        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0237; FRL-8564-2]
        Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from stationary internal combustion engines. We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

          DATES:
          Any comments must arrive by June 9, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0237, by one of the following methods:
          1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
          2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.

          3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), 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 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 www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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 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:
          Francisco Dóñez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3956, Donez.Francisco@epa.gov.

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

          Table of Contents
          I. The State's Submittal
          A. What rule did the State submit?
          B. Are there other versions of this rule?
          C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
          II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
          A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
          B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
          C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rule
          D. Public Comment and Final Action
          III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. The State's Submittal
        A. What rule did the State submit?
        Table 1 shows the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.

          Table 1.—Submitted Rule

            Local agency
            Rule No.
            Rule title
            Adopted
            Submitted

            VCAPCD
            74.9
            Stationary Internal Combustion Engines
            11/08/05
            03/10/06

        On March 30, 2006, this rule submittal was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
        B. Are there other versions of this rule?
        We approved a version of Rule 74.9 into the SIP on October 25, 2002 (67 FR 65501).
        C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
        NOX helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control NOX emissions. Rule 74.9 regulates NOX and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from stationary internal combustion engines rated at 50 or more horsepower. The submitted rule contains three major revisions, originally suggested by EPA in the technical support document (TSD) for the SIP-approved version.

        • The submitted rule requires biennial source tests and quarterly NOX screening tests with hand-held instrument, rather than relying exclusively on annual source testing.
        • The submitted rule requires the installation of non-resettable elapsed operating time meters in order to qualify for rule exemptions involving engine operating hours.
        • The requirement for biennial source testing to verify compliance with all emission limits has been clarified in the submitted rule.
        In addition, the revised rule includes a new limitation on CO emissions for new engines. CO emissions are limited to 2000 ppmv for all stationary engines installed after adoption of the amended rule. EPA's TSD has more information about this rule.
        II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
        A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
        Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see sections 182(a)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The VCAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 74.9 must fulfill RACT.
        Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following:

        1. “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,” (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992.
        2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
        3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
        4. “Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Stationary Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines,” California Air Resources Board, November 2001.
        B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

        We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. We note in the TSD that the revised rule (subsection D.5) exempts engines used in agricultural operations. Such an exemption is generally impermissible under the RACT requirements of CAA Sections 182(a)(2) and (f). However, the District submitted a convincing demonstration that there are no agricultural sources within the VCAPCD that meet the major source threshold for NOX emissions, and that therefore the agricultural exemption does not violate RACT requirements. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.
        C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule
        The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local agency modifies the rule.
        D. Public Comment and Final Action
        Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it 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 this rule 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 provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        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, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

          Dated: April 22, 2008.
          Laura Yoshii,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. E8-10405 Filed 5-8-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No.  020920220-2220-01; I.D. 090302E]
        RIN  0648-AL97
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes amendments to the regulations governing the halibut fishery under the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program.  The proposed amendments would increase the Regulatory Area (Area) 4E trip limit from 6,000 lb. (2.72 metric tons (mt)) to 10,000 lb. (4.54 mt) and modify the Area 4 Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) to allow CDQ Program participants to harvest allocations of Area 4D halibut CDQ in Area 4E.  This proposed action is intended to enhance harvesting opportunities for halibut CDQ fishermen and to further the goals and objectives of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) with respect to the CDQ program and the Pacific halibut fishery, consistent with the regulations and resource management objectives of the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC).

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule must be received by November 14, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments should be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn:  Lori Gravel-Durall, or delivered to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Room 413-1, Juneau, AK.  Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 907-586-7465.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.  Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this proposed regulatory action may be obtained from the same address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Obren Davis, 907-586-7228, e-mail obren.davis@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) is responsible for implementing the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, as provided by the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act), at 16 U.S.C. 773.  Section 773c(c) of the Halibut Act authorizes the Regional Fishery Management Council having authority for the geographical area concerned to develop regulations governing the allocation and catch of Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) in U.S. Convention waters.  Such regulations must be approved by the Secretary before being implemented and may be in addition to regulations developed by the IPHC.

