        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 523, 534, and 535
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0079]
        Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for New Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

          SUMMARY:

          NHTSA has prepared a DEIS to disclose and analyze the potential environmental impacts of the agency's newly proposed fuel consumption standards for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks (“HD vehicles”), which NHTSA recently proposed pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. NHTSA invites Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, and the public to submit written comments on the DEIS using the instructions set forth in this notice. To facilitate review of the DEIS, NHTSA has posted the DEIS on its Web site (http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy) and placed it in the agency's docket, identified by the docket number at the beginning of this notice. NHTSA will consider all public comments received on the DEIS in preparing final NEPA documents to support final fuel consumption standards, which NHTSA plans to issue next year.

          DATES:
          To ensure that NHTSA has the opportunity to consider comments on the DEIS, NHTSA must receive written comments by January 3, 2011. NHTSA will try to consider comments received after that date to the extent the NEPA and rulemaking schedules allow, but NHTSA cannot ensure that it will be able to do so.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Questions concerning the DEIS should be addressed to Ms. Angel Jackson, Telephone: 1-202-366-0154, Fuel Economy Division, Office of International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. E-mail: nhtsa.nepa@dot.gov. Information about the HD vehicle rulemaking and the NEPA process is also available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
          • Online: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket Web site by clicking on “Help” or “FAQs.”
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: 202-493-2251.

            Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments filed after the closing date.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Telephone: (202) 366-9826.

            Privacy Act: 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 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

            Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket Management Facility at the address given above. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NHTSA has prepared a DEIS to disclose and analyze the potential environmental impacts of the agency's newly proposed Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program for HD vehicles.1

           Concurrent with the DEIS, NHTSA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a joint proposed rulemaking that would reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from and increase the fuel efficiency of HD vehicles. The joint proposed rules will be published in the near future in the Federal Register. NHTSA is proposing fuel consumption standards under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),2
           and EPA is proposing GHG emissions standards under the Clean Air Act. These proposed standards would be tailored to each of three regulatory categories of HD vehicles: Combination Tractors; Pick-up Trucks and Vans; and Vocational Vehicles, as well as gasoline and diesel HD vehicle engines. EPA's proposed GHG emissions standards would begin with model year (MY) 2014. NHTSA's proposed fuel consumption standards would be optional in MYs 2014 and 2015, becoming mandatory beginning in MY 2016 for most regulatory categories. The joint proposed rulemaking is consistent with President Obama's May 21, 2010 directive to improve the fuel efficiency of and reduce GHG pollution from HD vehicles through coordinated Federal standards.3
           EPA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) served as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the DEIS. EPA has special expertise in the areas of climate change and air quality and FMCSA has special expertise in HD vehicles.

            1 See National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321-4347, and implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, and NHTSA, 49 CFR Part 520.

            2 Public Law No. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 19, 2007) (codified at 49 U.S.C. 32901).

            3 See The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Presidential Memorandum Regarding Fuel Efficiency Standards (May 21, 2010), available at  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuel-efficiency-standards (last accessed Nov. 1, 2010); see also The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, President Obama Directs Administration to Create First-Ever National Efficiency and Emissions Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks (May 21, 2010), available at  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-directs-administration-create-first-ever-national-efficiency-and-em (last accessed Nov. 1, 2010).

        To inform decisionmakers and the public, the DEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed standards and alternative standards for MYs 2014-2018, including a “No Action” Alternative, pursuant to NEPA regulations.4

           The DEIS analyzes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts in proportion to their significance. It provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts on energy resources, air quality, and climate. The DEIS uses climate modeling and estimated fuel savings to provide quantitative estimates of potential impacts on air quality, CO2 emissions, global mean surface temperature, precipitation, and sea level rise. The DEIS provides a qualitative analysis of resources that may be impacted by changes in climate, such as freshwater resources, terrestrial ecosystems, coastal ecosystems, land use, human health, and environmental justice. It examines impacts on the U.S. and on a global scale. In addition, the DEIS analyzes potential environmental impacts unrelated to climate change.

            4 The “No Action” Alternative assumes that NHTSA would not issue a rule regarding a HD Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program, and is considered to comply with NEPA and to provide an analytical baseline against which to compare environmental impacts of the other regulatory alternatives. See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14(d). NEPA requires agencies to consider a “no action” alternative in their NEPA analyses and to compare the effects of not taking action with the effects of the reasonable action alternatives to demonstrate the different environmental effects of the action alternatives.

        How can I get a copy of the DEIS?
        The DEIS is available on NHTSA's Web site at http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy and in the agency's docket identified by the docket number at the beginning of this notice. To request a CD containing the DEIS and its Appendices, please contact Ms. Angel Jackson using the contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
        How do I comment on the DEIS?
        NHTSA invites the submission of written comments on the DEIS which the agency will consider in preparing the final NEPA documents to support the new Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program. Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number at the beginning of this notice in your comments.
        Your primary comments cannot exceed 15 pages.5
           However, you may attach additional documents to your primary comments. There is no limit to the length of the attachments.

            5 49 CFR 553.21.

        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 at 65 FR 19477, April 11, 2000, or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.

        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.
        As NHTSA and EPA recently announced in the Federal Register,6
           the agencies are holding two public hearings on the proposed fuel consumption standards. At these hearings, NHTSA will also accept comments to the DEIS.

            6 See 75 FR 67059 (Nov. 1, 2010).

        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, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 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, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, or submit them electronically, in the manner described at the beginning of this notice.
        Will the agency consider late comments?

        NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent the NEPA and rulemaking schedules allow, NHTSA will try to consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date, but we cannot ensure that we will be able to do so.7

            7 See 49 CFR 553.23.

        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 commenters may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material.

          Issued on: November 1, 2010.
          Joseph S. Carra
          Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 2010-27930 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY
        12 CFR Part 1282
        RIN 2590-AA27
        Duty To Serve Underserved Markets for Enterprises

          AGENCY:
          Federal Housing Finance Agency.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.

          SUMMARY:
          Section 1129 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) amended the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (Safety and Soundness Act) to establish a duty for the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (collectively, Enterprises) to serve three underserved markets—manufactured housing, affordable housing preservation, and rural areas—in order to increase the liquidity of mortgage investments and improve the distribution of investment capital available for mortgage financing in those markets. Section 1335 of the Safety and Soundness Act, as amended, requires the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), beginning in 2010, to establish a manner for: evaluating whether and to what extent the Enterprises have complied with the duty to serve underserved markets; and rating the extent of compliance. To assist FHFA in rulemaking to implement the duty to serve underserved markets, FHFA seeks comment on the characteristics and types of Enterprise transactions and activities that should be considered and how such transactions and activities should be evaluated and rated, for purposes of determining the Enterprises' performance of the duty to serve underserved markets.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before: September 18, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit your comments, identified by regulatory information number (RIN) 2590-AA27, by any of the following methods:
          • U.S. Mail, United Parcel Post, Federal Express, or Other Mail Service: The mailing address for comments is: Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, Attention: Comments/RIN 2590-AA27, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552.
          • Hand Delivered/Courier: The hand delivery address is: Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, Attention: Comments/RIN 2590-AA27, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. The package should be logged at the Guard Desk, First Floor, on business days between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
          • E-mail: Comments to Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, may be sent by e-mail to RegComments@fhfa.gov. Please include “RIN 2590-AA27” in the subject line of the message.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. If you submit your comment to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, please also send it by e-mail to FHFA at RegComments@fhfa.gov to ensure timely receipt by FHFA. Please include “RIN 2590-AA27” in the subject line of the message.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Nelson Hernandez, Senior Associate Director, Housing Mission and Goals, (202) 408-2819, Brian Doherty, Acting Manager, Housing Mission and Goals-Policy, (202) 408-2991, or Paul Manchester, Acting Manager, Housing Mission and Goals-Quantitative Analysis, (202) 408-2946 (these are not toll-free numbers); Lyn Abrams, Attorney-Advisor, (202) 414-8951, Kevin Sheehan, Attorney-Advisor, (202) 414-8952, or Sharon Like, Associate General Counsel, (202) 414-8950 (these are not toll-free numbers), Office of General Counsel, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. The telephone number for the Telecommunications Device for the Hearing Impaired is (800) 877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Comments

