        DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
        Internal Revenue Service
        26 CFR Parts 41, 48, and 145
        [REG-103380-05]
        RIN 1545-BE31
        Excise Tax; Tractors, Trailers, Trucks, and Tires; Definition of Highway Vehicle; Hearing

          AGENCY:
          Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

          ACTION:
          Notice of a public hearing on notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document provides a notice of public hearing on proposed regulations relating to the excise taxes imposed on the sale of highway tractors, trailers, trucks, and tires; the use of heavy vehicles on the highway; and the definition of highway vehicle related to these and other taxes.

          DATES:
          The public hearing is being held on Monday, November 21, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. The IRS must receive outlines of the topics to be discussed at the public hearing by Monday, November 7, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          The public hearing is being held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building.

          Send Submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-103380-05), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-103380-05), Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-103380-05).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Concerning the proposed regulations, Celia Gabrysh (202) 317-6855; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The subject of the public hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-103380-05) that was published in the Federal Register on Thursday, March 31, 2016 (81 FR 18544).
        The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing that submitted written comments by June 29, 2016, must submit an outline of the topics to be addressed and the amount of time to be devoted to each topic by Monday, November 7, 2016.
        A period of 10 minutes is allotted to each person for presenting oral comments. After the deadline for receiving outlines has passed, the IRS will prepare an agenda containing the schedule of speakers. Copies of the agenda will be made available, free of charge, at the hearing or by contacting the Publications and Regulations Branch at (202) 317-6901 (not a toll-free number).

        Because of access restrictions, the IRS will not admit visitors beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

          Martin V. Franks,
          Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).

      [FR Doc. 2016-25376 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4830-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 300
        [Docket No. 011206293-1293-01; I.D. 101501A]
        RIN 0648-AK17
        Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Guideline Harvest Levels for the Guided Recreational Halibut Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement a guideline harvest level (GHL) and a system of harvest reduction measures for managing the harvest of Pacific halibut in the guided recreational fishery in International Pacific Halibut Commission (Commission) areas 2C and 3A off Alaska.  The GHL would establish an estimated amount of halibut harvests that may be taken annually in the guided recreational fishery.  The system of harvest reduction measures would provide for a number of management measures to take effect incrementally in the event that harvests exceed the GHL.  This action is necessary to allow NMFS to manage more comprehensively the Pacific halibut stocks in waters off Alaska.  It is intended to further the management and conservation goals of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act).

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received by February 27, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments must be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK  99802, Attn:  Lori Gravel, or delivered to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK.  Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action are available from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council at 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK  99501-2252.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Commission promulgates regulations governing the Pacific halibut fishery under the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention (signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979).  The Commission’s regulations are subject to approval by the Secretary of State with concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) (16 U.S.C. 773b).  Additional management measures may be developed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to allocate harvesting privileges among U.S. fishermen.  The Halibut Act provides NMFS with authority to implement such allocation measures through regulatory amendments approved by the Secretary in consultation with the Council.  In addition to the IPHC regulations, the commercial halibut fishery off Alaska is managed under the halibut Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program implemented in 1995.
        Each year the Commission staff assesses the abundance and potential yield of Pacific halibut using all available data from the commercial fishery and scientific surveys.  Harvest limits for 10 regulatory areas are determined by fitting a detailed population model to the data from each area.  A biological target level for total removals in a given area is then calculated by multiplying a fixed harvest rate, presently 20 percent, to the estimate of exploitable biomass.  This target level is called the “constant exploitation yield” (CEY) for that area in the coming year.  Each CEY represents the total allowable harvest (in net pounds) for that area, which cannot be exceeded.  The Commission then estimates the sport and personal use, subsistence harvests, wastage, and bycatch mortalities for each area.  These are subtracted from the CEY and the remainder may be set as the catch quota for each area’s directed commercial fixed gear fishery.  Allocations to the guided recreational fishery are thus unrestricted within the CEY and represent an open-ended allocation to the guided recreational fishery from quota available to the commercial halibut fishery.  Hence, as the guided recreational fishery expands, its harvests reduce the pounds available to be fished in the commercial halibut fishery and, subsequently, the value of quota shares (QS) in the IFQ Program.
        The Council has discussed the expansion of the halibut guided recreational fleet since 1993, when the rapid increase in guided recreational vessel effort in some small Alaskan communities, such as Sitka, gave rise to concerns about localized depletion of the halibut resource and the potential reallocation of greater percentages of the CEY from the IFQ fishery to the guided recreational vessel fishery.  In 1995, the Council developed the following six-point problem statement to direct its analysis of issues attending the guided recreational halibut fishery:

          The recent expansion of the halibut charter industry may make achievement of Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standards more difficult.  Of concern is the Council's ability to maintain the stability, economic viability, and diversity of the halibut industry, the quality of the recreational experience, the access of subsistence users, and the socioeconomic well-being of the coastal communities dependent on the halibut resource.  Specifically, the Council notes the following areas of concern with respect to the recent growth of halibut charter operations:
          1. Pressure by charter operations may be contributing to localized depletion in several areas.
          2. The recent growth of charter operations may be contributing to overcrowding of productive grounds and declining harvests for historic sport and subsistence fishermen in some areas.
          3. As there is currently no limit on the annual harvest of halibut by charter operations, an open-ended reallocation from the commercial fishery to the charter industry is occurring.  This reallocation may increase if the projected growth of the charter industry occurs.  The economic and social impact on the commercial fleet of this open-ended reallocation may be substantial and could be magnified by the IFQ program.
          4. In some areas, community stability may be affected as traditional sport, subsistence, and commercial fishermen are displaced by charter operators.  The uncertainty associated with the present situation and the conflicts that are occurring between the various user groups may also be impacting community stability.
          5. Information is lacking on the socioeconomic composition of the current charter industry. Information is needed that tracks: (1) the effort and harvest of individual charter operations; and (2) changes in business patterns.
          6. The need for reliable harvest data will increase as the magnitude of harvest expands in the charter sector.