        In December 1991, the Council adopted a limited access system for managing the halibut fishery in and off Alaska under authority of the Halibut Act.  This limited access system included an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program for Areas 2C through 4D, and the CDQ program for Areas 4B through 4E.  These programs were designed to allocate specific harvesting privileges among U.S. fishermen and eligible western Alaska communities to resolve management and conservation problems associated with “open access” fishery management, and to promote the development of fishery-based economic opportunities in western Alaska.  The IFQ and CDQ programs initially were implemented by regulations published in the Federal Register on November 9, 1993 (58 FR 59375).  Fishing for halibut under these two programs began March 15, 1995.
        Under the regulations established for the halibut IFQ and CDQ programs, the catch limit of halibut that is annually established for each area by the IPHC is divided among qualified halibut quota share holders.  Halibut catch limits in Areas 4B, 4C, and 4D are divided between the IFQ and CDQ programs.  Twenty percent of the Area 4B, 50 percent of the Area 4C, and 30 percent of the Area 4D annual catch limits are allocated to the CDQ Program.  One hundred percent of the Area 4E annual catch limit is allocated to the CDQ program.  The halibut CDQ reserves are divided among eligible CDQ communities in accordance with Community Development Plans (CDP) submitted by CDQ managing organizations (CDQ groups) and approved by NMFS.  This proposed action affects only halibut CDQ harvested in Areas 4D and 4E.
        Since 1995, four different CDQ groups have received annual allocations of Area 4D halibut and two CDQ groups have received annual allocations of Area 4E halibut.  Between 1995 and 2001, the annual halibut CDQ reserve ranged from 231,000 to 609,000 lb. (104.78 to 276.24 mt) in Area 4D and from 120,000 to 390,000 lb. (54.43 to 176.9 mt) in Area 4E.  Amounts specified for halibut catch limits, reserves, and allocations are all in net (headed and gutted) weight.  Halibut CDQ in Areas 4D and 4E must be allocated to the CDQ groups that represent eligible communities located in, or proximate to, Areas 4D and 4E, respectively.
        Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) for Area 4

        The CSP for Area 4 originally was developed by the Council to apportion the IPHC's halibut catch limit for Area 4 among Areas 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E as necessary to carry out the socioeconomic objectives of the IFQ and CDQ programs.  The Area 4 CSP was published in the Federal Register on March 20, 1996 (61 FR 11337), and implemented by the IPHC that same year.

        NMFS subsequently modified the Area 4 CSP to remove Areas 4A and 4B from the CSP in 1998.  This change was to allow the catch limits for these two areas and a combined Area 4C-4E to be set according to the IPHC's revised area specific biomass-based methodology.  The IPHC considers that Areas 4A, 4B, and 4C-E each have a separate halibut population.  A complete description of the proposed revisions to the Area 4 CSP, catch limit apportionments, and geographical description of each subarea was published in the Federal Register on January 12, 1998 (63 FR 1812).  These modifications were approved March 17, 1998 (63 FR 13000).  Beginning in 1998, the IPHC has annually implemented the measures specified in the Area 4 CSP to apportion the combined Area 4C-E catch limit among Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E.  The annual management measures for halibut fisheries in 2002 were published on March 20, 2002 (67 FR 12885).
        Four out of six CDQ groups have received halibut CDQ allocations in Area 4D since 1995, including Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation (BBEDC), Coastal Villages Region Fund (CVRF), Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation (NSEDC), and Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association (YDFDA).  Past and current allocations recommended by the State of Alaska and approved by the Secretary have allocated both Area 4D and Area 4E halibut CDQ to only two groups, BBEDC and CVRF, based on their historical participation in the Area 4E halibut fishery and the contents of their CDP applications.  NSEDC and YDFDA have received only Area 4D halibut CDQ:  residents of communities represented by these two groups (with the exception of two of NSEDC's communities) must travel extended distances offshore to harvest Area 4D halibut CDQ or the quota must be harvested by large, non-local vessels.
        In 1999, CDQ groups that received Area 4D quota expressed a desire to increase the amount of halibut CDQ that could be harvested in their locally-based inshore halibut fishery by being allowed to harvest Area 4D halibut CDQ in Area 4E.  All four of these groups represent communities along the western Alaska coast, ranging from Bristol Bay (south) to the Bering Strait (north).  Almost all of the 56 communities represented by these groups are adjacent to Area 4E:  only two are in Area 4D.  In January 1999, these groups approached the IPHC at its annual meeting and requested a determination as to whether it would be acceptable to harvest halibut CDQ allocated to Area 4D in Area 4E.  The IPHC had no objection to the request because it considers the halibut in Areas 4C, 4D,and 4E to be a single stock unit.  This issue was also raised at the February 1999 Council meeting.  The Council requested that NMFS prepare an analysis of the proposal to allow Area 4D halibut CDQ to be harvested in Area 4E.  The Council also recommended modifying the Area 4E halibut catch limit (see Area 4E Trip Limit, below).
        NMFS prepared an EA/RIR/IRFA that examined the proposal to allow Area 4D halibut CDQ to be harvested in Area 4E.  In October 2001, the Council approved the release of the EA/RIR/IRFA for public review.  In December 2001, the Council recommended allowing halibut CDQ that was allocated in Area 4D to be harvested in Area 4E.  In January 2002, the IPHC noted that allowing Area 4D halibut CDQ to be harvested in Area 4E would constitute a change to the Area 4 CSP that would need to be addressed by NMFS in rulemaking.  Hence, if approved by the Secretary, this proposed rule would modify the Area 4 CSP to incorporate the Council's specific recommendation that Area 4D halibut CDQ may be harvested either in Area 4D or in Area 4E.
        The Proposed Revision of the CSP
        This rule proposes to change the Area 4 CSP to allow Area 4D halibut CDQ to be harvested in Area 4E.  However, no changes are proposed to the existing Area 4 CSP framework that apportions the combined Area 4C-E annual catch limit among Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E.  The authority to allocate the annual Area 4 catch limit according to the Area 4 CSP is specified at 50 CFR 300.63(b) and will continue to be implemented by the IPHC in its annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62.  The following paragraph would be added to the Area 4 CSP:

          A CDQ group with an allocation of Area 4D halibut CDQ may harvest all or part of that allocation in Area 4E.  This provision is based on the Council's recommendation in December 2001 to allow CDQ fishermen in Area 4E additional halibut CDQ harvesting opportunities.  The framework that allocates the IPHC catch limits among Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E remains unchanged.

        For example:  under the existing Area 4 CSP, an annual combined Area 4C-E catch limit of 4,450,000 lb. (2,018.5 mt) would be apportioned as follows:  2,030,000 lb. (920.8 mt) to Area 4C, 2,030,000 lb. (920.8 mt) to Area 4D, and 390,000 lb. (176.9 mt) to Area 4E.  These amounts are further split between the IFQ and CDQ halibut fisheries.  Thirty percent, or 609,000 lb. (276.3 mt), of the Area 4D catch limit is allocated to the Area 4D CDQ reserve.  One hundred percent of the Area 4E catch limit is allocated to the Area 4E CDQ reserve.  Under the proposed revision to the Area 4 CSP, a combined total of 999,000 lb. (453.1 mt) of halibut potentially could be harvested in Area 4E, an amount equal to 22 percent of the combined Area 4C-E catch limit.
        The Council recommended allowing the harvest of Area 4D halibut in Area 4E and allowing amounts of Area 4D halibut CDQ that had been transferred to Area 4E to be transferred back to Area 4D.  NMFS proposes to implement the Council's intent without requiring the CDQ groups to submit documents requesting transfers of halibut CDQ between Areas 4D and 4E.  The Council intended that the maximum amount of halibut CDQ that could be caught in Area 4D would be the amount of halibut CDQ allocated to each CDQ group for Area 4D.  In addition, they intended that the maximum amount of halibut CDQ that could be caught in Area 4E would be the sum of the amount of halibut CDQ allocated for Areas 4D and 4E combined.
        NMFS proposes to monitor each CDQ group's halibut CDQ catch in Areas 4D and 4E.  If the catch in Area 4E exceeds the group's initial allocation for Area 4E, then NMFS will automatically subtract this additional catch from the group's Area 4D allocation.  Halibut CDQ catch from Area 4D also will be subtracted from each group's Area 4D allocation.  Any amount of halibut CDQ catch in Area 4E that exceeds the 4E allocation and is subtracted from the Area 4D allocation will no longer be available for harvest in Area 4D.  This procedure would allow each CDQ group to decide where to catch its Area 4D halibut CDQ allocation without requiring transfers.  Each CDQ group would be required to monitor the harvest of Area 4D and 4E halibut CDQ to ensure that:  (1) its total catch in Area 4D does not exceed its Area 4D allocation, minus any portion of its Area 4D quota harvested in Area 4E, (2) its total catch in Area 4E does not exceed the sum of its Area 4D and Area 4E allocations, minus any portion of its Area 4D allocation harvested in Area 4D, and (3) its total catch in Areas 4D and 4E does not exceed the sum of its Area 4D and Area 4E allocations.

