eagle Creek in Arizona and the upper Gila River in New Mexico, and an independent economic analysis summarizing their economic concerns for their mining operations in New Mexico and Arizona. We are reopening the comment period to inform the public of our consideration of this information in terms of a potential exclusion of portions of Eagle Creek and the upper Gila River in the final critical habitat designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Additionally, as noted in our previous reopening of the public comment period (71 FR 32496), we are considering excluding all or portions of the Verde River Unit based on disproportionate economic costs from the final designation per our discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
        As discussed in our proposed rule (70 FR 75546, December 20, 2005), we determined that the following tribes have lands containing features essential to the conservation of the spikedace and loach minnow: Yavapai Apache, San Carlos Apache, and White Mountain Apache. We also proposed to exclude lands of the San Carlos Apache Tribe and lands of the White Mountain Apache Tribe based upon our relationship with the Tribes and their management plans developed for the conservation of the spikedace and loach minnow. During the initial comment period, we received a resolution from the Yavapai-Apache Nation, that we believe provides a conservation benefit to the spikedace and loach minnow on their lands. Thus, based on this new information and our relationship with the Nation we anticipate excluding their lands from the final designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We are reopening the comment period to allow the public access to relevant documents and an opportunity to comment on these proposed exclusions.
        In addition to the specific areas mentioned above, we may consider exclusion of additional areas from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species. We will base our final determination upon information received or made available for public review during this or the previous public comment periods.
        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their names and/or home addresses, etc. but if you wish us to consider withholding this information you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. In addition, you must present rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must demonstrate that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, this information will be released. We will always make submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives of or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

        Comments and materials received, including the information submitted by the Tribes and by Phelps Dodge Corporation, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
        Authority

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

          Dated: September 25, 2006.
          David M. Verhey,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

       [FR Doc. E6-16423 Filed 10-3-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 050927248-5248-01; I.D. 090805C]
        RIN 0648-AT74
        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 establish the 2006 first trimester season quotas for large coastal sharks (LCS) and small coastal sharks (SCS) based on over- and underharvests from the 2005 first trimester season. In addition, this rule proposes the opening and closing dates for the LCS fishery based on adjustments to the trimester quotas. The intended effect of these proposed actions is to provide advance notice of quotas and season dates for the Atlantic commercial shark fishery.

          DATES:
          Written comments will be accepted until November 7, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to Chris Rilling, Highly Migratory Species Management Division via:
          • E-mail: SF1.090805C@noaa.gov.
          • Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Proposed Rule for 1st Trimester Season Lengths and Quotas.”
          • Fax: 301-713-1917.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Include in the subject line the following identifier: I.D. 090805C.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Chris Rilling or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone: 301-713-2347 or by fax: 301-713-1917.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Proposed Opening and Closing Dates and Quotas
        Proposed opening and closing dates and quotas for the 2006 first trimester season by region are provided in Table 1.

          Table 1 — Proposed Opening and Closing Dates and Quotas

            Species Group
            Region
            Opening Date
            Closing Date
            Quota

            Large Coastal Sharks
            Gulf of Mexico
            January 1, 2006
            April 15, 2006 11:30 p.m. local time
            222.8 mt dw (491,185 lb dw)

            South Atlantic

            March 15, 2006 11:30 p.m. local time
            141.3 mt dw (311,510 lb dw)

            North Atlantic

            April 30, 2006 11:30 p.m. local time
            5.3 mt dw (11,684 lb dw)

            Small Coastal Sharks
            Gulf of Mexico
            January 1, 2006
            To be determined, as necessary
            14.8 mt dw (32,628 lb dw)

            South Atlantic

            284.6 mt dw (627,429 lb dw)

            North Atlantic

            18.7 mt dw (41,226 lb dw)

            Blue sharks
            No regional quotas

            To be determined, as necessary
            91 mt dw (200,619 lb dw)

            Porbeagle sharks

            January 1, 2006

            30.7 mt dw (67,681 lb dw)

            Pelagic sharks other than blue or porbeagle

            162.7 mt dw (358,688 lb dw)