        In September 1997, the Council took final action on two management actions affecting the halibut guided recreational fishery, culminating more than 4 years of discussion, debate, public testimony, and analysis.  First, the Council approved recording and reporting requirements for the halibut guided recreational fishery.  To implement this requirement, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Sport Fish Division, under the authority of the Alaska Board of Fisheries, instituted a Saltwater Charter Vessel Logbook (Logbook) in 1998.  Information collected under this program provides fishery scientists and managers with the number of fish landed and/or released, the date and primary location of fishing, the hours and number of lines fished, the number of clients and crew fishing, the ownership of the vessel, and the identity of the vessel operator.
        The logbook collects such information as the Council and ADF&G determined at the time to be essential for managing the guided recreational fishery harvests of halibut.  It complements additional sportfish data collected by the State of Alaska (State) through the Statewide Harvest Survey (Harvest Survey), conducted annually since 1977, and the on-site (creel and catch sampling) surveys conducted separately by ADF&G in Southeast and Southcentral Alaska.
        For the second management action in September 1997, the Council recommended GHLs for the halibut guided recreational fishery in Commission regulatory areas 2C and 3A.  The GHLs were based on the guided recreational sector receiving 125 percent of its 1995 harvest.  This amount was equivalent to 12.76 percent and 15.61 percent of the combined commercial/guided recreational halibut quota in areas 2C and 3A, respectively.  The Council stated its intent that guided recreational harvests in excess of the GHL would not lead to a mid-season closure of the fishery, but instead would trigger other management measures to take effect in years following attainment of the GHL.  The overall intent was to maintain a stable guided recreational season of historical length, using area-specific harvest reduction measures.  If end-of-season harvest data indicated that the guided recreational sector likely would have reached or exceeded its area-specific GHL in the following season, NMFS would implement measures to slow down guided recreational halibut harvest.  Given the 1-year lag between the end of the fishing season and the availability of that year’s harvest data, management measures in response to the guided recreational fleet’s meeting or exceeding the GHL would take up to 2 years to become effective.  However, the Council did not recommend specific management measures to be implemented by NMFS if the GHL were reached.
        In December 1997, the NMFS Alaska Regional Administrator informed the Council that the GHL could not be published as a regulation without specific management measures to give it effect.  Further, because the Council had not recommended specific management measures by which to limit harvests if the GHL were reached, no formal approval decision by the Secretary was required for the Council’s proposed GHL policy, and it was not forwarded for review.
        After being notified that its 1997 GHL policy recommendation would not be submitted for review, the Council initiated a public process to identify GHL management measures.  The Council formed a GHL Committee to recommend alternative management measures for analysis that would constrain guided recreational harvests below the GHL.  In April 1999, the Council identified the following for analysis:  (1) a suite of GHL management measure alternatives; (2) alternatives that would change the GHL as approved in 1997; and (3) area-wide and local area management plan moratorium options under all alternatives.  Several factors influenced the Council to recommend a program in which the implementation of harvest reduction measures would be triggered in fishing years subsequent to a year in which the GHL was achieved or exceeded.  Among these factors were (1) the unavailability of reliable in-season catch monitoring for the halibut guided recreational fishery; (2) the impracticality of making in-season adjustments to the commercial IFQ fishery; and (3) the undesirability of shortening the current guided recreational fishing season, which the Commission’s annual halibut regulations have typically set between February 1 and December 31.
        In February 2000, after 7 years of discussing the halibut guided recreational fishery, the Council took final action and voted 10-1 to recommend a redefined halibut guided recreational GHL and a system of management measures, the essential design of which was forged by representatives of both the commercial halibut fishery and halibut guided recreational fleet.  As part of this action, the Council also recommended expediting review of a proposal to integrate the halibut guided recreational fisheries in Commission Regulatory Areas 2C and 3A into the existing commercial IFQ Program.  The Council reviewed the analysis for that proposal in February, 2001, and, at its meeting the following April, it took final action to recommend implementation of halibut guided recreational IFQs.  If approved by the Secretary, a halibut guided recreational IFQ program would supersede the management of the fishery under the GHL proposed in this action.
        The GHL
        The GHL establishes a pre-season estimate of acceptable annual harvests for the halibut fishery in Commission areas 2C and 3A.  To allow for limited growth of the guided recreational fleet while approximating historical harvest levels, the GHLs would be based on 125 percent of the average of 1995-99 guided recreational harvest estimates as reported by the ADF&G’s  Harvest Survey.  By weight, the GHLs would equate to 13.05 percent of the combined guided recreational and commercial quota in area 2C or 1,432,000 lb (649.5 mt) net weight; and 14.11 percent of the combined guided recreational and commercial quota in area 3A or 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) net weight.
        The GHL would be responsive to annual reductions in stock abundance.  In the event of a reduction in either area’s halibut stocks, as determined by the Commission, the area GHL would be reduced incrementally in proportion to the stock reduction.  The  reductions in the GHL would be made using percentages based on the average harvests from 1999 to 2000, as a reflection of recent harvest levels.
        For example, should the halibut stock in area 2C fall 15 percent or more below its 1999-2000 average, the area 2C GHL would be reduced by 15 percent, from 1,432,000 lb (649.5 mt) to 1,217,200 lb (552.1 mt).  Should the area stock abundance fall a further 10 percent or more, the GHL would also be reduced by an additional 10 percent from 1,217,200 lb (552.1 mt) to 1,095,480 lb (496.9 mt), and so on with further 10 percent reductions in abundance.  As abundance returns to its pre-reduction level (the 1999-2000 average), the GHL would be increased by commensurate incremental percentage points to its initial level of 125 percent of the average of 1995-99 guided recreational harvest estimates.
        In the case of increases in stock abundance, the GHL would never exceed its initial level of 1,432,000 lb (649.5 mt) in Area 2C and 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) in Area 3A.  Setting the GHL at 125 percent of the 1995-1999 harvest estimates would allow for limited growth of the guided recreational fishery, but would effectively limit further growth at this level.  NMFS invites public comment on this feature of the proposed action.

