        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 010208032-1032-01; I.D. 121200L]
        RIN  0648-AM47
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Proposed 2001 Specifications for the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery; Regulatory Amendment

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed 2001 specifications for the Atlantic bluefish fishery; regulatory amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes 2001 specifications for the Atlantic bluefish fishery, including a total allowable harvest level (TAL), state-by-state commercial quotas, and recreational harvest limits and possession limits for Atlantic bluefish off the east coast of the United States.  The intent of the specifications is to conserve and manage the bluefish resource and provide for sustainable fisheries.  NMFS also proposes to amend the regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Bluefish (FMP) to specify the procedures for setting the annual TAL.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, on March 23, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send written comments on the proposed specifications should to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298.  Mark on the outside of the envelope: “Comments--2001 Bluefish Specifications.”  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9371.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet. -
          Send comments on any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this proposed rule to the Regional Administrator.   -
          Copies of supporting documents, including the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, Preliminary Regulatory Economic Evaluation (EA/RIR/PREE), and the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment are available from the Regional Administrator at the same address.  The EA/RIR/IRFA or PREE are accessible via the Internet at http:/www.nero.gov/ro/doc/nr.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Myles Raizin, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9104, e-mail at M.A.Raizin@noaa.gov, fax at (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Regulations implementing the FMP prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and J.  Regulations requiring annual specifications are found at § 648.160.  The FMP requires that the Council recommend, on an annual basis, TAL, which is comprised of a commercial quota and recreational harvest limit.   -
        The FMP also requires that (1) The TAL for any given year be set based on the fishing mortality rate (F) resulting from the stock rebuilding schedule contained in Amendment 1 to the FMP, or the estimated F in the most recent fishing year, whichever is lower and (2) a total of 17 percent of the TAL be allocated to the commercial fishery, as a quota, with the remaining 83 percent allocated as a recreational harvest limit, with the stipulation that, if 17 percent of the TAL is less than 10.50 million lb (4.8 million kg) and the recreational fishery is not projected to land its harvest limit for the upcoming year, the commercial fishery may be allocated up to 10.50 million lb (4.8 million kg) as its quota, provided that the combination of the projected recreational landings and the commercial quota does not exceed TAL.

        The Council's recommendations must include supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations.  NMFS, after reviewing these recommendations, publishes proposed specifications in the Federal Register.  After considering public comment, the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, will publish final specifications in the Federal Register.
        In July, 2000, the Council adopted specifications for the 2000 Atlantic bluefish fishery.  However, those specifications, which were submitted to NMFS in March, 2000, could not be published prior to August 25, 2000, that being the effective date of the rule implementing Amendment 1 to the FMP at 50 FR 45844, July 25, 2000.  Given that publication of a final rule to implement the 2000 specifications could not take place prior to November, 2000, and would be in effect for less than 2 months, NMFS believed that the administrative burden of a rulemaking could not be justified for such a short period of time.  Factored into this decision was the knowledge that the states, under the aegis of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission), had previously implemented specifications for the year 2000 that are identical to those adopted by the Council for the 2000 bluefish fishery.   -
        Proposed 2001 Specifications
        Proposed TAL
        For the 2001 fishery, the stock rebuilding program in the FMP would restrict F to 0.41.  However, the 1999 fishery produced an F of only 0.295, so, in accord with the FMP, TAL proposed for 2001 was selected to achieve F=0.295.  The 1999 fishery is the most recent year for which landings data are complete and for which an F can be estimated.  Therefore, the TAL for 2001 would be 37.84 million lb (17.17 million kg), which is calculated based on the current estimate of biomass and F=0.295.  The increase in TAL for 2001 versus 2000 results from an increase in the stock biomass, even though the 2001 TAL is based on a lower F than that specified in the FMP rebuilding program. -
        Proposed Commercial Quota and Recreational Harvest Limit
        If TAL were allocated for the 2001 fishery based on the percentages specified in the FMP, the commercial allocation would be 6.43 million lb (2.92 million kg) with a recreational harvest limit of 31.41 million lb (14.25 million kg).  However, recreational landings from 1995 through 1999 were much lower than the recreational allocation for 2001, ranging between 8.30 and 14.7 million lb (3.76 and 6.67 million kg); thus, giving the Council the opportunity to recommend a commercial quota of up to 10.5 million lb (4.76 million kg).  Instead, the Council chose to recommend a commercial quota of 9.58 million lb, (4.35 million kg) unchanged from the 1999 commercial quota and identical to the 2000 quota implemented by the states under aegis of the Commission.  Under the FMP, this would require transferring 3.15 million lb (1.43 million kg) from the initial 2001 recreational allocation of 31.41 million lb (14.13 million kg), leaving 28.26 million lb (12.82 million kg) for the 2001 recommended harvest limit.  The 2001 commercial quota is unchanged from the commercial quota specified by the Commission for 1999 and 2000.  -
        Proposed Recreational Possession Limit
        A 2-year projection of the bluefish stock biomass was conducted using an assumed F rate of 0.295.  Results indicate that the bluefish stock will increase from an estimated biomass of 35,840 mt (78,919,680 lb) in 2000 to 51,990 mt (114,481,980 lb) in 2001, and 69,720 mt (153,523,440 lb) in the year 2002.  The stock is projected to increase substantially in the next 2 years with commensurate increases in recreational harvest limit.  However, recreational landings have decreased in the past 2 years from 14,302 mt (31,521,608 lb) in 1997 to 12,334 mt (27,184,136 lb) in 1998 and to 8,253 mt (18,189,612 lb) in 1999.  Therefore, the Council recommended an increase in the possession limit from 10 to 15 fish in 2001.  The Council believes that this increase will benefit some recreational anglers while landings will not exceed the recreational harvest limit.  -