        Background
        The Atlantic shark fishery is managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, finalized in 1999, and Amendment 1 to the FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (Amendment 1), finalized in 2003, are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
        On December 24, 2003, NMFS published a final rule (68 FR 74746) for Amendment 1 that established, among other things, an annual landings quota of 1,017 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) for LCS, and an annual landings quota of 454 mt dw for SCS. The final rule also established regional LCS and SCS quotas for the commercial shark fishery in the Gulf of Mexico (Texas to the west coast of Florida), South Atlantic (east coast of Florida to North Carolina and the Caribbean), and North Atlantic (Virginia to Maine). The quota for LCS was split among the three regions based upon historic landings.
        On November 30, 2004, NMFS published a final rule (69 FR 69537) that, among other things, adjusted the 2005 regional quotas for LCS and SCS based on updated landings information, divided the quotas among the three trimester seasons, and implemented a new process for notifying participants of season opening and closing dates and quotas.
        Consistent with 50 CFR 635.27(b)(1)(iii), as adjusted by the 2004 final rule, the annual LCS quota (1,017 mt dw) is split among the three regions as follows: 52 percent to the Gulf of Mexico, 41 percent to the South Atlantic, and 7 percent to the North Atlantic. The annual SCS quota (454 mt dw) is split among the three regions as follows: 10 percent to the Gulf of Mexico, 87 percent to the South Atlantic, and 3 percent to the North Atlantic. The regional quotas for LCS and SCS were divided equally between the trimester seasons in the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, and according to historical landings of 4, 88, and 8 percent for LCS, and 1, 9, and 90 percent for SCS in the first, second, and third trimester seasons, respectively, in the North Atlantic.
        The quotas were divided in this manner because sharks are available throughout much of the year in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic regions, but primarily during the summer months in the North Atlantic region. Dividing the quotas equally between the three trimester seasons in the South Atlantic also resulted in a greater proportion of the quota being made available during August and September when the time/area closure off North Carolina is no longer in effect.
        Consistent with 50 CFR 635.27(b)(1)(vi), any over- or underharvest in a given region from the 2005 first trimester season will be carried over to the 2006 first trimester season. This action would not change the 2006 base landings quota or the 2006 regional quotas established in the November 30, 2004, final rule.
        In addition, the November 30, 2004, final rule established a process for issuing proposed and final rules to notify interested parties of season lengths and quotas and to facilitate public comment.
        Annual Landings Quotas
        Pursuant to Amendment 1, the 2006 annual base landings quotas are 1,017 mt dw (2,242,078 lb dw) for LCS and 454 mt dw (1,000,888.4 lb dw) for SCS. The 2006 quota levels for pelagic, blue, and porbeagle sharks are 488 mt dw (1,075,844.8 lb dw), 273 mt dw (601,855.8 lb dw), and 92 mt dw (202,823.2 lb dw), respectively. This proposed rule does not propose any changes to these overall base landings quotas.
        As of August 22, 2005, the overall 2005 first trimester season quotas for LCS and SCS had not been exceeded. Reported landings of LCS for all regions combined were at 84 percent (249.6 mt dw) of the LCS first trimester season quota (295.9 mt dw), and SCS landings for all regions combined were at 30 percent (74.6 mt dw) of the overall SCS trimester quota (246.0 mt dw).
        Gulf of Mexico Regional Landings Quotas
        For all regions, the proposed quotas may change depending on any updates to the reported landings from the 2005 first trimester season. In 2005, preliminary data indicate that for LCS, the Gulf of Mexico had an underharvest of 46.7 mt dw in the first trimester season. As a result, the Gulf of Mexico LCS quota for the 2006 first trimester season is proposed to be 222.8 mt dw, ((1,017*0.52*0.333)+46.7).
        In 2005, preliminary data indicate that for SCS, the Gulf of Mexico had an overharvest of 0.3 mt dw in the first trimester season. As a result, the Gulf of Mexico SCS quota for the 2006 first trimester season is proposed to be 14.8 mt dw, ((454*0.10*0.333)-0.3).
        South Atlantic Regional Landings Quotas
        In 2005, preliminary data indicate that for LCS, the South Atlantic had an underharvest of 2.4 mt dw in the first trimester season. As a result, the South Atlantic LCS quota for the 2006 first trimester season is proposed to be 141.3 mt dw, ((1,017*0.41*0.333)+2.4).
        In 2005, preliminary data indicate that for SCS, the South Atlantic had an underharvest of 153.1 mt dw in the first trimester season. As a result, the South Atlantic SCS quota for the 2006 first trimester season is proposed to be 284.6 mt dw, ((454*0.87*0.333)+153.1).
        North Atlantic Regional Landings Quotas