        Harvest reduction measures
        The GHL will not institute in-season actions to reduce guided recreational harvests.  Instead, measures to reduce guided recreational harvests would be implemented by notification in following years.  NMFS specifically requests that the public provide comments on this method of implementing management measures to reduce halibut harvest.  The ADF&G typically publishes data on a given year’s halibut guided recreational harvests from the ADF&G’s Logbook program and Harvest Survey, respectively, in February and August of the following year.  Given this delay between a given year’s harvests and the issuance of logbook and harvest survey reports of the data from those harvests, measures to reduce guided recreational harvests would also be delayed to ensure the accuracy of data indicating that harvests exceeded the GHL.
        NMFS would reduce harvests incrementally, based on the percentage at which the previous year’s harvests exceeded the GHL.  For example, a reduction in the daily “bag limit” or number of halibut a sport angler may harvest each day would be triggered and implemented only as the final tool when the GHL is exceeded by greater than 50 percent.  This measure, like the others for harvests over 20 percent, would be implemented in the second year following the year of overharvest.  For purposes of this limitation, daily bag limit means the amount of halibut that may be harvested per calendar day, or as specifically defined for waters in and off Alaska, the period from 0001 hours, A.l.t., until the following 2400 hours, A.l.t. (See 50 CFR 679.2 Definitions, Daily reporting period or day.)
        In this system of harvest reduction measures, “harvest” means the catching and retaining of fish and, in the context of prohibiting harvests by a vessel’s skipper and crew, is intended only to preclude retention by a vessel’s skipper and crew and not to prevent a vessel’s crew from assisting clients in fishing for and catching halibut.
        The system recommended by the Council is as follows.

          Area 2C Management Tools

            When annual harvests in the halibut guided recreational fishery  exceed GHL by:
            Harvests will be restricted in following years by implementation of a restriction that:

            Less than 10 percent
            No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period.

            10-15 percent
            No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut.

            16-20 percent
            No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut;
              No person may retain more than seven halibut harvested on a guided recreational vessel during the calendar year.

            21-30 percent
            No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut;
              No person may retain more than six halibut harvested on a guided recreational vessel during the calendar year.

            31-40 percent
            No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut;
              No person may retain more than five halibut harvested on a guided recreational vessel during the calendar year.

            41-50 percent
            No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut;
              No person may retain more than four halibut harvested on a guided recreational vessel during the calendar year.

            More than 50 percent
            No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut;
              No person may retain more than four halibut harvested on a guided recreational vessel during the calendar year;
              Between the dates of August 1 and August 31, no person may retain more than 1 halibut per day harvested aboard a guided recreational vessel.

          Area 3A Management Tools

            When annual harvests in the halibut guided recreational fishery exceed GHL by:
            Harvests will be restricted in following years by implementation of a restriction that:

            Less than 10 percent
            No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period.

            10-20 percent
            No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut.

            21-30 percent
            No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut;
              No person may retain more than seven halibut harvested on a guided recreational vessel during the calendar year.

            31-40 percent
            No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut;
              No person may retain more than six halibut harvested on a guided recreational vessel during the calendar year.

            41-50 percent
            No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut;
              No person may retain more than five halibut harvested on a guided recreational vessel during the calendar year.

            More than 50 percent
            No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut;
              No person may retain more than four halibut harvested on a guided recreational vessel during the calendar year;
              Between the dates of August 1 and August 31, no person may retain more than 1 halibut per day harvested aboard a guided recreational vessel.