        FHFA invites comments on all aspects of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Copies of all comments will be posted without change, including any personal information you provide, such as your name and address, on the FHFA Web site at http://www.fhfa.gov. In addition, copies of all comments received will be available for examination by the public on business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. To make an appointment to inspect comments, please call the Office of General Counsel at (202) 414-3751.
        II. Background
        A. Establishment of FHFA

        Effective July 30, 2008, Division A of HERA, Public Law 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654 (2008), amended the Safety and Soundness Act, 12 U.S.C. 4501 et seq., and created FHFA as an independent agency of the Federal government.1

           HERA transferred the safety and soundness supervisory and oversight responsibilities over the Enterprises from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) to FHFA. HERA also transferred the charter compliance authority and responsibility to establish, monitor and enforce the affordable housing goals for the Enterprises from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to FHFA. HERA provides for the abolishment of OFHEO one year after the date of enactment. FHFA is responsible for ensuring that the Enterprises operate in a safe and sound manner, including maintenance of adequate capital and internal controls, that their operations and activities foster liquid, efficient, competitive, and resilient national housing finance markets, and that they carry out their public policy missions through authorized activities. See 12 U.S.C. 4513.

            1 See Division A, titled the “Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008,” Title I, Section 1101 of HERA.

        Section 1302 of HERA provides, in part, that all regulations, orders and determinations issued by the Secretary of HUD (Secretary) with respect to the Secretary's authority under the Safety and Soundness Act, the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act, 12 U.S.C. 1716 et seq., and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act, 12 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., (Charter Acts), shall remain in effect and be enforceable by the Secretary or the Director of FHFA, as the case may be, until modified, terminated, set aside or superseded by the Secretary or the Director, any court, or operation of law. The Enterprises continue to operate under regulations promulgated by OFHEO and HUD until FHFA issues its own regulations. See HERA at section 1302, 122 Stat. 2795; 12 U.S.C. 4603.2

            2 On May 1, 2009, FHFA issued a proposed rule to adopt portions of 24 CFR part 81 in new 12 CFR part 1282 and to adjust the levels of the Enterprises 2009 affordable housing goals to levels consistent with current market conditions. See 74 FR 20236 (May 1, 2009).

        The Enterprises are government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) chartered by Congress for the purpose of establishing secondary market facilities for residential mortgages. See 12 U.S.C. 1451, 1716. Specifically, Congress established the Enterprises to provide stability in the secondary market for residential mortgages, respond appropriately to the private capital market, provide ongoing assistance to the secondary market for residential mortgages (including activities relating to mortgages on housing for low- and moderate-income families involving a reasonable economic return that may provide less of a return than the Enterprises' other activities), and promote access to mortgage credit throughout the nation. Id.

        B. Duty To Serve Underserved Markets
        The Safety and Soundness Act provides that the Enterprises “have an affirmative obligation to facilitate the financing of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income families.” 12 U.S.C. 4501(7). Section 1129 of HERA amended section 1335 of the Safety and Soundness Act to establish a duty for the Enterprises to serve three specified underserved markets, in order to increase the liquidity of mortgage investments and improve the distribution of investment capital available for mortgage financing for certain categories of borrowers in those markets. 12 U.S.C. 4565. Specifically, the Enterprises are required to provide leadership to the market in developing loan products and flexible underwriting guidelines to facilitate a secondary market for mortgages on housing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income families with respect to manufactured housing, affordable housing preservation, and rural markets.3

          Id. In addition, section 1335 requires FHFA to establish, by regulation effective for 2010 and each subsequent year, a method for evaluating and rating the Enterprises' performance of the duty to serve underserved markets. Id. sec. 4565(d). Furthermore, FHFA is required to report annually to Congress on the Enterprises' performance of the duty to serve underserved markets. Id. A description of the duty to serve provisions and issues for consideration are set forth below.

            3 The terms “very low-income”, “low-income” and “moderate-income” are defined in 12 U.S.C. 4502.

        III. Duty To Serve Provisions
        A. Overview
        The duty to serve underserved markets is separate from and additional to the Enterprises' affordable housing goals. Mortgage purchases that contribute to the affordable housing goals may, under appropriate circumstances, also be considered for the duty to serve underserved markets. In addition, an activity or transaction may be considered for more than one underserved market. The rules for determining which types of mortgage purchases receive credit for purposes of the affordable housing goals could also be used to determine which types of mortgage purchases would be considered for purposes of the duty to serve underserved markets. FHFA seeks comment on whether there are any categories of mortgage purchase transactions for which the Enterprises receive housing goals credit that should not be considered for the duty to serve.
        The affordable housing goals regulation applicable to the Enterprises prohibits housing goals credit for “HOEPA mortgages” 4

           and mortgages with unacceptable terms or conditions or resulting from unacceptable practices. See 24 CFR 81.2, 81.16(c)(12); proposed 12 CFR 1282.2, 1282.16(c)(12) (74 FR 20236 (May 1, 2009)). Purchases of these types of mortgages would be ineligible for consideration under the duty to serve underserved markets. Likewise, Enterprise purchases of mortgages that do not conform with the interagency “Statement on Subprime Lending” and the “Interagency Guidance on Nontraditional Mortgage Products Risk” 5
           would not be considered.

            4 “HOEPA” refers to the Home Ownership Equity Protection Act.

            5 See Office of Federal Housing Enterprises Oversight, “OFHEO Director James B. Lockhart Commends GSEs on Implementation of Subprime Mortgage Lending Guidance,” News Release (Sept. 10, 2007), available at http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/1608/LockhartcommendsGSEsreSubprime91007.pdf.

        The duty to serve underserved markets is not an independent source of program authority for the Enterprise, and activities or transactions conducted in furtherance of this duty must be consistent with the Enterprise's Charter Act powers and limitations. In addition, any activity undertaken pursuant to the duty to serve must be consistent with the Safety and Soundness Act, as amended, the safe and sound operation of the Enterprise, and the public interest.
        FHFA invites comment on the issues discussed above.
        B. Underserved Markets
        1. Manufactured Housing

        Section 1335 of the Safety and Soundness Act, as amended, requires the Enterprises to “develop loan products and flexible underwriting guidelines to facilitate a secondary market for mortgages on manufactured homes for very low-, low- and moderate-income families.” 12 U.S.C. 4565(a)(1)(A). A “manufactured home” is a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent frame and is designed to be used as a dwelling when connected to the required utilities. See 12 U.S.C. 5402. FHFA specifically invites comment on three aspects of the manufactured housing market further discussed below: Manufactured home parks; personal property loans; and land-home and real estate manufactured housing loans.

          Manufactured Home Parks. Many manufactured home residents site their homes in manufactured home parks and rent the underlying land. Some manufactured home parks are investor-owned and others are resident-owned. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac currently purchase loans secured by manufactured home parks. FHFA seeks comment on whether and how these transactions should be considered under the duty to serve the manufactured housing market and on the types of flexibility the Enterprises could add to their underwriting guidelines to facilitate financing these transactions. FHFA also solicits comment on whether there should be differences in how resident-owned parks and investor-owned parks are treated for purposes of the duty to serve the manufactured housing market.

          Personal Property Loans.
          6
           The Safety and Soundness Act, as amended, provides that FHFA may consider loans secured by both real and personal property in evaluating whether the Enterprises have complied with the duty to serve the manufactured housing market. 12 U.S.C. 4565(d)(3). In some jurisdictions manufactured homes are financed as personal property, and the loan to the homebuyer is secured by a lien only on the manufactured home. Neither Enterprise currently purchases personal property loans on manufactured housing on a flow basis. FHFA seeks comment on whether Enterprise purchases of manufactured housing loans secured by personal property should be considered for purposes of the duty to serve the manufactured housing market. FHFA also requests comment on whether there are consumer protection laws or standards, in addition to those mentioned above, that should apply to personal property loans on manufactured homes.