        In 2005, preliminary data indicate that for LCS, the North Atlantic had an underharvest of 2.5 mt dw in the first trimester season. The North Atlantic LCS quota for the 2006 first trimester season is proposed to be 5.3 mt dw, ((1,017*0.07*0.04)+2.5).
        In 2005, preliminary data indicate that for SCS, the North Atlantic had an underharvest of 18.6 mt dw in the first trimester season. As a result, the North Atlantic SCS quota for the 2006 first trimester season is proposed to be 18.7 mt dw, ((454*0.03*0.01)+18.6).
        Pelagic Shark Quotas
        As of August 2005, approximately 23.1 mt dw had been reported landed in the 2005 first trimester fishing season in total for pelagic, blue, and porbeagle sharks combined. Thus, the pelagic shark quota does not need to be reduced consistent with the current regulations 50 CFR 635.27(b)(1)(iv). The 2006 first trimester season quotas for pelagic, blue, and porbeagle sharks are proposed to be 162.7 mt dw (358,688 lb dw), 91 mt dw (200,619 lb dw), and 30.7 mt dw (67,681 lb dw), respectively.
        Proposed Fishing Season Notification for the First Trimester Season

        The first trimester fishing season of the 2006 fishing year for SCS, pelagic sharks, blue sharks, and porbeagle sharks in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, is proposed to open on January 1, 2006. When quotas are projected to be reached for the SCS, pelagic, blue, or porbeagle sharks, the Assistant Administrator (AA) will file notification of closures at the Office of Federal Register at least 14 days before the effective date, consistent with 50 CFR 635.28(b)(2).
        The first trimester fishing season of the 2006 fishing year for LCS is proposed to open on January 1, 2006, in the South Atlantic, North Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico regions. To estimate the LCS fishery closing dates for the first trimester season, NMFS calculated the average catch rates from January through April during the first season in recent years (2002-2005). Because state landings during a Federal closure are counted against the quota, NMFS also calculated the average amount of quota reported received during the Federal closure dates of the years used to estimate catch rates.
        Pursuant to 50 CFR 635.5(b)(1), shark dealers must report any sharks received twice a month. More specifically, sharks received between the first and 15th of every month must be reported to NMFS by the 25th of that same month and those received between the 16th and the end of the month must be reported to NMFS by the 10th of the following month. Thus, in order to provide consistency and predictability in managing the fishery, NMFS proposes to close the Federal LCS fishery on either the 15th or the end of any given month.
        Based on the average January through April LCS catch rates in recent years in the Gulf of Mexico region, approximately 91 percent of the available first trimester LCS quota (222.8 mt dw) would likely be taken by the second week in April, and 103 percent of the available LCS quota would likely be taken by the end of April. Dealer data also indicate that, on average, approximately 5.4 mt dw of LCS has been reported received by dealers during a Federal closure. This is approximately 2.4 percent of the proposed available quota. If catch rates in 2006 are similar to the average catch rates from 2002 through 2005, 93.4 percent (91 + 2.4 percent) of the first trimester quota could be caught by the second week in April. If the fishery remains open until the end of April, the quota could be exceeded (103 + 2.4 = 105.4 percent). Thus, NMFS proposes to close the fishery in the Gulf of Mexico on April 15, 2006.
        Based on the average January through April LCS catch rates in recent years in the South Atlantic region, and accounting for the reduction in effort due to the time/area closure off North Carolina, approximately 79 percent of the available first trimester LCS quota (141.3 mt dw) would likely be taken by the second week in March, and 88 percent of the available LCS quota would likely be taken by the end of March. Dealer data also indicate that, on average, approximately 28 mt dw of LCS has been reported received by dealers during a Federal closure. This is approximately 20 percent of the proposed available quota. If catch rates in 2006 are similar to the average catch rates from 2002 through 2005, 99 percent (79 + 20 percent) of the first trimester quota could be caught by the second week in March. If the fishery remains open until the end of March, the quota could be exceeded (88 + 20 = 108 percent). Thus, NMFS proposes to close the fishery in the South Atlantic on March 15, 2006.
        Based on the average January through April LCS catch rates in recent years in the North Atlantic region, approximately 57 percent of the available first trimester LCS quota (5.4 mt dw) would likely be taken by the end of April. Dealer data also indicate that no LCS landings have been reported received by dealers after a Federal closure and before the start of the second trimester season on May 1, 2006. Accordingly, NMFS proposes to close the fishery in the North Atlantic on April 30, 2006.
        Request for Comments

        Comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via email, mail, or fax by November 7, 2005 (see DATES and ADDRESSES).
        Classification

        This proposed rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Consistent with 50 CFR 635.27(b)(1)(vi), the purpose of this action is to adjust the LCS trimester quotas based on over- or underharvests from the 2005 fishing season, and to announce the 2006 first trimester season opening and closing dates. This proposed rule will not increase the overall quotas or landings for LCS or SCS, and is not expected to increase fishing effort or protected species interactions.
        On November 30, 2004, NMFS published a final rule (69 FR 69537) that, among other things, adjusted the 2005 regional quotas for LCS and SCS based on updated landings information and divided the quotas among the three trimester seasons. A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) conducted for the November 2004 rule indicated that there were approximately 253 directed commercial shark permit holders, 358 incidental commercial shark permit holders, and 267 commercial shark dealers, all of which are considered small entities according to the Small Business Administration's standard for defining a small entity (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3)). The FRFA concluded that overall economic impacts of adjusting the regional quotas on these small entities were expected to be minimal. As of April 20, 2005, there were approximately 229 directed commercial shark permit holders, 321 incidental commercial shark permit holders, and 230 commercial shark dealers.
        This proposed rule would not change the overall LCS or SCS base landings quotas or the overall regional quotas established in the November 2004 rule, or implement any new management measures not previously considered, and is not expected to increase fishing effort or protected species interactions. This proposed rule would adjust the quotas for each of the regions based on underharvests from the 2005 first trimester season consistent with 50 CFR 635.27(b)(1)(vi).