        How the System of Harvest Reduction Measures Would Work
        No guided recreational halibut harvest reduction measures would be implemented if the total guided recreational harvest in the area (2C or 3A) remains at or below the GHL for that area.   However, if the GHL is exceeded in a given year, appropriate harvest reduction measures would be imposed in following years to reduce harvests incrementally by the percentage at which the previous year’s harvests exceeded the GHL.  For example, if harvests in Area 2C in 2002 exceeded the GHL by 15 percent, halibut guided recreational harvests in that area would be restricted in 2003 by prohibiting harvests by skipper and crew and by prohibiting a guided recreational vessel from concluding more than one fishing trip during which halibut are harvested during a single 24-hour period.
        In years when harvests exceed the GHL by an amount greater than 20 percent of the GHL, harvest reduction measures would be implemented in two phases.  First, measures designed to achieve a reduction of up to 20 percent in guided recreational harvests would be implemented for the fishing year following the overage.  Second, measures designed to achieve greater than 20 percent reductions in harvest (e.g., annual limits and a one-fish bag limit in August) would be implemented 1 year later to allow for verification from the Harvest Survey of the percentage by which guided recreational harvests exceeded the GHL.  For example, if guided recreational harvests in 3A were exceeded in 2002 by 35 percent, in 2003, harvests would be restrained by prohibiting harvests by skipper and crew and by prohibiting a guided recreational vessel from concluding more than one fishing trip during which halibut are harvested during a single 24-hour period.  In the following year, 2004, once NMFS has data verifying that the GHL was exceeded by 35 percent, harvests would be further restrained by imposing an annual limit of six fish on each individual angler fishing from a guided recreational vessel.
        The reason for the delay in implementing the harvest reduction measures is to not over-react to an overharvest until such time that NMFS has all data verifying the extent of overharvest, and so that, if necessary, either NMFS can institute greater or lesser reduction measures or the Council can recommend that measures currently in place be removed.

        Once NMFS has preliminary data indicating that the level of harvests from a previous season exceeded the GHL, the appropriate harvest reduction measures would be triggered [to be in effect] for the following season.  The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) would announce such measures by notification in the Federal Register prior to the start of the annual sport halibut fishing season.
        The proposed system of harvest reduction measures was developed by the Council using its best estimates of which measures would have the least effect and which the greatest effect.  At present, no single management measure can be accurately projected as reducing harvests by a certain percentage.  For this reason, the measures more likely to reduce harvests substantially are reserved for curtailing harvests that greatly exceed the GHL.  The experience of managing the guided recreational fishery under this system would likely give the Council and NMFS more certain data in the future by which to determine the extent of each particular management measure’s ability to reduce harvests.  Therefore, at the end of a sport halibut fishing season during which harvest reduction measures were in effect, the Council would review such measures to evaluate their efficacy in preventing further harvests in excess of the GHL or the appropriateness of lifting such management measures.  This review accomplishes two goals:  the first is to evaluate whether the overharvest is likely to continue in the subsequent years and the second is to evaluate whether any additional refinements are needed for any restrictions currently in place.  If the Council, in consultation with NMFS, determines that restrictions should be lifted or refined, NMFS will undertake rulemaking to implement them, so long as the agency approves of such possible changes.  Rulemaking will be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of applicable law.
        Implementation Issues
        NMFS is working with the Council and the ADF&G to resolve a number of recordkeeping and reporting issues essential to NMFS’ ability to monitor compliance with the proposed harvest reduction measures.  As noted above, in 1998 the ADF&G instituted its saltwater charter logbook program in response to the Council’s initial recommendations for managing the halibut guided recreational fishery.  The logbook provides one means by which NMFS may monitor compliance with harvest reduction measures in the field during the fishing season.  However, NMFS’ access to data derived from the logbook is limited by  Alaska Statute 16.05.815 of the State’s fish and game regulations, which requires that information provided to the State in compliance with its regulations be kept confidential and may not be released.  This confidentiality provision prevents NMFS from accessing logbook data for enforcement purposes once logbooks have been submitted to the State and may prevent NMFS from accessing the information for such purposes prior to its submission to the State.

        Moreover, the information collected by the logbook would not alone be sufficient to monitor compliance with the harvest reduction measures.  NMFS would require additional information on times and dates of the end of fishing trips, as well as information identifying each individual angler and his or her total harvests aboard guided recreational vessels.
        The ADF&G sportfishing license currently requires an angler’s up-to-date information on catches of species that are managed under annual limits.  Adequate monitoring of an annual limit on halibut harvests would require that halibut harvested aboard guided recreational vessels be added to this list.  The ADF&G sportfishing license would then provide an additional means of monitoring compliance with harvest reduction measures in the field.  NMFS may also require post-season data collection on annual limits for enforcement purposes, in which case an additional collection-of-information requirement would need to be put in place either as part of the logbook or by an alternative means.
        Adequate recordkeeping and reporting requirements and monitoring capabilities are imperative to the enforceability and, hence, the success of the proposed GHL program in managing harvests by the guided recreational fishery.  As explained above, NMFS is working with the ADF&G and State to resolve these recordkeeping and reporting issues.  The ability of NMFS to adequately monitor and enforce a program is an important consideration when NMFS decides whether to approve recommendations of the Council.
        Currently, there are no new collections of information associated with this proposed rule.  As detailed above, NMFS is working with the State of Alaska to obtain the information necessary to enforce this rule.  Nevertheless, if such efforts fail or necessary information if otherwise unavailable, NMFS may implement future collections of information in accordance with  applicable law if necessary to monitor compliance.
        Classification
        The Council prepared an IRFA for this action that assesses potential impacts on small entities for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).  According to 1999 ADF&G logbook data, 397 guided recreational businesses operated in Area 2C, and 434 in Area 3A.  All 831 guided recreational businesses could be considered small entities for purposes of the RFA.  The proposed action also would impact an estimated 4,000 permit holders and 860 registered commercial halibut buyers participating in the commercial halibut IFQ Program, many of which are small entities.  Also classified as small entities under the RFA are the many small government jurisdictions with fewer than 50,000 residents that are home to commercial halibut fishermen and guided recreational vessel owners and operators.
        The Council identified the following issues in its discussion of the expansion of the halibut guided recreational fleet: (1) possible localized depletion of halibut because of fishing pressure by charter operations; (2) overcrowding of productive grounds and declining harvests for historic sport and subsistence fishermen in some areas; (3) economic and social impact on the commercial fleet by an open-ended reallocation from the commercial fishery to the charter industry, if projected growth of the charter industry occurs; and (4) effect on community stability as traditional sport, substance, and commercial fishermen are displaced by charter operators.
        The Council also considered a moratorium on the further entry in the charter fisheries.  The moratorium alternatives and options included years of participation, owners versus vessels, evidence of participation, vessel upgrades, transfers, and duration for review.  However, the Council rejected the moratorium because, based on the number of qualifying vessels under various options, it was unlikely that a moratorium would constrain the charter harvest.  In addition to the moratorium and the no action alternative, the Council considered alternative GHL levels.
        The GHL alternatives reviewed by the Council represent trade-offs between the commercial and guided recreational fisheries.  The GHL is designed to limit the amount of halibut that may be taken in the guided recreational fishery.  The Council also considered not regulating harvests in the guided recreational fishery.  However, the Council rejected this as failure to regulate could erode the harvest share available to commercial halibut fishermen, many of whom are also small entities.
        The proposed GHL, which allows the charter industry to grow,  represents a balance between the status quo’s impact on small commercial entities and the impact of more restrictive alternatives on small recreational entities.
        As this is a new rule applicable to a previously unregulated group, there are no duplicative or overlapping rules associated with this proposed rule.
        This action does not contain federalism implications, as that term is defined in E.O. 13132. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