        This proposed change would provide an opportunity for CDQ groups that receive Area 4D halibut CDQ to increase the amount of halibut CDQ available to local, nearshore fishermen.  If the CDQ groups chose to do this, the halibut CDQ harvesting opportunities for large vessels in the Area 4D halibut CDQ fishery would have a corresponding decrease in available halibut CDQ because Area 4D quota could shift to local nearshore fishermen.  However, most of the annual Area 4D halibut CDQ harvest in recent years has been made by large catcher/processors that are targeting groundfish CDQ species such as Pacific cod.  These vessels catch halibut incidentally along with cod and other groundfish.  CDQ groups may choose to account for this incidentally caught halibut by accruing it towards either their annual Area 4D halibut CDQ allocation or to their annual halibut Prohibited Species Quota (PSQ).  CDQ groups receive annual allocations of halibut PSQ to account for halibut catch in directed groundfish fisheries.  If a group chooses to shift part or all of its Area 4D halibut CDQ allocation to its nearshore halibut fishery, it still has an alternative allocation of halibut to use for catch accounting purposes.
        Area 4E Trip Limit
        In 1988, the Council developed, and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) approved, fishing trip limits for Area 4C of 10,000 lb. (4.54 mt) and Area 4E of 6,000 lb. (2.72 mt) (53 FR 20327, June 3, 1988).  In 1994, the Council recommended and the Secretary approved a fishing trip limit for Area 4B of 10,000 lb. (4.54 mt) (59 FR 22522, May 2, 1994).  These provisions were intended to enhance fishing opportunities for operators of vessels that landed their total annual catch within either Areas 4B, 4C, or 4E.  Specifically, the Area 4E trip limit was devised to protect fishermen who landed their total annual catch of halibut at ports in Area 4E from competition with fishermen using vessels large enough to land their Area 4E halibut catch at ports in other regulatory areas.  The Area 4E trip limit was incorporated into the Pacific halibut fishery regulations in 1988, and into 50 CFR part 676 (now promulgated as 50 CFR part 679) in 1993, as one of the rules implementing the halibut and sablefish IFQ and CDQ programs (58 FR 59375, November 9, 1993).
        In December 1994, the Council recommended eliminating the trip limits in Areas 4B, 4C, and 4E, as these limits were deemed unnecessary due to the forthcoming implementation of the IFQ and CDQ programs.  Subsequently, these restrictions were removed from the Pacific halibut regulations at 50 CFR part 301 (now 50 CFR part 300) (60 FR 14651, March 20, 1995).  The Area 4E trip limit restriction, however, was inadvertently kept in 50 CFR part 679.  In October 1998, NMFS informed the Council that this oversight would be corrected by removing the Area 4E trip limit from 50 CFR part 679.  The Council declined to approve this correction, and voted instead to retain the 6,000 lb. (2.72 mt) trip limit through September 1 of each year.  The Council also recommended that CDQ groups with unharvested Area 4E halibut CDQ offer such quota to other CDQ groups during the last half of August, prior to the date when the trip limit would be lifted.  The Council's rationale for retaining an Area 4E trip limit was to prevent consolidation of the halibut fishery in this area, to the possible detriment of local fishermen.
        In December 2001, the Council confirmed its intent to retain the trip limit in Area 4E, but recommended that it be increased to 10,000 lb. (4.54 mt) and that it be in effect annually only through September 1.  The Council reasoned that retention of the trip limit would continue to foster the near-shore small-scale halibut CDQ fishery in western Alaska, which is typically conducted by small vessels under 32 feet (9.73 m) length overall.  Moderately increasing the trip limit, however, could allow harvesters greater operational flexibility during the spring and summer months, particularly for local vessels capable of packing more than 6,000 lb. (2.72 mt) of halibut during a fishing trip.  Eliminating the trip limit during the fall months would offer CDQ groups the ability to harvest halibut CDQ using vessels large enough to safely operate in adverse weather and sea conditions.  Typically, the trip limit is an economic constraint to using larger vessels in the Area 4E halibut CDQ fishery.  This proposed rule would modify the Area 4E trip limit to increase it from 6,000 to 10,000 lb. (2.72 to 4.54 mt) and would specify that the Area 4E trip limit would be effective only through September 1 of each year.
        Classification