        The Gulf of Mexico was the only region with an overharvest of 0.3 mt dw of its SCS quota, and will have its SCS regional quota lowered by this corresponding amount. The 2003 average ex-vessel price for LCS flesh was $0.78/lb dw, and the average ex-vessel price for SCS flesh was $0.43/lb dw. Although shark fins command a higher price ($17.09/lb dw), they represent only a small proportion of the total landings. The Gulf of Mexico experienced a net underharvest of 46.7 mt dw (+$80,304, excluding fins) of LCS, and a net overharvest of 0.3 mt dw (-$284) of SCS during the 2005 first trimester season. Thus the net economic impact to the Gulf of Mexico is approximately +$80,020. This represents approximately 20 percent of the estimated 2006 first trimester gross revenue of $397,154, ($383,124 for LCS, excluding fins, + $13,875 for SCS) for the Gulf of Mexico region. Given that there are approximately 35 active shark vessels (defined as vessels with greater than 25 percent of landings derived from sharks as reported in the snapper-grouper logbook) in the Gulf of Mexico, this could result in an increase in revenue of approximately $2,286 per vessel during the 2006 first trimester season.
        For the South Atlantic and North Atlantic, which both experienced underharvests of 2.4 and 2.5 mt dw for LCS, respectively, and 153.1 and 18.6 mt dw for SCS, respectively, during the 2005 first trimester season, the net economic impact would also be positive. For the South Atlantic, if the entire quota is caught, this could result in a net economic benefit of approximately $149,262, ($4,127 for LCS, excluding fins, + $145,135 for SCS). This represents approximately 29 percent of the estimated 2006 first trimester season gross revenue of $512,771, ($242,977 for LCS, excluding fins, + $269,794 for SCS) for the South Atlantic region. Given that there are approximately 28 active shark vessels in the South Atlantic, this could result in an increase in revenue of approximately $5,330 per vessel during the 2006 first trimester season.
        For the North Atlantic, if the entire quota is caught, this could result in an economic benefit of approximately $4,299 for LCS, excluding fins, + $17,632 for SCS. This represents approximately 16 percent of the 2006 first trimester season gross revenue of $26,840, ($9,113 for LCS, excluding fins, + $17,727 for SCS) for the North Atlantic region. Given that there are fewer than 10 active shark vessels in the North Atlantic, this could result in an increase in revenue of approximately $2,684 per vessel during the 2006 first trimester season. The increases in possible revenue as a result of transferring the underharvests are only potential amounts that may or may not be realized. If it is not realized, then there would be no economic impact because the fishermen did not receive any benefit from the transfer. If it is realized, then it will result in a positive impact as described above. Thus, the Chief Counsel for Regulation at the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the Small Business Administration that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities beyond those considered in Amendment 1, or the November 2004 final rule (69 FR 69537).
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        NMFS has determined preliminarily that these regulations would be implemented in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of those coastal states on the Atlantic including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean that have approved coastal zone management programs. Letters have been sent to the relevant states asking for their concurrence.

          Dated: October 3, 2005.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-20111 Filed 10-3-05; 2:24 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
        Internal Revenue Service
        26 CFR Part 301
        [REG-121928-98]
        RIN 1545-AW99
        Awards of Attorney's Fees and Other Costs Based Upon Qualified Offers

          AGENCY:
          Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and notice of public hearing.

          SUMMARY:

          In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register, the IRS is issuing temporary regulations relating to the circumstances in which a party, by reason of having made a qualified offer, will be entitled to an award of court costs and certain fees in a civil tax proceeding brought in a court of the United States (including the Tax Court). The text of those temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. This document also provides notice of a public hearing on these proposed regulations.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by April 4, 2001. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for May 23, 2001, at 10 a.m., must be received by May 2, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:

          Send submissions to: CC:M&SP:RU (REG-121928-98), room 5226, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to: CC:M&SP:RU (REG-121928-98), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit comments electronically via the Internet by selecting the “Tax Regs” option on the IRS Home Page, or by submitting comments directly to the IRS Internet site at http://www.irs.gov/prod/tax_regs/regslist.html. The public hearing will be held in room 4718, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Concerning the hearing, submission of written comments, and to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, Treena V. Garrett, (202) 622-7180; concerning the regulations, Thomas D. Moffitt (202) 622-7900 (not toll-free numbers).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register provide rules relating to the circumstances in which a party, by reason of having made a qualified offer, will be entitled to an award of court costs and certain fees in a civil tax proceeding brought in a court of the United States (including the Tax Court). The text of those regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the temporary regulations.
        Comments are specifically requested on the rule requiring the provision of information and arguments regarding adjustments raised by taxpayers after the issuance of the first letter of proposed deficiency which provides the taxpayer with an opportunity for administrative review in the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals and still unresolved at the time the last qualified offer is made. The changes to section 7430 made by Congress anticipate qualified offers based upon the adjustments at issue when the first letter of proposed deficiency is sent. Adjustments subsequently raised by taxpayers would not be subject to the audit development preceding the issuance of such first letter of proposed deficiency. The proposed rule is intended to eliminate any such differences between the adjustments subject to the last qualified offer.
        Comments are also specifically requested on the rule establishing the end of the qualified offer period, for courts using trial calendars, at the point where the case remains listed on a trial calendar thirty days before the scheduled date for the calendar call for that trial session. The proposed rule is intended to keep the qualified offer period open until shortly before trial while ensuring that the last day of the qualified offer period can be ascertained on that day.
        Special Analyses

        It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations and, because these regulations do not impose on small entities a collection of information requirement, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
        Comments and Public Hearing
        Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original and eight (8) copies) that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department request comments on the clarity of the proposed rules and how they may be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying.