          Dated:  January 19, 2002.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR Part 300 is proposed to be amended as follows:

            PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS

          1.  The authority citation for 50 CFR part 300 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.

          2.  Section 300.61 is amended by adding “Guided recreational vessel”, “Guideline harvest level”, and “Harvest” in alphabetical order as follows:

            § 300.61
            Definitions.

            Guided recreational vessel means a vessel and operator used for hire by a recreational angler for harvesting halibut.

            Guideline harvest level means a level of allowable fish harvest by the recreational halibut guided recreational vessel fishery.

            Harvest means the catching and retaining of fish.

          3.  In § 300.63, paragraph (f) is added to read as follows:

            § 300.63
            Catch sharing plans, local area management plans, and domestic management measures.

          (f) Guideline harvest levels. (1) The annual guideline harvest levels for areas 2C and 3A are as follows.
          (i) Area 2C. (A) The guideline harvest level for area 2C will be 1,432,000 lb (649.5 mt).
          (B) In years of low abundance of halibut stocks in area 2C, as determined by the Commission, the guideline harvest level will be reduced:
          (1) By 15 percent when the halibut stock abundance falls at least 15 percent below its 1999-2000 average; and
          (2) After the initial 15 percent reduction, by further 10 percent increments as stock abundance declines by additional 10 percent increments below its 1999-2000 average.
          (C) Area 2C harvest reduction measures.  The appropriate annual harvest reduction measures for area 2C, identified in the table below, will take effect pursuant to paragraph (f)(3) of this section when the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS,  determines that harvests from the previous year exceeded the GHL for that year by the corresponding percentage.

              When annual harvests in the halibut guided recreational fishery  exceed GHL by:
              Harvests will be restricted in following years by implementation of a restriction that:

              (1) Less than 10 percent
              No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period.

              (2) 10-15 percent
              (i) No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; (ii) No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut.

              (3) 16-20 percent
              (i) No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; (ii) No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut;
                (iii) No person may retain more than seven halibut harvested on a guided recreational vessel during the calendar year.

              (4) 1-30 percent
              (i) No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; (ii) No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut;
                (iii) No person may retain more than six halibut harvested on a guided recreational vessel during the calendar year.

              (5) 31-40 percent
              (i) No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; (ii) No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut;
                (iii) No person may retain more than five halibut harvested on a guided recreational vessel during the calendar year.

              (6) 41-50 percent
              (i) No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; (ii) No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut;
                (iii) No person may retain more than four halibut harvested on a guided recreational vessel during the calendar year.

              (7) More than 50 percent
              (i) No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; (ii) No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut;
                (iii) No person may retain more than four halibut harvested on a guided recreational vessel during the calendar year;
                (iv) Between the dates of August 1 and August 31, no person may retain more than 1 halibut per day harvested aboard a guided recreational vessel.

          (2) Area 3A. (i) GHL. The guideline harvest level for area 3A will be 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt).
          (ii) In years of low abundance of halibut stocks in area 3A, as determined by the Commission, the guideline harvest level will be reduced:
          (A) By 15 percent when the halibut stock abundance falls at least 15 percent below its 1999-2000 average; and
          (B) After the initial 15 percent reduction, by further 10 percent increments as stock abundance declines by additional 10 percent increments below its 1999-2000 average.
          (C) Area 3A harvest reduction measures.  The appropriate annual harvest reduction measures for area 3A, identified in the table below, will take effect pursuant to paragraph (f)(3) of this section when the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, determines that harvests from the previous year exceeded the GHL for that year by the corresponding percentage.