        Proposed State Commercial Allocations
        Proposed state commercial allocations for the recommended 2001 commercial quotas are shown in the following table, based on the percentages specified in the FMP and at § 648.100(d)(1).

            State
            Percent of quota
            2001 Commercial Quota (lb)
            2001 Commercial Quota (kg)

            ME
            0.6685
            64,062
            29,066

            NH
            0.4145
            39,722
            18,023

            MA
            6.7167
            643,661
            292,042

            RI
            6.8081
            652,420
            296,016

            CT
            1.2663
            121,350
            55,059

            NY
            10.3851
            995,204
            451,544

            NJ
            14.8162
            1,419,836
            644,209

            DE
            1.8782
            179,988
            81,664

            MD
            3.0018
            287,662
            130,518

            VA
            11.8795
            1,138,412
            516,521

            NC
            32.0608
            3,072,386
            1,394,005

            SC
            0.0352
            3,373
            1,530

            GA
            0.0095
            910
            413

            FL
            10.0597
            964,021
            437,396

            Total
            100.000
            9,583,010
            4,348,008

        Regulatory Amendment
        The final regulations implementing Amendment 1 to the FMP (50 FR 45844, July 25, 2000), inadvertently did not specify the  procedures for setting an annual TAL.  Regulatory text needs to be added to § 648.160(a) to reflect the FMP requirement in section 3.1.1.2 of Amendment 1 that requires the Council to use the estimated F for the fishing year preceding the Council submission of the recommended specifications for setting TAL if the estimated F is less than the target F identified in the rebuilding schedule.  The portion of Amendment 1 containing this requirement was approved by NMFS on July 29, 1999.  -
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.  -
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.  A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble.  The factual basis for certification is as follows:

          An active participant in the commercial sector was defined as being any vessel that reported having landed one or more pounds of bluefish to NMFS-permitted dealers during calendar year 1999.  All vessels are considered to be small entities.  Of the active vessels reported in 1999, 866 landed bluefish from Maine to North Carolina.  The dealer data do not cover vessel activity in the South Atlantic.  State trip ticket report data indicate that 609 vessels landed bluefish in North Carolina with some possible double counting.  Bluefish landings in South Carolina and Georgia were minuscule, representing less than 1/10 of 1 percent of total coastwide bluefish landings.  Therefore, it was assumed that no vessels landed bluefish from those states.  In addition, 136 vessels landed bluefish to dealers on Florida’s east coast in 1999, as reported by the State of Florida.  In 1994, the last time such a vessel survey was done, approximately 2,063 party/charter vessels were estimated to have caught bluefish.
          The Council analyzed three alternatives for TAL, each with a 15-fish recreational possession limit for the recreational fishery.  Analysis of the preferred alternative, which represents the status quo for the commercial quota compared to the 2000 specifications for bluefish, examined the impacts on industry that would result from a TAL of 37.84 million lb (17.17 million kg) that would allocate 9.58 million lb (4.35 million kg) for the commercial sector and 28.26 million lb (12.81 million kg) for the recreational sector.  Results of the analysis indicate that, on a coastwide basis, the preferred alternative could yield increases in revenue to commercial bluefish fishermen of 36 percent compared to 1999 landings.  Analysis of the effects of the preferred alternative on fishermen in individual states concluded that the increase in revenues would occur in all states except New York, where 22 of the 192 vessels home ported in that state could have their revenues reduced by 5 percent or more.  The Council noted that the negative impact to the State of New York could easily be mitigated by a transfer of commercial quota from another state, as allowed under the FMP, and as accomplished under the Commission’s Interstate Plan for Atlantic bluefish in 2000.