        A public hearing has been scheduled for May 23, 2001, at 10 a.m., in room 4718, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the 10th Street entrance, located between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 15 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having a visitor's name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT caption.
        An outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic (a signed original and eight (8) copies) must be submitted by any person that wishes to present oral comments at the hearing. Outlines must be received by May 2, 2001.
        The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments.
        An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving requests to speak has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.
        Drafting Information
        The principal author of these regulations is Thomas D. Moffitt, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel (Field Service). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.

          List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301
          Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        Proposed Amendments to the Regulations
        Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION

            Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read in part as follows:

            Authority:
            26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

            § 301.7430-0
            [Removed]

              Par. 2. Section 301.7430-0 is removed.

              Par. 3. Section 301.7430-7 is added to read as follows:

            § 301.7430-7
            Qualified offers.

            [The text of this proposed section is the same as the text of § 301.7430-7T published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

            Robert E. Wenzel,
            Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

      [FR Doc. 01-199 Filed 1-3-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4830-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 190909-0024]
        RIN 0648-BI77
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Habitat Clam Dredge Exemption Framework

          AGENCY:

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS reopens the comment period on the proposed rule to implement the New England Fishery Management Council's Habitat Clam Dredge Exemption Framework Adjustment to its Fishery Management Plans that published on September 17, 2019. The New England Fishery Management Council requested the comment period be reopened due to concerns that an error in a URL in the proposed rule may have prevented some individuals from submitting comments. Reopening the comment period through November 18, 2019, and including the correct URL should ensure all interested parties are able to comment on the proposed action.

          DATES:
          The comment period for the proposed rule published September 17, 2019 (84 FR 48899), is reopened. Public comment must be received by November 18, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2019-0043, by either of the following methods:

            Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
          1. Go to https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0043-0001.

          2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields.
          3. Enter or attach your comments.

          —OR—

            Mail: Submit written comments to Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on the Proposed Rule for Habitat Clam Dredge Exemption Framework.”

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

          A draft environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared for this action that describes the proposed measures and other considered alternatives, as well as provides an analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of the specifications document, including the EA and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available on request from Thomas Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. These documents are also accessible via the internet at www.nefmc.org.

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-7285.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9341.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Great South Channel Habitat Management Area (GSC HMA) was created by the final rule to implement the New England Fishery Management Council's Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2) (83 FR 15240; April 9, 2018). The use of all mobile bottom-tending fishing gear is prohibited in the GSC HMA. The GSC HMA contains complex benthic habitat that is important for juvenile cod and other fish species, and it is susceptible to the adverse impacts of fishing gear. The OHA2 included a 1-year delay of the GSC HMA closure that allowed the surfclam fishery to continue fishing with hydraulic clam dredges in the GSC HMA. This delay was intended to give the Council time to determine if a long-term exemption is warranted. The 1-year delay ended on April 9, 2019, and the GSC HMA is now closed to all mobile bottom-tending fishing gear.
        On September 17, 2019, NMFS published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to implement the Clam Dredge Exemption Framework with a 30-day comment period that closed on October 17, 2019 (84 FR 48899). Full details of the proposed measures are provided in the proposed rule and are not repeated here. Subsequently, NMFS received a request from the Council to extend the comment period due to concerns that an error in a URL in the proposed rule may have prevented some individuals from submitting comments. NMFS is reopening the comment period on the proposed rule through November 18, 2019, and is including the correct URL to ensure all interested partied have an opportunity to submit comments. Comments submitted during the prior comment period have been incorporated into the public record, and will be fully considered during the preparation of our final determination.

          Dated: October 25, 2019.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2019-23768 Filed 11-1-19; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P