            6 In some jurisdictions, personal property loans on manufactured homes are known as “chattel loans.”

          Land-Home and Real Estate Manufactured Housing Loans. “Land-home” manufactured housing loans and “real estate” manufactured housing loans provide financing to the homebuyer for both the manufactured home and the underlying land. FHFA seeks comment on the types of flexibility the Enterprises could add to their underwriting guidelines to facilitate financing for land-home and real estate loans.
        FHFA requests comment on the relative advantages and disadvantages to borrowers of personal property loans, land-home loans, and real estate loans and on appropriate definitions for these terms. FHFA also seeks comment on the safety and soundness considerations of Enterprise purchase or guarantee of these various loan types, and on how Enterprise leadership under the duty to serve requirements may provide greater standardization and liquidity to the market and protection to borrowers.
        2. Affordable Housing Preservation
        Under the Safety and Soundness Act, as amended, the Enterprises are required to develop loan products and flexible underwriting guidelines to facilitate a secondary market to preserve housing affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income borrowers, including housing projects subsidized under:
        (i) Section 8 of the Housing Act of 1937 (project-based and tenant-based rental assistance housing programs) (42 U.S.C. 1437f);
        (ii) Section 236 of the National Housing Act (rental and cooperative housing for lower income families) (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1);
        (iii) Section 221(d)(4) of the National Housing Act (housing for moderate-income and displaced families) (12 U.S.C. 1715l);
        (iv) Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (supportive housing program for the elderly) (12 U.S.C. 1701q);
        (v) Section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (supportive housing program for persons with disabilities) (42 U.S.C. 8013);

        (vi) Title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (only permanent supportive housing projects subsidized under such programs) (42 U.S.C. 11301 et seq.);
        (vii) Section 515 of the Housing Act of 1949 (rural rental housing program) (42 U.S.C. 1485);
        (viii) Low-income housing tax credits under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 42); and
        (ix) Comparable State and local affordable housing programs. 12 U.S.C. 4565(a)(1)(B).
        Some of the housing preservation programs listed above are voucher, capital advance or grant programs rather than mortgage origination programs, and the Enterprises' assistance may fall outside of their traditional role of purchasing, securitizing and guaranteeing mortgage loans. Moreover, compliance with the duty to assist with affordable housing preservation is not dependent on whether the Enterprise assists each enumerated program each year, because the needs and opportunities in some programs might change from year to year. FHFA seeks comment on how the Enterprises could assist these programs in meaningful and measurable ways.
        The housing programs enumerated above are not exhaustive, and the Enterprises are not limited to assisting these programs as their sole means of fulfilling their duty to serve the affordable housing preservation market. For example, HUD's Neighborhood Stabilization Program provides grants to State and local governments to acquire and redevelop foreclosed properties for the purpose of stabilizing communities that have suffered from home foreclosures and abandonment. FHFA requests comment on whether Enterprise assistance in connection with this program should be considered for the duty to serve the affordable housing preservation market and how the Enterprises might render assistance. FHFA also seeks comment on other State and local affordable housing programs, including foreclosure prevention programs, that could be considered for the duty to serve the affordable housing preservation market.
        3. Rural Markets
        The Safety and Soundness Act, as amended, requires the Enterprises to “develop loan products and flexible underwriting guidelines to facilitate a secondary market for mortgages on housing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income families in rural areas.” 12 U.S.C. 4565(a)(1)(C).

          Definition of “Rural Area”. A clear delineation of which areas are rural 7

           is necessary to implement the duty to serve rural markets. Three definitions are set forth below for comment, and FHFA invites suggestions for other definitions.

            7 The affordable housing goals regulation defines “rural areas” in connection with the underserved areas affordable housing goal. See 24 CFR 81.2, proposed 12 CFR 1282.2 (74 FR 20236 (May 1, 2009)). Beginning on January 1, 2010, this definition will no longer be in effect because section 1128 of HERA replaces the previous housing goals established by the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 with new housing goals. See 12 U.S.C. 4561 through 4563.

        The first definition would be based on classifications used by the U.S. Census Bureau for the 2000 census and would distinguish between urban and rural areas.8
           Urban areas are classified as all territory, population, and housing units located within “urbanized areas” and “urban clusters.” 9
           In general, urbanized areas must have a core with a population density of 1,000 persons per square mile and may contain adjoining territory with at least 500 persons per square mile. “Urban clusters” have at least 2,500 but less than 50,000 persons. Rural areas are classified as all territory located outside of urbanized areas and urban clusters.10

            8 See Appendix A—Census 2000 Geographic Terms and Concepts A-22, available at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/glossry2.pdf.

            9 Id. For a discussion of urbanized areas and urbanized clusters, see generally, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Measuring Rurality: What is Rural?” (Mar. 22, 2007), available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/WhatIsRural/.

            10 See Census 2000, supra note 8.

        The second definition would define “rural areas” as all counties assigned a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural-Urban Continuum code 11
           (RUC code), which the USDA uses to classify rural areas. These codes are available for all U.S. counties and for municipios (county equivalents) in Puerto Rico. Because data on other U.S. territories, including Guam and the Virgin Islands, is lacking, FHFA could regard these territories as “rural areas.” A disadvantage of using the RUC code is that because designations based on RUC codes are county-based, these designations could encompass both urban and rural areas, as occurs with very large counties west of the Mississippi River.

            11 See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Measuring Rurality: Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (Updated Apr. 28, 2004), available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/RuralUrbCon/.

        The third definition would combine two different designations, one used by the U.S. Census Bureau and one used by the USDA. Under this two-pronged definition, all census tracts designated by the U.S. Census Bureau as “nonmetropolitan” would be considered rural areas, as would all census tracts outside of urbanized areas and urban clusters, as designated by USDA's Rural-Urban Commuting Area 12
           code (RUCA code). The number of census tracts that would be considered rural areas under this definition is indicated by the shaded cells in the table below.13

            12 See http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/Rurality/RuralUrbanCommutingAreas/.

            13 This table is constructed from data available from the Office of Management and Budget at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/bulletins/fy2009/09-01.pdf, the U.S. Census Bureau at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/relate/rel_tract.html, and the USDA at http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/Rurality/RuralUrbanCommutingAreas/. In order to make a direct comparison to the USDA data, which excludes census tracts for Guam, the Virgin islands, and Puerto Rico, these census tracts were not included in the table.

          EP04AU09.115

        Using this definition, 29 percent of the census tracts in the 50 States would be rural areas. It would also capture 27 percent of the census tracts regarded as “underserved areas” under the affordable housing goals regulation applicable to the Enterprises. See 24 CFR 81.2; proposed 12 CFR 1282.2 (74 FR 20236 (May 1, 2009)). One drawback to this approach is that USDA does not plan to extend the RUCA code to Puerto Rico until at least 2012, and RUCA codes are not assigned to census tracts in the other U.S. territories. FHFA could fill this gap by using the RUC code described above to augment the RUCA code in Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories, or FHFA could create its own estimate of the RUCA code for these areas.
        The definitions discussed above would cover most, but not all, Tribal lands. Accordingly, FHFA seeks comment on whether the definition of “rural areas” should include all Tribal lands.

          Rural Transactions. FHFA seeks comment on the types of transactions and activities that should receive consideration toward the duty to serve rural markets, and on the types of flexibility the Enterprises could add to their underwriting guidelines to assist this market. In addition, while rural markets are served by a variety of Federal programs, principally through the USDA, FHFA seeks comment on opportunities available for the Enterprises to assist private sector initiatives for rural housing.
        C. Evaluation of Performance
        1. Evaluation Criteria
        In determining whether the Enterprises have complied with the duty to serve underserved markets, the Safety and Soundness Act, as amended, requires FHFA to separately evaluate and rate the Enterprise's performance for each of the three underserved markets based on four specific criteria, which are discussed below. 12 U.S.C. 4565(d). The Enterprises' performance under the three underserved markets may vary significantly from year to year because the needs and opportunities of one market may require more attention and resources than the needs of another market. Accordingly, the method for evaluating the Enterprises' performance of the duty to serve underserved markets should be sufficiently flexible to account for these variations in market needs and opportunities.