        The Council recommended this action to the Secretary for adoption pursuant to its authority under the Halibut Act.  NMFS prepared an EA/RIR/IRFA for the proposed revisions to the Area 4 CSP and the Area 4E trip limit regulatory amendment that describes the management background, the purpose and need for action, the management alternatives, and the socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives (see ADDRESSES).
        The IRFA estimates the total number of small entities that would be affected by this action, and analyzes the potential economic impact of the proposed action on those small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).  A summary of the IRFA follows.
        The Area 4 CSP modification and the proposed revision to 50 CFR part 679 would have no negative impacts in and of themselves, but are intended to increase the harvesting flexibility for participants in the halibut CDQ fishery in Areas 4D and 4E.  These changes would allow CDQ groups with halibut CDQ in these areas to tailor their halibut CDQ fishing operations to enhance economic opportunities for the western Alaska communities that they represent.
        NMFS considers most of the fishing operations that would be affected by this proposed rule to be small entities, based on criteria established by the RFA.  The universe of small entities is comprised of four CDQ groups, 58 CDQ-eligible villages, 224 catcher vessels, and 31 halibut registered buyers for a total of 317 small entities.
        A range of alternatives was considered for each proposed action.  Three alternatives were considered in association with the action that would modify the Area 4 CSP:  a no action alternative; allowing Area 4D halibut CDQ to be harvested in Area 4E (the preferred alternative); and, allowing halibut CDQ specifically allocated to Area 4D or 4E to be harvested in either of these two areas.  There are four alternatives associated with the action to modify the Area 4E trip limit:  a no action alternative; increasing the trip limit to 10,000 pounds through September 1 each year (the preferred alternative); suspending the Area 4E trip limit predicated on a given CDQ group first making its unharvested Area 4E halibut CDQ available to other CDQ groups each fall; and, removing the trip limit entirely.
        The IRFA shows that the selection of the no action alternative for either proposed action would unnecessarily limit the further development of the local inshore halibut CDQ fishery and the complete utilization of the Area 4D or Area 4E halibut CDQ allocations.
        The preferred alternatives for Actions 1 and 2 constitute the least burdensome alternatives to regulated small entities, among the suite of options available, while simultaneously achieving the objectives of the proposed actions.  In other words, no other alternatives were identified which would reduce the potential adverse impacts on small entities, while achieving the Council's objectives for the Area 4 Halibut CDQ Program.
        This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal regulations.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated:  October 7, 2002.
          William T.  Hogarth,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:

            PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

          1.The authority citation for part 679 is amended to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1540(f); Pub. L. 105-277, Title II of Division C; Pub. L. 106-31, Sec. 3027; and Pub. L. 106-554, Sec. 209.

          2.  In § 679.31, paragraph (b)(3)(iv) is revised to read as follows:

            § 679.31
            CDQ reserves

          (b) * * *
          (3) * * *
          (iv) Area 4E. In IPHC regulatory area 4E, 100 percent of the halibut quota shall be made available to eligible communities located in, or proximate to, IPHC regulatory area 4E.  A fishing trip limit of 10,000 lb. (4.54 mt) applies to halibut CDQ harvested in IPHC regulatory area 4E through September 1.

      [FR Doc. 02-26136  Filed 10-11-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 080226308-81499-01]
        RIN 0648-AW50
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Highly Migratory Species Fisheries

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

          ACTION:
           Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
           NMFS issues a proposed rule to initiate collection of a permit fee for vessel owners participating in commercial and charter recreational fishing for highly migratory species (HMS) in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the West Coast of California, Oregon, and Washington. The HMS permits are issued under implementing regulations for the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP).

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by January 20, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AW50, by any one of the following methods:

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

          • Fax: 562-980-4047, Attn: Chris Fanning, Permits Coordinator.
          • Mail: Rodney R. McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802 4213.

          Instructions: 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). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          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 Rodney R. McInnis at the address listed above and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Chris Fanning, Permits Coordinator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, 562-980-4198.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On April 7, 2004, NMFS published a final rule to implement the HMS FMP (69 FR 18444) that included mandatory permit requirements at 50 CFR 660.707. At the time, there was no cost passed on to the vessel owners for the preparation and issuance of the permit. NMFS now proposes to charge an administrative fee for the recovery of HMS permit processing and issuance expenses. NMFS initiates rulemaking for this action pursuant to procedures established at 50 CFR 660.717(d) of the implementing regulations for the HMS FMP.