              When annual harvests in the halibut guided recreational fishery exceed GHL by:
              Harvests will be restricted in following years by implementation of a restriction that:

              (1) Less than 10 percent
              No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period.

              (2) 10-20 percent
              (i) No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; (ii) No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut.

              (3) 21-30 percent
              (i) No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; (ii) No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut;
                (iii) No person may retain more than seven halibut harvested on a guided recreational vessel during the calendar year.

              (4) 31-40 percent
              (i) No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; (ii) No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut;
                (iii) No person may retain more than six halibut harvested on a guided recreational vessel during the calendar year.

              (5) 41-50 percent
              (i) No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; (ii) No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut;
                (iii) No person may retain more than five halibut harvested on a guided recreational vessel during the calendar year.

              (6) More than 50 percent
              (i) No guided recreational vessel may complete more than one fishing trip in a single 24-hour period; (ii) No operator or crewmember aboard a guided recreational vessel may retain halibut;
                (iii) No person may retain more than four halibut harvested on a guided recreational vessel during the calendar year;
                (iv) Between the dates of August 1 and August 31, no person may retain more than 1 halibut per day harvested aboard a guided recreational vessel.

          (3) Implementation. (i)  As soon as practicable after receiving data on annual harvests in the halibut guided recreational vessel fishery, the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, will publish a notification in the Federal Register announcing the harvest reduction measures (if any) to be imposed for the succeeding year, pursuant to paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(C) and (f)(2)(ii)(C) of this section.
          (ii)  At the conclusion of a guided recreational halibut fishing season during which harvest reduction measures have been in effect, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council will review such measures to evaluate their efficacy in preventing further excess harvests and will recommend that NMFS adjust those measures as necessary to ensure that the following season’s harvest levels do not exceed the GHL.

          4.  In § 300.65, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows.

            § 300.65
            Prohibitions.

            (c) Any harvest reduction measure issued under § 300.63(f).

      [FR Doc. 02-2005 Filed 1-25-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 20
        [FWS-R9-MB-2008-0124; 91200-1231-9BPP-L2]
        RIN 1018-AW31
        Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations for the 2009-10 Hunting Season; Notice of Meetings

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; supplemental.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), proposed in an earlier document to establish annual hunting regulations for certain migratory game birds for the 2009-10 hunting season. This supplement to the proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule, announces the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and Flyway Council meetings, and provides Flyway Council recommendations resulting from their March meetings.

          DATES:

          You must submit comments on the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2009-10 duck hunting seasons by June 26, 2009. Following subsequent Federal Register documents, you will be given an opportunity to submit comments for proposed early-season frameworks by July 31, 2009, and for proposed late-season frameworks and subsistence migratory bird seasons in Alaska by August 31, 2009. The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet to consider and develop proposed regulations for early-season migratory bird hunting on June 24 and 25, 2009, and for late-season migratory bird hunting and the 2010 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence seasons in Alaska on July 29 and 30, 2009. All meetings will commence at approximately 8:30 a.m.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposals by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal:
            http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 1018-AW31; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.

          We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
          The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet in room 200 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ron W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240; (703) 358-1714.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Regulations Schedule for 2009
        On April 10, 2009, we published in the Federal Register (74 FR 16339) a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal provided a background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process, and dealt with the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for hunting migratory game birds under 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. This document is the second in a series of proposed, supplemental, and final rules for migratory game bird hunting regulations. We will publish proposed early-season frameworks in early July and late-season frameworks in early August. We will publish final regulatory frameworks for early seasons on or about August 17, 2009, and for late seasons on or about September 14, 2009.
        Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings

        The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet June 24-25, 2009, to review information on the current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and develop 2009-10 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for these species, plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The Committee will also develop regulations recommendations for September waterfowl seasons in designated States, special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway, and extended falconry seasons. In addition, the Committee will review and discuss preliminary information on the status of waterfowl.
        At the July 29-30, 2009, meetings, the Committee will review information on the current status of waterfowl and develop 2009-10 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for regular waterfowl seasons and other species and seasons not previously discussed at the early-season meetings. In addition, the Committee will develop recommendations for the 2010 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence season in Alaska.
        In accordance with Departmental policy, these meetings are open to public observation. You may submit written comments to the Service on the matters discussed.
        Announcement of Flyway Council Meetings
        Service representatives will be present at the individual meetings of the four Flyway Councils this July. Although agendas are not yet available, these meetings usually commence at 8 a.m. on the days indicated.

          Atlantic Flyway Council: July 23-24, Rodd Charlottetown, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada.

          Mississippi Flyway Council: July 23-24, Holiday Inn - Manitowoc, Manitowoc, WI .

          Central Flyway Council: July 22-24, Radisson Hotel, Bismarck, ND.

          Pacific Flyway Council: July 24, Ramada Portland Airport, Portland, OR.
        Review of Public Comments

        This supplemental rulemaking describes Flyway Council recommended changes based on the preliminary proposals published in the April 10, 2009, Federal Register. We have included only those recommendations requiring either new proposals or substantial modification of the preliminary proposals and do not include recommendations that simply support or oppose preliminary proposals and provide no recommended alternatives. Our responses to some Flyway Council recommendations, but not others, are merely a clarification aid to the reader on the overall regulatory process, not a definitive response to the issue. We will publish responses to all proposals and written comments when we develop final frameworks.
        We seek additional information and comments on the recommendations in this supplemental proposed rule. New proposals and modifications to previously described proposals are discussed below. Wherever possible, they are discussed under headings corresponding to the numbered items identified in the April 10 proposed rule. Only those categories requiring your attention or for which we received Flyway Council recommendations are discussed below.
        1. Ducks
        Duck harvest management categories are: (A) General Harvest Strategy; (B) Regulatory Alternatives, including specification of framework dates, season length, and bag limits; (C) Zones and Split Seasons; and (D) Special Seasons/Species Management.
        A. General Harvest Strategy

          Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that regulations changes be restricted to one step per year, both when restricting as well as liberalizing hunting regulations.