          Loan Product Test. The first criterion, referred to here as the “Loan Product Test,” requires evaluation of the Enterprise's “development of loan products, more flexible underwriting guidelines, and other innovative approaches to providing financing to each” underserved market. Id. sec. 4565(d)(2)(A). FHFA invites comment on the types of loan products, underwriting flexibility and innovative approaches the Enterprises could develop to serve each of the three underserved markets.

          Outreach Test. The second criterion, referred to here as the “Outreach Test,” requires evaluation of “the extent of outreach [by the Enterprises] to qualified loan sellers and other market participants” in each of the three underserved markets. Id. sec. 4565(d)(2)(B). FHFA seeks comment on the types of activities or programs in which the Enterprises could engage that would satisfy this Test, and on how FHFA could objectively measure the Enterprises' outreach.

          Purchase Test. The third criterion, referred to here as the “Purchase Test,” requires FHFA to consider “the volume of loans purchased in each of such underserved markets relative to the market opportunities available to the [E]nterprise.” Id. sec. 4565(d)(2)(C). The provision further states that FHFA “shall not establish specific quantitative targets nor evaluate the [E]nterprises based solely on the volume of loans purchased.” Id. FHFA requests comment on how to implement the Purchase Test consistent with this restriction and comment on any non-quantitative evaluation methods that would be appropriate. In addition, FHFA seeks comment on whether to measure the Enterprises' mortgage purchases by number of units financed, number of mortgages purchased, or unpaid principal balance.14
           FHFA further requests comment on the advantages and disadvantages of using each of these methods of measurement, and on the appropriateness of the different methods for different types of transactions.

            14 The Enterprises' performance under the affordable housing goals is measured using dwelling units, mortgages or unpaid principal balance. See 24 CFR 81.12 through 81.14; proposed 12 CFR 1282.12 through 1282.14 (74 FR 20236 (May 1, 2009)).

          Grants Test. The fourth criterion, referred to here as the “Grants Test,” requires evaluation of “the amount of investments and grants in projects which assist in meeting the needs of such underserved markets.” 12 U.S.C. 4565(d)(2)(D). FHFA seeks comment on types of investments and grants the Enterprises could make that could be considered under this Test. FHFA also seeks comment on methods available for evaluating the Enterprises' performance in making the grants and investments.
        2. Sizing the Market
        The Purchase Test requires that the volume of loans purchased in each underserved market be evaluated “relative to the market opportunities available to the [E]nterprise.” 12 U.S.C. 4565(d)(2)(C). FHFA invites comment on how to estimate the size of the manufactured housing, affordable housing preservation, and rural markets. FHFA further invites comment on whether there are categories of mortgages that should be excluded from the market size because the mortgages are unavailable for purchase.
        If market size estimation is not possible, the Enterprises' performance in the specific underserved market could be evaluated based on their purchases in that market in recent previous years, although this approach would not be available for the 2010 evaluation year. FHFA seeks comment on this approach.
        3. Evaluating Compliance

        In order to evaluate the Enterprises' performance under the duty to serve underserved markets, FHFA is considering developing a rating method similar to the method used to determine whether a financial institution has met the requirements under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA). See 12 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.; 12 CFR parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e. For each underserved market, the Enterprises' performance would be evaluated based on the four criteria described above, with an overall rating for each underserved market of Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs to Improve or Noncompliance. These terms would be defined in the regulation.
        One way to implement this approach would be to devise a rating scheme in which achievements or receipt of a certain number of points would result in a particular rating.15
           The Enterprise's rating in a particular underserved market would be a combination of the ratings on each of the four Tests.

            15 See generally Notice, Community Reinvestment Act; Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Community Reinvestment, 74 FR 498, 526-527 (Jan. 6, 2009), available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E8-31116.pdf.

        The four Tests need not be given equal consideration. For example, the Outreach Test might be weighted less than the Loan Product or Purchase Tests, because it results in less tangible benefits to the markets served and may require less effort and devotion of resources by the Enterprise. Furthermore, FHFA could weigh the four Tests differently across the three underserved markets. For example, the Purchase Test might receive more consideration for the manufactured housing market than for the affordable housing preservation market. The ratings would also take into consideration the overall effort and effectiveness of the Enterprise's service to the underserved market, its capital and portfolio positions, and the condition of the particular underserved market, which could vary from year to year.
        FHFA seeks comment on the evaluation methodology discussed above and invites descriptions of other types of evaluation or rating methodologies that may be feasible.
        D. Reporting Requirements
        FHFA would require annual reports from the Enterprises on their performance of the duty to serve underserved markets. FHFA anticipates that part of the report would be narrative and part would be summary statistical information, supported by submission of appropriate transaction-level data. The narrative portion would likely include discussions of the Enterprise's performance in each of the three underserved markets. Except for purchases of single-family mortgages, a complete listing and summary of each transaction for which the Enterprise seeks credit would likely be required. In addition, the Enterprise would certify to the accuracy of the information submitted. FHFA invites comment on specific requirements for the contents of the report.
        IV. Request for Comment
        FHFA invites comment on all of the issues discussed above, and will consider all comments received in developing a proposed rule to implement the duty to serve underserved markets.

          Dated: July 28, 2009.
          James B. Lockhart III,
          Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.

      [FR Doc. E9-18515 Filed 8-3-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        RIN 0648-BG03
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; Amendment 26

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council) and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) have jointly submitted Amendment 26 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 26 would adjust the management boundary for the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and Atlantic migratory groups of king mackerel; revise management reference points, stock and sector annual catch limits (ACLs), commercial quotas, and recreational annual catch targets (ACTs) for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel; allow limited retention and sale of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel incidentally caught in the shark gillnet fishery; establish a commercial split season for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel in the Atlantic southern zone; establish a commercial trip limit system for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel in the Atlantic southern zone; revise reference points and stock and sector ACLs for Gulf migratory group king mackerel; revise commercial zone quotas for Gulf migratory group king mackerel; and modify the recreational bag limit for Gulf migratory group king mackerel. The purpose of Amendment 26 is to ensure that king mackerel management is based on the best scientific information available, while increasing the social and economic benefits of the fishery.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before February 13, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on Amendment 26 identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2016-0120,” by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0120,
            click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Karla Gore, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

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

          Electronic copies of Amendment 26 may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov. Amendment 26 includes a draft environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Karla Gore, telephone: 727-551-5753, or email: karla.gore@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or FMP amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the plan or amendment is available for review and comment.
        The FMP being revised by Amendment 26 was prepared jointly by the South Atlantic and the Gulf Councils (Councils) and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Background
        In September of 2014, the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review 38 stock assessment (SEDAR 38) was completed for both the Gulf migratory group and Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel. SEDAR 38 determined that both the Gulf migratory group and Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel are not overfished and are not undergoing overfishing. The Gulf Council's and South Atlantic Council's Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs) reviewed the assessment and concluded that SEDAR 38 should form the basis for revisions to reference points such as the overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC), and the ACLs for the two migratory groups of king mackerel. SEDAR 38 also provided genetic information on king mackerel, which indicated that the winter mixing zone for the two migratory groups was smaller than previously thought and that the management boundary for these migratory groups should be revised.
        Actions Contained in Amendment 26