        This proposed rule would specify that an application for an HMS permit, including the renewal of an existing permit, would include a fee payable by the vessel owner. The fee amount required will be determined in accordance with the NOAA Finance Handbook available at (http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~finance/FinanceHandbook.htm) and specified on the application form. The fee amount is expected to be approximately $30-$40 at this time.
        Background

        Section 303(b)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(1), authorizes the inclusion of a requirement for permit fees in fishery management plans. Section 304(d) of the MSA specifies that such fees may not exceed the administrative costs of issuing the permits. Historically, only some fishery management plans have authorized the collection of permit fees, resulting in a set of inconsistent permit fee policies around the country. NMFS has issued a policy directive (No. 30-120, effective January 3, 2005 and renewed in 2007) to establish a more consistent agency permit program that recovers the expense of permit processing and issuance for all permits issued by NMFS to the extent authorized by law. Policy directive No. 30-120 is available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/directives/.
        In this case, the original Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species, as approved by NOAA in 2004, already included authority to collect permit fees. NMFS proposes to exercise this authority through this rulemaking.
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the HMS FMP and preliminarily determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws, subject to public review and comment.
        Information collection requirements for HMS Permits have been previously approved by OMB under the Southwest Region Family of Forms (OMB Control Number 0648-0204). This approval is valid through April 30, 2010. An amendment to this approved collection of information has been submitted and is undergoing review by OMB. The amendment would incorporate the permit fee collection component of this proposed rule, if finalized. Public reporting burden for the payment of HMS permit fees is estimated to average 5 minutes or less per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information.

        Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS Southwest Region at the ADDRESSES above, and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-7285.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

        This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is as follows:

          Approximately 1,772 HMS commercial and recreational charter vessels were permitted under the HMS FMP to operate off the U.S. West Coast in 2007, the most recent year for which annual data are available. These vessels are considered small business entities under NAICS Code 114111 with annual per vessel revenues under $4,000,000. Ex-vessel revenue for HMS landings on the West Coast in 2007 was approximately $21,000,000 which equates to an average of approximately $11,000 per vessel. The anticipated permit fee amount would be a very minor component of these vessels annual operating expenses which are estimated to be in the tens of thousands of dollars.

        As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: December 15, 2008.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF THE WEST COAST STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. A new paragraph (e) is added to § 660.707 to read as follows:

          § 660.707
          Permits.
          (e) Fees. An application for a permit, or renewal of an existing permit under paragraph (b)(1) of this section will include a fee for each vessel. The fee amount required will be calculated in accordance with the NOAA Finance Handbook and specified on the application form.

      [FR Doc. E8-30242 Filed 12-18-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
        44 CFR Part 67
        [Docket No. FEMA-B-7410]
        Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

          AGENCY:
          Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed base (1% annual chance) flood elevations and proposed base flood elevation modifications for the communities listed below. The base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

          DATES:
          The comment period is ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in each community.

          ADDRESSES:
          The proposed base flood elevations for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the following table.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, Hazards Study Branch, Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3461, or (e-mail) matt.miller@fema.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Federal Emergency Management Agency proposes to make determinations of base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations for each community listed below, in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
        These proposed base flood and modified base flood elevations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings.
        National Environmental Policy Act
        This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The Associate Director for Mitigation certifies that this proposed rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because proposed or modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required to establish and maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

        Regulatory Classification
        This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
        Executive Order 12612, Federalism
        This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.
        Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform
        This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

          List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67
          Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 67—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376, § 67.4.

          2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows:

              State
              City/town/county
              Source of flooding
              Location
              #Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in feet. (NGVD)
              Existing
              Modified

              Arkansas
              Little Rock (City) (Pulaski County)
              Fourche Creek
              At confluence with Arkansas River
              *249
              *249

              Just downstream of Frazier Pike
              *253
              *254

              Just downstream of State Highway 67/70 (Northbound University Avenue)
              *257
              *258

              Fourche Bayou
              Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of Frazier Pike
              None
              *240

              Grassy Flat Creek
              At confluence with Rock Creek
              *331
              *330

              Just downstream of Reservoir Road
              *369
              *367

              Approximately 300 feet upstream of Rocky Valley Drive
              None
              *481

              Little Maumelle River
              Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of confluence with Arkansas River
              *262
              *263

              Rock Creek
              At confluence with Fourche Creek
              *258
              *258

              Approximately 200 feet upstream of Barrow Road
              *332
              *333

              Maps are available for inspection at the City of Little Rock Department of Public Works, 701 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas.

              Send comments to The Honorable Jim Dailey, Mayor, City of Little Rock, 500 West Markham Street, Room 203, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201.

              Arkansas
              Pulaski County (Unincorporated Areas)
              Fourche Creek
              Approximately 200 feet Downstream of Airport Road
              *253
              *253

              Just upstream of Mabelvale Pike
              *257
              *258

              Little Fourche Creek
              Approximately 2,700 feet Upstream of West 65th Stream
              *256
              *257

              Just downstream of Geyer Springs Road
              *268
              *267

              Rock Creek
              Just upstream of Kanis Road Approximately 1,300 feet
              *466
              *467

              Upstream of Kanis Road
              *489
              *493

              Rock Creek Tributary A
              At confluence with Rock Creek
              None
              *479

              Approximately 2,600 feet Upstream of Chenal Valley Parkway
              None
              *538

              Maps are available at the Pulaski County Planning Department, 201 South Broadway, Room 370, Little Rock, Arkansas.