          Service Response: As we stated in the April 10 Federal Register, the final Adaptive Harvest Management protocol for the 2009-10 season will be detailed in the early-season proposed rule, which will be published in mid-July.
        B. Regulatory Alternatives

          Council Recommendations: The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommended that regulatory alternatives for duck hunting seasons remain the same as those used in 2008.

          Service Response: As we stated in the April 10 Federal Register, the final regulatory alternatives for the 2009-10 season will be detailed in the early-season proposed rule, which will be published in mid-July.
        D. Special Seasons/Species Management
        i. Special Teal Seasons

          Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended that the number of hunting days during the special September teal season in the Atlantic Flyway be increased from 9 consecutive days to 16 consecutive days whenever the blue-winged teal breeding population exceeds 4.7 million birds.
        vi. Scaup

          Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the “restrictive” regulatory alternative for scaup in the Mississippi Flyway be a 45-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit and a 15-day season with 1-bird daily bag limit.
        The Central Flyway Council recommended modifying the “restrictive” regulatory alternative for scaup in the Central Flyway to an option of a 74-day season with a 1-bird daily bag limit, or a 39-day season with a 3-bird daily bag limit, or a 39-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit and a 35 day season with 1-bird daily bag limit. The Council further recommended that the “moderate” and the “liberal” alternatives remain unchanged from last year.

          Service Response: As we detailed in the April 10 Federal Register, potential changes to the configuration of the regulatory packages for scaup for the 2009-10 season will be discussed at the early-season SRC meeting in June 2008 (see Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings section above) and finalized in the early-season proposed rule, which will be published in mid-July.
        4. Canada Geese
        B. Regular Seasons

          Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the framework opening date for all species of geese for the regular goose seasons in Michigan and Wisconsin be September 16, 2009.
        9. Sandhill Cranes

          Council Recommendations: The Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended expanding the area open to Mid-continent population (MCP) sandhill crane hunting in Wyoming to include Johnson and Sheridan Counties.
        The Central and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended using the 2009 Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) sandhill crane harvest allocation of 1,939 birds as proposed in the allocation formula using the 3-year running average.
        The Pacific Flyway Council recommended extending the experimental, limited hunt for Lower Colorado River sandhill cranes in Arizona for an additional 3 years. The extension is necessary due to difficulties initiating the new hunt, which was approved by the Service in 2007.
        16. Mourning Doves

          Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils recommended use of the “moderate” season framework for States within the Eastern Management Unit population of mourning doves resulting in a 70-day season and 15-bird daily bag limit. The daily bag limit could be composed of mourning doves and white-winged doves, singly or in combination.

        The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommend the use of the standard (or “moderate”) season package of a 15-bird daily bag limit and a 70-day season for the 2009-10 mourning dove season in the States within the Central Management Unit. The Councils also recommended reducing the boundary for the Special White-winged Dove Area (SSWDA) in Texas by removing portions of Jim Hogg and northern Starr Counties and changing the opening date for dove hunting in the South Zone in Texas to the Friday nearest September 20, but not earlier than September 17.
        The Pacific Flyway Council recommended use of the “moderate” season framework for States in the Western Management Unit (WMU) population of mourning doves, which represents no change from last year's frameworks.
        18. Alaska

          Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended reducing the daily bag limits for brant in Alaska from 3 per day with 6 in possession to 2 per day with 4 in possession.
        20. Puerto Rico

          Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended that Puerto Rico be permitted to adopt a 20-bird bag limit for doves in the aggregate for the next three hunting seasons, 2009-2011. Legally hunted dove species in Puerto Rico are the Zenaida dove, the white-winged dove, and the mourning dove. They also recommended that the 20-bird aggregate bag limit should include no more than 10 Zenaida doves and no more than 3 mourning doves.
        Public Comments
        The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will take into consideration all comments received. Such comments, and any additional information received, may lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals.

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section.

        We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on http://www.regulations.gov. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment including your personal identifying information may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Room 4107, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203.
        For each series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific comment periods. We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to, each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments received during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in any final rules.
        NEPA Consideration

        NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-14),'' filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. We published Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June 16, 1988 (53 FR 22582). We published our Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). In addition, an August 1985 environmental assessment entitled “Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands'' is available from the address indicated under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
        In a notice published in the September 8, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 53376), we announced our intent to develop a new Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the migratory bird hunting program. Public scoping meetings were held in the spring of 2006, as detailed in a March 9, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 12216). We have prepared a scoping report summarizing the scoping comments and scoping meetings. The report is available by either writing to the address indicated under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or by viewing on our website at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds.
        Endangered Species Act Consideration
        Prior to issuance of the 2009-10 migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will comply with provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; hereinafter, the Act), to ensure that hunting is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species designated as endangered or threatened, or modify or destroy its critical habitat, and is consistent with conservation programs for those species. Consultations under Section 7 of this Act may cause us to change proposals in this and future supplemental rulemaking documents.
        Executive Order 12866