        Amendment 26 includes actions to adjust the management boundary of the Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups of king mackerel; revise reference points, stock and sector ACLs, commercial quotas, and recreational ACTs for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel; allow limited retention and sale of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel incidentally caught in the shark gillnet fishery; establish a commercial split season for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel in the Atlantic southern zone; establish a commercial trip limit system for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel in the Atlantic southern zone; establish a commercial trip limit system for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel in the Atlantic southern zone; revise reference points and stock and sector ACLs for the Gulf migratory group of king mackerel; revise commercial zone quotas for Gulf migratory group king mackerel; and modify the recreational bag limit for Gulf migratory group king mackerel.
        Management Boundary and Zone Descriptions for the Gulf and Atlantic Migratory Groups of King Mackerel
        Currently management boundaries change seasonally for the Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups of king mackerel based on the historical understanding that the two migratory groups mixed seasonally off the east coast of Florida and in Monroe County, Florida. However, in 2014, SEDAR 38 determined the mixing zone between the two migratory groups now exists only in the portion of the EEZ off Monroe County, Florida, south of the Florida Keys. Amendment 26 would set a single year-round regulatory boundary (Gulf/Atlantic group boundary) separating management of the two migratory groups of king mackerel, based on the genetic analysis used in SEDAR 38. This new year-round Gulf/Atlantic group boundary would be set at a line extending east of the Miami-Dade/Monroe County, FL boundary, to better represent the area where the two migratory groups primarily exist. The newly defined mixing zone off of the Florida Keys would be included in the Gulf migratory group and managed by the Gulf Council.
        Through Amendment 26, the Gulf migratory group's current eastern zone-northern subzone and eastern zone-southern subzone would be renamed the northern zone and southern zone, respectively. The southern zone would include the new mixing zone, extending east to the new Gulf/Atlantic group boundary. The name and dimensions of the Gulf migratory group's western zone would remain the same. The Atlantic migratory group's northern zone would also remain unchanged. The southern boundary of the Atlantic migratory group's southern zone would shift to the new Gulf/Atlantic group boundary. Due to this shift, the current Florida east coast subzone would no longer exist under Amendment 26. Instead, that area would be included in the Atlantic migratory group's southern zone year-round.
        This action would not change the current Federal fishing permits requirements for fishing for king mackerel in the Gulf and Atlantic areas as defined in Federal regulations.
        Atlantic Migratory Group King Mackerel Reference Points, ACLs, Commercial Quotas and Recreational ACTs
        Amendment 18 to the FMP established reference points, ACLs, and accountability measures for both migratory groups of king mackerel (76 FR 82058, December 29, 2011). The current ABC of 10.46 million lb (4.74 million kg) for the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel was set in Amendment 18. In Amendment 26, the Councils chose revisions of the OFLs and ABCs for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel based on SEDAR 38 and the South Atlantic Council's SSC ABC recommendation based on a high recruitment scenario. The Atlantic migratory group ABC would gradually decrease from 17.4 million lb (7.89 million kg) in the 2016-2017 fishing year to 12.7 million lb (5.76 million kg) in the 2019-2020 fishing year.
        Amendment 26 would also set the stock ACL equal to OY and the ABC. The Atlantic migratory group's sector allocation (37.1 percent of the ACL to the commercial sector and 62.9 percent of the ACL to the recreational sector) will not change through Amendment 26. Amendment 26 would revise the commercial ACLs for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel to be 6.5 million lb (2.9 million kg) for the 2016-2017 fishing year, 5.9 million lb (2.7 million kg) for the 2017-2018 fishing year, 5.2 million lb (2.4 million kg) for the 2018-2019 fishing year, and 4.7 million lb (2.1 million kg) for the 2019-2020 fishing year and subsequent fishing years. The recreational ACLs for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel would be set at 10.9 million lb (4.9 million kg) for the 2016-2017 fishing year, 9.9 million lb (4.5 million kg) for the 2017-2018 fishing year, 8.9 million lb (4.0 million kg) for the 2018-2019 fishing year, and 8.0 million lb (3.6 million kg) for the 2019-2020 fishing year and subsequent fishing years. The recreational sector ACTs for Atlantic migratory group kind mackerel would be set at 10.1 million lb (4.6 million kg) for the 2016-2017 fishing year, 9.2 million lb (4.2 million kg) for the 2017-2018 fishing year, 8.3 million lb (3.8 million kg) for the 2018-2019 fishing year and 7.4 million lb (3.4 million kg) for the 2019-2020 fishing year and subsequent fishing years.
        The commercial ACLs for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel would be divided each fishing year between the northern zone (23.04 percent) and the southern zone (76.96 percent) into their respective commercial quotas. The proposed commercial quotas for the Atlantic northern zone would be 1,497,600 lb (679,300 kg) for the 2016-2017 fishing year, 1,259,360 lb (616,595 kg) for the 2017-2018 fishing year, 1,198,080 lb (543,440 kg) for the 2018-2019 fishing year, and 1,082,880 lb (491,186 kg) for the 2019-2020 fishing year and subsequent years. Proposed commercial quotas for the Atlantic southern zone would be 5,002,400 lb (2,269,050 kg) for the 2016-2017 fishing year, 4,540,640 lb (2,059,600 kg) for the 2017-2018 fishing year, 4,001,920 lb (1,815,240 kg) for the 2018-2019 fishing year, and 3,617,120 lb (1,640,698 kg) for the 2019-2020 fishing year and subsequent fishing years.
        Incidental Catch of Atlantic Migratory Group King Mackerel Caught in the Shark Gillnet Fishery
        Amendment 20A to the FMP prohibited recreational bag limit sales of king mackerel by commercially permitted king mackerel fishers in South Atlantic Council jurisdictional waters, which included king mackerel incidentally caught on directed commercial shark trips (79 FR 34246, June 16, 2014).
        In Amendment 26, the Councils determined that, as a result of the mesh size used and the nature of the shark gillnet fishery, most king mackerel are already dead when the shark gillnets are retrieved. The Councils decided that some incidental catch of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel should be allowed for retention and sale if it is incidentally caught in the commercial shark gillnet fishery on vessels with a Federal king mackerel commercial permit.