              Send comments to The Honorable Floyd Villines, Pulaski County Judge, 201 South Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201.

              South Dakota
              Day County and Incorporated Areas
              Bitter Lake
              Along entire shoreline
              None
              *1,810

              Blue Dog Lake
              Along entire shoreline
              None
              *1,810

              Foldager Slough
              Along entire shoreline
              None
              *1,810

              Goose Lake
              Along entire shoreline
              None
              *1,810

              Hillebrands Lake
              Along entire shoreline
              None
              *1,810

              Little Rush Lake
              Along entire shoreline
              None
              *1,810

              Minnewasta Lake
              Along entire shoreline
              None
              *1,810

              Rush Lake
              Along entire shoreline
              None
              *1,810

              Solomon Slough
              Along entire shoreline
              None
              *1,810

              South Waubay Lake
              Along entire shoreline
              None
              *1,810

              Spring Lake
              Along entire shoreline
              None
              *1,810

              Swan Pond
              Along entire shoreline
              None
              *1,810

              Waubay Lake
              Along entire shoreline
              None
              *1,810

              Maps for the Cities of Waubay and Webster, the Town of Grenville and the unincorporated areas of Day County are available for inspection at the Day County Zoning Administration office, County Courthouse, 711 West First Street, Webster, South Dakota.

              Send comments to The Honorable Kevin Jens, Mayor, City of Waubay, c/o Ms. Sheryl Town, Finance Officer, PO Box 155, Waubay, South Dakota 57273-0155.

              Send comments to The Honorable Mike Grosek, Mayor, City of Webster, PO Box 543, Webster, South Dakota 57274.

              Send comments to The Honorable Tom Aldentower, Mayor, Town of Grenville, c/o Ms. Janet Knapp, 711 West First Street, Webster, South Dakota 57274.

              Send comments to The Honorable Darrell Hildebrant, Chairman, Day County Board of Commissioners, Day County Courthouse, 711 West First Street, Webster, South Dakota 57274.

            (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, “Flood Insurance.”)
            Dated: April 2, 2001.
            Margaret E. Lawless,
            Acting Executive Associate Director for Mitigation.

      [FR Doc. 01-8621 Filed 4-6-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6718-04-P


        FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
        44 CFR Part 62
        RIN 3067-AD23
        National Flood Insurance Program; Assistance to Private Sector Property Insurers

          AGENCY:
          Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Based on recent cost information, we (FEMA) propose to adjust the expense allowance under the Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement between the Federal Insurance Administrator and the private sector insurers that sell and service flood insurance.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule should be received on or before June 11, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:

          Please submit any written comments to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., room 840, Washington, DC 20472, (facsimile) 202-646-4536, or (email) rules@fema.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Edward L. Connor, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 202-646-3443, (facsimile) 202-646-3445, (email) Edward.Connor@fema.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Under the Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement between the Federal Insurance Administrator and the private sector insurers that sell and service flood insurance under the Write Your Own (WYO) program, participating insurers are entitled to an expense allowance—a portion of the flood premiums from the policies that the insurers sell. The expense allowance is based on data for the property/casualty industry published, as of March 15 of the prior Arrangement year, in Part III of the Insurance Expense Exhibit in A.M. Best Company's Aggregates and Averages for five property coverages.
        Based on our analysis of recent expense information from the companies, we conclude that we should increase the current expense allowance under the Arrangement. We are therefore proposing a change in the expense allowance to reflect this new cost information.
        National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

        NEPA imposes requirements for considering the environmental impacts of agency decisions. It requires that an agency prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for “major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” If an action may or may not have a significant impact, the agency must prepare an environmental assessment (EA). If, as a result of this study, the agency makes a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), no further action is necessary. If it will have a significant effect, then the agency uses the EA to develop an EIS.