        The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is significant and has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866. A regulatory cost-benefit analysis has been prepared and is available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/reports.html or at http://www.regulations.gov. OMB bases its determination of regulatory significance upon the following four criteria:
        (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
        (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions.
        (c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
        (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
        Clarity of the Rule
        We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
        (a) Be logically organized;
        (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
        (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
        (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
        (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

        If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
          section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). We analyzed the economic impacts of the annual hunting regulations on small business entities in detail as part of the 1981 cost-benefit analysis. This analysis was revised annually from 1990-95. In 1995, the Service issued a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis), which was subsequently updated in 1996, 1998, 2004, and 2008. The primary source of information about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting is the National Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is conducted at 5-year intervals. The 2008 Analysis was based on the 2006 National Hunting and Fishing Survey and the U.S. Department of Commerce's County Business Patterns, from which it was estimated that migratory bird hunters would spend approximately $1.2 billion at small businesses in 2008.

        Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the address indicated under ADDRESSES or from our website at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/reports.html or at http://www.regulations.gov.
        Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
        This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, this rule has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The various recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed under regulations established in 50 CFR part 20, subpart K, are utilized in the formulation of migratory game bird hunting regulations.
        Specifically, OMB has approved the information collection requirements of our Migratory Bird Surveys and assigned control number 1018-0023 (expires 2/28/2011). This information is used to provide a sampling frame for voluntary national surveys to improve our harvest estimates for all migratory game birds in order to better manage these populations.
        OMB has also approved the information collection requirements of the Alaska Subsistence Household Survey, an associated voluntary annual household survey used to determine levels of subsistence take in Alaska, and assigned control number 1018-0124 (expires 1/31/2010).
        A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

        We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State government or private entities. Therefore, this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
        Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 12988
        The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined that this proposed rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
        Takings Implication Assessment
        In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, these rules allow hunters to exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on the use of private and public property.
        Energy Effects—Executive Order 13211
        Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
        Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes
        In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust resources. However, in this proposed rule we solicit proposals for special migratory bird hunting regulations for certain Tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands for the 2009-10 migratory bird hunting season. The resulting proposals will be contained in a separate proposed rule. By virtue of these actions, we have consulted with Tribes affected by this rule.
        Federalism Effects
        Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Indian tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
          Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

        The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2009-10 hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.

          Dated: May 16, 2009

          Will Shafroth,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. E9-12150 Filed 5-26- 09; 8:45 am]

        BILLING CODE 4310-55-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AG12
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of Public Comment Period and Notice of Availability of Draft Economic Analysis for Proposed Critical Habitat Determination for the Zapata Bladderpod.

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed Rule; Extension of public comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Zapata bladderpod (Lesquerella thamnophila).

          We also provide notice that the public comment period for the proposal is reopened to allow all interested parties to submit written comments on the proposal and the draft economic analysis. Comments submitted during the previous comment period need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in the final determination on the proposal.

          DATES:
          The original comment period closed on September 18,  2000. The comment period is hereby reopened and now closes on November 2, 2000. Comments from all interested parties must be received by the closing date. Any comments that are received after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this proposal.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of the draft economic analysis are available on the Internet at http://ifw2es.fws.gov/library/ or by writing to the Field Supervisor, Ecological Services Field Office, c/o TAMUCC, Box 338, 6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412, or facsimile 1-361-994-8262. All written comments should be submitted to the Field Supervisor at the above address. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Loretta Pressly, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above address (telephone 1-361-994-9005).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Zapata bladderpod was listed as an endangered species on December 22, 1999. The Zapata bladderpod is a perennial plant that grows opportunistically; that is, the density of Zapata bladderpod plants and the sizes of populations fluctuate in response to rainfall. They are cryptic plants, which show little vegetative growth during drought conditions, hampering survey efforts for additional populations. All known populations of the Zapata bladderpod occur on graveled to sandy-loam upland terraces above the Rio Grande floodplain in South Texas.
        Critical habitat was proposed on July 19, 2000. Of the ten populations of Zapata bladderpod that have been located, only three populations are still known to display live plants. The introduction of non-native species such as pasture grass, overgrazing, urban development, and oil and gas production activities have all contributed to the decline of the plant.
        Ten areas of critical habitat are being proposed for the Zapata bladderpod. Seven Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge tracts in Starr County are proposed, as well as one private land site also in Starr County. Two sites along the Texas Department of Transportation's Highway 83 right-of-way in Zapata County are being proposed as critical habitat. Altogether 5,330 acres of land are being proposed for critical habitat.
        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species. Consequently, we have prepared a draft economic analysis concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, which is available for review and comment at the above Internet and mailing addresses.
        Public Comments Solicited
        We solicit comments on the draft economic analysis described in this notice, as well as any other aspect of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Zapata bladderpod. Our final determination on the proposed critical habitat will take into consideration comments and any additional information received by the date specified above. All previous comments and information submitted during the comment period need not be resubmitted. The comment period is extended to November 2, 2000. Written comments may be submitted to the Field Supervisor at the above address.
        Author

        The primary author of this notice is Loretta Pressly, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES).

          Authority:

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

          Renne Lohoefener,
          Acting Regional Director, Region 2, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-25323 Filed 10-2-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P