        If Amendment 26 is approved and implemented, a vessel in the Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone that is engaged in directed shark fishing with gillnets, and that has both a valid Federal shark directed commercial permit and a valid Federal king mackerel commercial permit, would be allowed to retain and sell a limited number of king mackerel. In the Atlantic northern zone, no more than three king mackerel per crew member could be retained or sold per trip. In the Atlantic southern zone, no more than two king mackerel per crew member could be retained or sold per trip. The incidental catch allowance would not apply to commercial shark trips that are using an authorized gillnet for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel north of Cape Lookout Light. In that area the existing commercial trip limit of 3,500 lb (1,588 kg) would apply. No type of gillnet is an allowable gear for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel south of Cape Lookout Light. These incidentally caught king mackerel would have to be retained or sold to a dealer with a valid Federal Gulf and South Atlantic dealer permit. This action is intended to reduce king mackerel discards and allow for the limited retention and sale of king mackerel, while not encouraging direct harvest of king mackerel on these shark fishing trips.
        Commercial Split Seasons for Atlantic Migratory Group King Mackerel in Atlantic Southern Zone
        Currently, the commercial fishing year for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel is March 1 through the end of February, and the commercial ACLs for the Atlantic northern zone and southern zone are allocated for the entire fishing year. Amendment 26 would divide the annual Atlantic migratory group kind mackerel commercial quota for the Atlantic southern zone into two commercial seasons. The Atlantic northern zone quota would not be split. Amendment 26 would divide the commercial quotas for the Atlantic southern zone by allocating 60 percent to the first season of March 1 through September 30, and 40 percent to the second season of October 1 through the end of February. This commercial split season for the Atlantic southern zone quota is intended to ensure that a portion of the southern zone's quota is available in later months of the fishing year, which will allow for increased fishing opportunities during more of the fishing year.
        The proposed seasonal commercial quotas for the first season of March 1 through September 30 each fishing year in the southern zone would be: 3,001,440 lb (1,361,430 kg) for the 2016-2017 fishing year, 2,724,384 lb (1,235,760 kg) for the 2017-2018 fishing year, 2,401,152 lb (1,089,144 kg) for the 2018-2019 fishing year, and 2,170,272 lb (984,419 kg) for the 2019-2020 fishing year and subsequent fishing years. The proposed seasonal commercial quotas for the second season of October 1 through the end of February each fishing year in the southern zone would be: 2,000,960 lb (907,620 kg) for the 2016-2017 fishing year, 1,816,256 lb (823,840 kg) for the 2017-2018 fishing year, 1,600,768 lb (726,096 kg) for the 2018-2019 fishing year, and 1,446,848 lb (656,279 kg) for the 2019-2020 fishing year and subsequent years.
        Commercial Trip Limit System for the Atlantic Migratory Group of King Mackerel in the Atlantic Southern Zone
        Commercial trip limits for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel are limits on the amount of that species that may be possessed on board or landed, purchased or sold from a federally permitted king mackerel vessel per day. Several commercial trip limits currently exist in the Atlantic southern zone. North of 29°25′ N. lat., which is a line directly east from the Flagler/Volusia County, FL, boundary, the trip limit for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel is 3,500 lb (1,588 kg) year-round. In the area between the Flagler/Volusia County, FL, boundary (29°25′ N. lat.) and 28°47.8′ N. lat., which is a line extending directly east from the Volusia/Brevard County, FL, boundary, the trip limit is 3,500 lb (1,588 kg) from April 1 through October 31. In the area between the Volusia/Brevard County, FL, boundary (28°47.8′ N. lat.) and 25°20.4′ N. lat., which is a line directly east from the Miami-Dade/Monroe County, FL boundary, the trip limit is 75 fish from April 1 through October 31. In the area between the Miami-Dade/Monroe County, FL, boundary, and 25°48″ N. lat., which is a line directly west from Monroe/Collier County, FL, boundary, the trip limit is 1,250 lb (567 kg) from April 1 through October 31.
        Amendment 26 would revise the commercial trip limits for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel in the Atlantic southern zone, based on the revised management boundary and split commercial season. During the first commercial season (March 1 through September 30), in the area between the Flagler/Volusia County, FL, boundary (29°25′ N. lat.), and the Miami-Dade/Monroe County, FL boundary (25°20.24″ N. lat.), the trip limit would be 50 fish during March. From April 1 through September 30, the trip limit would be 75 fish, unless NMFS determines that 75 percent or more of the Atlantic southern zone quota for the first season has been landed, then the trip limit would be 50 fish. During the second commercial season (October 1 through the end of February), the trip limit would be 50 fish for the area between the Flagler/Volusia County, FL, boundary, and the the Miami-Dade/Monroe County, FL boundary. During the month of February, the trip limit would remain 50 fish, unless NMFS determines that less than 70 percent of the commercial quota for the southern zone's second season has been landed, then the trip limit would be 75 fish.
        Amendment 26 would not revise the 3,500 lb (1,588 kg) year-round trip limit for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel, north of the Flagler/Volusia County, FL boundary.
        In Amendment 26, the Councils determined that these changes to the commercial season and commercial trip limits for the Atlantic southern zone would ensure the longest possible commercial fishing season for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel.
        Gulf Migratory Group King Mackerel ACLs
        The current ABC and total ACL for Gulf migratory group king mackerel is 10.8 million lb (4.89 million kg). Based on its review of SEDAR 38, the Gulf Council's SSC recommended OFLs and ABCs for Gulf migratory group king mackerel for the 2015-2016 through 2019-2020 fishing years that decrease over time. The Gulf migratory group king mackerel ABCs in Amendment 26 are lower than the current ABC and total ACL, because the geographical area for which the new ABCs apply is smaller than the current area for which they apply, as a result of the proposed zone revisions in the Gulf and Atlantic.
        Because Gulf migratory group king mackerel is not overfished or undergoing overfishing, the Gulf Council recommended that ACL remain equal to OY and to ABC. Therefore, in Amendment 26, the total ACLs for the Gulf migratory group of king mackerel are the same values as the ABCs recommended by the Gulf SSC: 9.21 million lb (4.18 million kg) for the 2016-2017 fishing year, 8.88 million lb (4.03 million kg) for the 2017-2018 fishing year, 8.71 million lb (3.95 million kg) for the 2018-2019 fishing year, and 8.55 million lb (3.88 million kg) for the 2019-2020 fishing year.
        Amendment 26 would not revise the current Gulf migratory group king mackerel allocations (68 percent of the total ACL to the recreational sector and 32 percent to the commercial sector). Based on the existing allocations, the commercial ACLs proposed for Gulf migratory group king mackerel are: 2.95 million lb (1.34 million kg) for the 2016-2017 fishing year, 2.84 million lb (1.29 million kg) for the 2017-2018 fishing year, 2.79 million lb (1.27 million kg) for the 2018-2019 fishing year, and 2.74 million lb (1.24 million kg) for the 2019-2020 fishing year and subsequent fishing years.

        The Gulf migratory group commercial ACLs would be further divided each fishing year into gear-specific commercial ACLs for hook-and-line gear and for vessels fishing with run-around gillnet gear. The hook-and-line component commercial ACLs (which applies to the entire Gulf) would be: 2,330,500 lb (1,057,097 kg) for the 2016-2017 fishing year, 2,243,600 lb (1,017,680 kg) for the 2017-2018 fishing year, 2,204,100 lb (999,763 kg) for the 2018-2019 fishing year, and 2,164,600 lb (981,846 kg) for the 2019-2020 fishing year and subsequent years. The run-around gillnet component commercial ACL (which applies to the Gulf southern zone) would be: 619,500 lb (281,000 kg) for the 2016-2017 fishing year, 596,400 lb (270,522 kg) for the 2017-2018 fishing year, 585,900 lb (265,760 kg) for the 2018-2019 fishing year, and 575,400 lb (260,997 kg) for the 2019-2020 fishing year and subsequent fishing years. The commercial quota by zones would also be modified (see below).
        The proposed recreational ACLs for Gulf migratory group king mackerel would be: 6.26 million lb (2.84 million kg) for the 2016-2017 fishing year, 6.04 million lb (2.74 million kg) for the 2017-2018 fishing year, 5.92 million lb (2.69 million kg) for the 2018-2019 fishing year, and 5.81 million lb (2.64 million kg) for the 2019-2020 fishing year and subsequent fishing years.
        Commercial Zone Quotas for Gulf Migratory Group King Mackerel
        Amendment 26 would revise the Gulf migratory group commercial zone quotas, because of the proposed changes to the Councils' jurisdictional boundaries and resultant zone revisions. The current allocation of the commercial ACL for Gulf migratory group king mackerel by zones is: 31 percent in the western zone, 5.17 percent in the northern zone, 15.96 percent for the southern zone using hook-and-line gear, 15.96 percent for the southern zone using gillnet gear, and 31.91 percent for the Florida east coast subzone. However, under Amendment 26, the Florida east coast subzone would no longer exist and the quota associated with that zone would be re-allocated to the remaining zones. The revised allocation of commercial zone quotas for Gulf migratory group king mackerel would be: 40 percent in the western zone, 18 percent in the northern zone, 21 percent for the southern zone using hook-and-line gear, and 21 percent for the southern zone using gillnet gear.
        The proposed commercial quotas for the Gulf western zone would be: 1,180,000 lb (535,239 kg) for the 2016-2017 fishing year, 1,136,000 lb (515,281 kg) for the 2017-2018 fishing year, 1,116,000 lb (506,209 kg) for the 2018-2019 fishing year, and 1,096,000 lb (497,137 kg) for the 2019-20 fishing year and subsequent fishing years.
        The proposed commercial quotas for the Gulf northern zone would be: 531,000 lb (240,858 kg) for the 2016-2017 fishing year, 511,200 lb (231,876 kg) for the 2017-18 fishing year, 502,200 lb (227,794 kg) for the 2018-2019 fishing year, and 493,200 lb (223,712 kg) for the 2019-2010 fishing year and subsequent fishing years.
        The proposed commercial hook-and-line and commercial run-around gillnet component quotas in the southern zone would be equal to each other for each fishing year and would be: 619,500 lb (281,000 kg) for the 2016-2017 fishing year, 596,400 lb (270,522 kg) for the 2017-2018 fishing year, 585,900 lb (265,760 kg) for the 2018-2019 fishing year, and 575,400 lb (260,997 kg) for the 2019-2020 fishing year and subsequent fishing years.
        Allocation and the Recreational Bag Limit for Gulf Migratory Group of King Mackerel
        From the 2002-2003 fishing year through the 2013-2014 fishing year, the recreational sector's landings of the Gulf migratory group of king mackerel were consistently less than 50 percent of the recreational ACL, while the commercial sector's landings were consistently 90 percent or more of the commercial ACL. In Amendment 26, the Councils considered but rejected, the possibility of reallocating from the recreational ACL to the commercial ACL and instead proposed an increase in the recreational bag limit for Gulf migratory group king mackerel from 2 fish per person per trip to 3 fish per person per trip. The Councils determined that this increased recreational bag limit would allow more opportunities for recreational anglers to harvest the recreational sector ACL.