          Categorical Exclusions. Agencies can categorically identify actions (for example, repair of a building damaged by a disaster) that do not normally have a significant impact on the environment. The purpose of this proposed rule is to adjust the expense allowance under the Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement between the Federal Insurance Administrator and the private sector insurers that sell and service flood insurance.
        Accordingly, we have determined that this rule is excluded from the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(ii), where the rule is related to actions that qualify for categorical exclusion under 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(i), which addresses the preparation, revision, and adoption of regulations, directives, and other guidance documents related to actions that qualify for categorical exclusions. We have not prepared an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement as defined by NEPA.
        Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
        We have prepared and reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993, a significant regulatory action is subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines “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.
        For the reasons that follow we have concluded that the proposed rule is neither an economically significant nor a significant regulatory action under the Executive Order. The rule would adjust the expense allowance under the Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement between the Federal Insurance Administrator and the private sector insurers that sell and service flood insurance. The adjustment would increase by approximately $14 million the expense allowance paid to the WYO private sector insurers. It would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, the insurance sector, competition, or other sectors of the economy. It would create no serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. It would not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof. Nor does it raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
        The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this proposed rule under the principles of Executive Order 12866.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        This rule does not contain a collection of information and is therefore not subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act agencies must consider the impact of their rulemakings on “small entities” (small businesses, small organizations and local governments). When 5 U.S.C. 553 requires an agency to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, the Act requires a regulatory flexibility analysis for both the proposed rule and the final rule if the rulemaking could “have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The Act also provides that if a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, the agency must certify in the rulemaking document that the rulemaking will not “have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”
        This proposed rule revises the NFIP regulations to adjust the expense allowance under the Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement between the Federal Insurance Administrator and the private sector insurers that sell and service flood insurance. Therefore, I certify that a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this rule because it would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        Executive Order 13132, Federalism
        Executive Order 13132 sets forth principles and criteria that agencies must adhere to in formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, that is, regulations that have substantial direct effects on the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Federal agencies must closely examine the statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States, and to the extent practicable, must consult with State and local officials before implementing any such action.
        We have reviewed this proposed rule under E.O.13132 and have determined that the rule does not have federalism implications as defined by the Executive Order. The rule would adjust the expense allowance under the Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement between the Federal Insurance Administrator and the private sector insurers that sell and service flood insurance. The rule in no way that we foresee affects the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or limits the policymaking discretion of the States.

          List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 62
          Flood insurance.

        Accordingly, amend 44 CFR Part 62 as follows:

          PART 62—INSURANCE COVERAGE AND RATES
          1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127 of Mar. 31, 1979, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

          2. Revise Article III.B of appendix A to part 62 to read as follows:

            Appendix A to Part 62—Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement

            Article III—Loss Costs, Expenses, Expense Reimbursement, and Premium Refunds

            B. The Company may withhold as operating and administrative expenses, other than agents' or brokers' commissions, an amount from the Company's written premium on the policies covered by this Arrangement in reimbursement of all of the Company's marketing, operating, and administrative expenses, except for allocated and unallocated loss adjustment expenses described in C. of this article. This amount will equal the sum of the average of industry expense ratios for “Other Acq.”, “Gen. Exp.”, and “Taxes” calculated by aggregating premiums and expense amounts for each of five property coverages using direct premium and expense information to derive weighted average expense ratios. For this purpose, we (the Federal Insurance Administration) will use data for the property/casualty industry published, as of March 15 of the prior Arrangement year, in Part III of the Insurance Expense Exhibit in A.M. Best Company's Aggregates and Averages for the following five property coverages: Fire, Allied Lines, Farmowners Multiple Peril, Homeowners Multiple Peril, and Commercial Multiple Peril (non-liability portion). In addition, this amount will be increased by one percentage point to reimburse expenses beyond regular property/casualty expenses.
            The Company may retain fifteen percent (15%) of the Company's written premium on the policies covered by this Arrangement as the commission allowance to meet commissions or salaries of their insurance agents, brokers, or other entities producing qualified flood insurance applications and other related expenses.
            The amount of expense allowance retained by the Company may increase a maximum of two percentage points, depending on the extent to which the Company meets the marketing goals for the Arrangement year contained in marketing guidelines established pursuant to Article II.G. We will pay the company the amount of any increase after the end of the Arrangement year.
            The Company, with the consent of the Administrator as to terms and costs, may use the services of a national rating organization, licensed under state law, to help us undertake and carry out such studies and investigations on a community or individual risk basis, and to determine equitable and accurate estimates of flood insurance risk premium rates as authorized under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended. We will reimburse the Company for the charges or fees for such services under the provisions of the WYO Accounting Procedures Manual.

              (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, “Flood Insurance”)
              Dated: May 1, 2001.
              Howard Leikin,
              Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance Administration.

      [FR Doc. 01-11365 Filed 5-9-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6718-03-P