        A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 26 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        Consideration of Public Comments
        The Councils have submitted Amendment 26 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments on Amendment 26 must be received by February 13, 2017. Comments received during the respective comment periods, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 26.
        All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

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

          Dated: December 9, 2016.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-30046 Filed 12-13-16; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        48 CFR Part 252
        [DFARS Case 2002-D019]
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Transportation of Supplies by Sea—Commercial Items

          AGENCY:
          Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule with request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to add an alternate version of a clause, pertaining to transportation of supplies by sea, to the list of clauses included in contracts for commercial items to implement statutes or Executive orders. The alternate version of the clause applies to contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before December 24, 2002, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:

          Respondents may submit comments directly on the World Wide Web at http://emissary.acq.osd.mil/dar/dfars.nsf/pubcomm. As an alternative, respondents may e-mail comments to: dfars@acq.osd.mil. Please cite DFARS Case 2002-D019 in the subject line of e-mailed comments.
          Respondents that cannot submit comments using either of the above methods may submit comments to: Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: Ms. Amy Williams, OUSD (AT&L) DP (DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062; facsimile (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2002-D019.

          At the end of the comment period, interested parties may view public comments on the World Wide Web at http://emissary.acq.osd.mil/dar/dfars.nsf.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Amy Williams, (703) 602-0328.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background

        This proposed rule corrects an oversight in the final rule published at 67 FR 38020 on May 31, 2002, under DFARS Case 2000-D014, Ocean Transportation by U.S.-Flag Vessels. That rule added requirements for contractors to use U.S.-flag vessels when transporting supplies by sea under contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2631. The rule provided an Alternate III for use with the clause at DFARS 252.247-7023, Transportation of Supplies by Sea, in contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, to minimize the information required from contractors under these contracts. This proposed rule adds Alternate III of 252.247-7023 to the list of clauses at 252.212-7001, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders Applicable to Defense Acquisitions of Commercial Items, as it was inadvertently omitted from the previous DFARS rule.
        This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
        B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because most entities providing ocean transportation of freight are not small businesses, and the rule minimizes the information required from contractors under contracts valued at or below the simplified acquisition threshold. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2002-D019.
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The information collection requirements in this rule are covered by Office of Management Budget Clearance Number 0704-0245, and have been approved for use through July 31, 2004.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 252
          Government procurement.

          Michele P. Peterson,
          Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.

        Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR part 252 as follows:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 252 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.

          PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
          2. Section 252.212-7001 is amended as follows:
          a. By revising the clause date to read “(XXX 2002)”; and
          b. In paragraph (b), by revising entry “252.247-7023” to read as follows:

            252.212-7001
            Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders Applicable to Defense Acquisitions of Commercial Items.

              (b) * * *

            252.247-7023
             Transportation of Supplies by Sea  (May 2002) (Alternate I) (Mar 2000) (Alternate II) (Mar 2000) (Alternate III) (May 2002) (10 U.S.C. 2631).

      [FR Doc. 02-27106 Filed 10-24-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 5001-08-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket No. 21-157; RM-11902; DA 21-438; FR ID 22303]
        Television Broadcasting Services Eagle River, Wisconsin

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by Gray Television Licensee, LLC (Petitioner), requesting the allotment of channel 26 at Eagle River, Wisconsin, as the community's second local service in the DTV Table of Allotments.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before June 1, 2021 and reply comments on or before June 14, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for the Petitioner as follows: Ari Meltzer, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, 1776 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-1647; or Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In support of its channel allotment request, the Petitioner states that Eagle River is a community deserving of a new television broadcast service. Eagle River (pop. 1,398/2010 Census) has a Mayor; City Administrator; City Council; police, public works, and utility departments; and numerous businesses and places of worship. In addition, channel 28 (WYOW) is already allotted to Eagle River. The Commission concludes the request to amend the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments warrants consideration. The Petitioner's proposal would result in a second local service to Eagle River consistent with the Commission's television allotment policies. Channel 26 can be allotted to Eagle River, consistent with the minimum geographic spacing requirements for new DTV allotments in section 73.623(d) of the Commission's rules, at 45°55′28.9″ N and 89°15′28.5″ W. In addition, the allotment point complies with section 73.625(a)(1) of the rules as the entire community of Eagle River is encompassed by the 48 dBμ contour. Since the proposed facility is located within the Canadian coordination zone, concurrence from the Canadian government must be obtained for this allotment.
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 21-157; RM-11902; DA 21-438, adopted April 16, 2021, and released April 16, 2021. The full text of this document is available for download at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request materials in accessible formats (braille, large print, computer diskettes, or audio recordings), please send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (VOICE), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

        This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public  Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public  Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C.  3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to this proceeding.
        Members of the public should note that all ex parte contacts are prohibited from the time a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is issued to the time the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, see 47 CFR 1.1208. There are, however, exceptions to this prohibition, which can be found in § 1.1204(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1204(a).
        See §§ 1.415 and 1.420 of the Commission's rules for information regarding the proper filing procedures for comments, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Television.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Thomas Horan,
          Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.

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

          PART 73—Radio Broadcast Service

        1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.

          § 73.622
          [Amended]

        2. In § 73.622 in paragraph (i), amend the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments under Wisconsin by revising the entry for Eagle River to read as follows:

          § 73.622
          Digital television table of allotments.

          (i) * * *

              Community
              Channel No.

              *    *    *    *    *

                Wisconsin

              *    *    *    *    *

              Eagle River
              26, 28

              *    *    *    *    *

      [FR Doc. 2021-08898 Filed 4-28-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 070808450-7540-01]
        RIN 0648-AV83
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery; Regulatory Amendment to Adopt Fishing Gear Standards for the NE Multispecies Regular B Day-At-Sea (DAS) Program and the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock Special Access Program (SAP)

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to amend the regulations governing minimum performance standards of fishing gear proposed for use in both the NE multispecies Regular B DAS Program and the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP. Under the current regulations, the only fishing gear allowed for use in the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP and the only trawl gear allowed for use in the Regular B DAS Program is a properly configured haddock separator trawl. The purpose of this rule is to ultimately provide greater flexibility to fishermen participating in these programs.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. local time on November 14, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AV83, by any one of the following methods:

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

          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Douglas Potts
          • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. Please write on the envelope: Comments on Proposed B-DAS Gear Standard (RIN 0648-AV83).

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Douglas Potts, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9341, FAX (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Amendment 13 to the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) differentiated DAS into three categories: Category A DAS; Category B (regular and reserve) DAS; and Category C DAS. Category B DAS (regular and reserve) were intended to allow effort on stocks that could support additional harvest while avoiding stocks of concern. The final rule implementing Framework Adjustment (FW) 40-A (November 19, 2004, 69 FR 67780) created two programs that allow vessels to use their allocation of Category B DAS, i.e., the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP Program and the Regular B DAS Program.

        FW 40-A specified that vessels fishing in the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP must use gear that has been demonstrated not to catch significant amounts of cod. Upon implementation of FW 40-A, the only gear authorized for participation in this SAP was a haddock separator trawl, as described in 50 CFR 648.85(a)(3)(iii)(A). The FW 42 final rule (October 23, 2006, 71 FR 62156) modified the requirements for approval of other fishing gear for use in the Regular B DAS Program and the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP, as specified in § 648.85(b)(6)(iv)(J)(2) and (b)(8)(v)(E)(2), respectively. Specifically, this action authorized the Regional Administrator to approve the use of additional fishing gear in the Regular B DAS Program and the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP, provided the gear met performance standards to be proposed by the Council.

        On June 21, 2007, the Council approved a motion to recommend that the Regional Administrator approve the following gear performance standards when considering additional gear for the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP, or additional trawl gear for the Regular B DAS Program: New gear must demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in catch of each regulated NE multispecies, and other stocks of concern, of at least 50 percent (by weight, on a trip-by-trip basis); or the catch of each regulated NE multispecies, and other stocks of concern, in the new gear must be less than 5 percent of the total catch of regulated NE multispecies (by weight, on a trip-by-trip basis).
        The Council further recommended that: These standards must be met in a completed experiment, where comparisons of new gear would be made to an appropriately selected control gear, that has been reviewed according to the standards established by the Council's research policy before the gear can be considered and approved by the Regional Administrator; and that the requests for additional gear in the Regular B DAS Program and the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP would be made by either the Council or Executive Committee.
        The proposed rule seeks public comment on these standards and NMFS's interpretation of them. After review of the proposed performance standards, NMFS interprets that the phrase ”... reduction in each regulated NE multispecies” would exclude any NE multispecies stock, identified by the Council as not being subject to the gear performance standard (e.g., Georges Bank haddock in the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP). Further, the term “stock of concern” is only defined in the regulations for species managed under the NE Multispecies FMP. However, in the proposed performance standards submitted by the Council, the term “stock of concern” is specific to non-groundfish stocks. Thus, the Council or the Council's Executive Committee, when considering prospective gear for the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP or the Regular B DAS Program, would need to consider what species of concern, in addition to non-excluded NE multispecies, e.g., monkfish or skates, should meet the criteria specified in the proposed performance standards before the Council or the Council's Executive Committee submits a request to the Regional Administrator for approval. The performance standards, as interpreted by NMFS, and as proposed in this rule, would therefore read as follows: “The Regional Administrator may authorize additional gear for use in the Regular B DAS Program (or the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP, as applicable) through notice consistent with all applicable law. The new gear must demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in catch of regulated NE multispecies, other than regulated NE multispecies identified by the Council as not being subject to this gear performance standard, and other non-groundfish stocks of concern identified by the Council, of at least 50 percent (by weight, on a trip-by-trip basis), or the catch of each non-targeted regulated NE multispecies and other stocks of concern identified by the Council in the new gear must be less than 5 percent of the total catch of regulated NE multispecies (by weight, on a trip-by-trip basis).”
        This proposed rule would also correct an inadvertent omission by reinserting relevant regulatory text specific to the U.S./Canada Management Area gear requirements that was inadvertently removed through the final rule implementing FW 42. The Amendment 13 final rule (April 27, 2004, 69 FR 22906) established gear requirements for vessels participating in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area. Trawl vessels participating in this area are required to use either a haddock separator trawl or one of two flatfish nets defined in the regulations at § 648.85(a)(3)(iii)(A) and (B). These gear requirements were intended to allow vessels to harvest either haddock or flatfish without catching cod and other groundfish stocks not capable of supporting higher catch rates. An April 13, 2006, emergency final rule (71 FR 19348) revised the introductory text of the regulations at § 648.85(a)(3)(iii) to accommodate revised regulatory references associated with emergency measures. However, due to an error in the regulatory text of that rule, the emergency final rule inadvertently and indefinitely removed the introductory text at § 648.85(a)(3)(iii) from the regulations. This regulation was not reinserted in the FW 42 final rule, so the current regulations do not accurately reflect the original gear requirements implemented under Amendment 13, as contained in the original introductory text of § 648.85(a)(3)(iii). To correct this omission, this action would reinsert the introductory text at § 648.85(a)(3)(iii) that was inadvertently removed by the April 13, 2006, emergency final rule as revised by this rule to allow additional fishing gear that may be approved for use in the Regular B DAS Program and the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the NE Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Regional Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is a minor technical addition, correction, or change to a management plan and is therefore categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or equivalent document under the National Environmental Policy Act.
        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. This amendment does not specifically change any gear requirements. It provides standards that must be met before a new gear can be proposed for use in these programs. Once a gear is proposed by the Council under these standards, then a fuller analysis of the environmental and/or economic impacts of its adoption may be necessary at that time. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

        Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: October 9, 2007.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 648 as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 648.14, paragraphs (a)(132) and (c)(81) are revised to read as follows:

          § 648.14
          Prohibitions.
          (a) * * *
          (132) If fishing with trawl gear under a NE multispecies DAS in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area defined in § 648.85(a)(1)(ii), fail to fish with a haddock separator trawl or a flounder trawl net, as specified in § 648.85(a)(3)(iii); unless using other gear as authorized under § 648.85 (b)(6) or (b)(8).

          (c) * * *

          (81) If fishing with trawl gear in the Regular B DAS Program specified in § 648.85(b)(6), fail to use a haddock separator trawl as described under § 648.85(a)(3)(iii)(A); or other gear as authorized under § 648.85(b)(6)(iv)(J).

        3. In § 648.85, paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) introductory text is added and paragraphs (b)(6)(iv)(J)(2) and (b)(8)(v)(E)(2) are revised to read as follows:

          § 648.85
          Special management programs.
          (a) * * *
          (3) * * *
          (iii) Gear requirements. NE multispecies vessels fishing with trawl gear in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area defined in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, unless otherwise provided in paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(8) of this section, must fish with a haddock separator trawl or a flounder trawl net, as described in paragraphs (a)(3)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section (both nets may be onboard the fishing vessel simultaneously). Gear other than the haddock separator trawl or the flounder trawl net as described in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section, or gear authorized under paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(8) of this section, may be on board the vessel during a trip to the Eastern U.S./Canada Area, provided the gear is stowed according to the regulations at § 648.23(b). The description of the haddock separator trawl and flounder trawl net in this paragraph (a)(3)(iii) may be further specified by the Regional Administrator through publication of such specifications in the Federal Register, consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

          (b) * * *
          (6) * * *
          (iv) * * *
          (J) * * *
          (2) Approval of additional gear. At the request of the Council or the Council's Executive Committee, the Regional Administrator may authorize additional gear for use in the Regular B DAS Program, through notice consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. The proposed gear must satisfy standards specified in paragraph (b)(6)(iv)(J)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section in a completed experiment that has been reviewed according to the standards established by the Council's research policy before the gear can be considered and approved by the Regional Administrator. Comparisons of the criteria specified in this paragraph (b)(6)(iv)(J)(2) will be made to an appropriately selected control gear.
          (i) The gear must show a statistically significant reduction in catch of at least 50 percent (by weight, on a trip-by-trip basis) of regulated species, unless otherwise specified in this paragraph, and other stocks of concern identified by the Council. This does not apply to regulated species identified by the Council as not being subject to gear performance standards; or
          (ii) The catch of each regulated species, unless otherwise specified in this paragraph, and other stocks of concern identified by the Council, must be less than five percent of the total catch of regulated NE multispecies (by weight, on a trip-by-trip basis). This does not apply to regulated species identified by the Council as not being subject to gear performance standards.

          (8) * * *
          (v) * * *
          (E) * * *
          (2) Approval of additional gear. The Regional Administrator may authorize additional gear for use in the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP in accordance with the standards and requirements specified at § 648.85(b)(6)(iv)(J)(2).

      [FR Doc. E7-20279 Filed 10-12-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S