          The Council further analyzed the impacts on revenues of the increase in the possession limit from 10 to 15 fish for all three alternatives.  The 15-fish possession limit is expected to increase angler satisfaction, as it is higher than the 10-fish possession limit implemented each year since 1990.  Based on average 1985-1989 landings and angler catch data, the 10-fish bag limit reduced landings by 17.2 percent.  Based on the same 1985-1989 average landings and catch data, the implementation of the 15-fish possession limit is expected to increase landings by 7.9 percent from current levels.  Relative to the 1999 landings a 7.9 percent increase would not result in landings in excess of the recreational harvest limit. In determining what might constitute “significant economic impacts” on small entities, the analysis considered the potential impact on revenues from changes in commercial quotas from 1999 to 2001 and considered that revenue reduction greater than 5 percent of total revenue might be significant.  The analysis considered the effects at the state, county and individual vessel level. Of the 866 Federally permitted vessels landing bluefish in 1999, 31 vessels could have their revenues reduced by 5 percent or more.  Of these vessels, 22 were home ported in New York, with the home ports of the other vessels unable to be determined.  Under the most restrictive alternative considered, Dare County, NC, and Suffolk County, NY, were considered the most impacted.  However, because North Carolina will not be restricted from 1999 landings under the preferred alterative, only Suffolk County, NY, can be expected to be impacted because of a possible reduction in landings of 30 percent for the whole state.  Because all the entities effected by this action are considered small entities, the issue of disproportionality with large entities does not pertain.  While some vessel owners/operators in New York may have reduced revenues resulting in lower profitability, vessel owners/operators in other states coastwide could see increases in total revenues as a result of the 136 percent increase in the commercial allocation over the 1999 landings.  The reduction in total revenues to vessel owners/operators in New York would likely be minimized through transfer to New York state of state quotas from other states that would not utilize their full quotas.  Thus, there would not be any significant economic impacts on the identified small entities.  Only 31 of the 866 federally permitted vessels that landed bluefish in 1999 would likely be affected by the preferred action.
          The criteria used to determine “a substantial number of small entities” is based on a threshold value of 20 percent of the total number of small entities being directly affected.  Only 31 of the 866 federally permitted vessels that landed bluefish in 1999 would likely be affected by the preferred action.  As stated earlier, there is the possibility for relief of these vessels through transfer of quota from one state to another.  Even if this transfer does not occur, the percent of vessels that would be affected does not constitute a “substantial number.”
          In making this analysis, the Council used NMFS stock assessment reports, NMFS landings data, state fish ticket reports, NMFS marine recreational fishing statistical survey reports, various NMFS marine recreational fishing and charter/party boat surveys, Bureau of Census data, and various scientific studies and reports covering the biological, economic and social aspects of the bluefish fishery.  Using these data, the Council analyzed the potential changes in revenue from 1999 to 2001 for vessels on an individual and state-by-state basis and determined the degree each vessel/state could be impacted by the preferred and other alternatives by comparing landings in 1999 with potential changes created by the proposed quotas for 2001.  For the change in the recreational bag limit, the Council analyzed the increase in catch based on a ten-year average of catches before size limits were instituted in the fishery.  The availability of a long time series of data enable the use of long-term averages in the analysis.  As such, there is little variability or uncertainty in this analysis.  In making this analysis the Council assumed that, because average revenue changes were made using 1999 data, revenue changes for 2001 are dependent upon landings in 1999.  Further, the Council assumed the conduct of the recreational and commercial sectors of the fishery would be similar to the 1999 fishery.  Were these assumptions to change, i.e., if the price structure of the fishery were to change or if either the recreational or commercial sector of the bluefish fishery were to suddenly increase or decrease, the magnitude of the impacts (both positive and negative) identified in this analysis could change.  However, given the history of commercial and recreational fisheries participation in the bluefish fishery, it is unlikely that there would be any significant changes during one fishing season that will nullify the predicted impact of the 2001 annual specifications.

        The President has directed Federal agencies to use plain language in their communications with the public, including regulations.  To comply with this directive, we seek public comment on any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this proposed rule.  Such comments should be sent to the Regional Administrator (see ADDRESSES).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated:  February 12, 2001.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648, chapter VI, is proposed to be amended as follows:

            PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

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

          2.  In § 648.160, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

            § 648.160
            Catch quotas and other restrictions.

          (a) Annual review.  On or before August 15 of each year, the Bluefish Monitoring Committee will meet to determine the total allowable level of landings (TAL) and other restrictions necessary to achieve the target fishing mortality rate (F) specified in the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Bluefish for the upcoming fishing year or the estimated F for the fishing year preceding the Council submission of the recommended specifications, whichever F is lower.  In determining the TAL and other restrictions necessary to achieve the specified F, the Bluefish Monitoring Committee will review the following data, subject to availability:  Commercial and recreational catch data; current estimates of fishing mortality; stock status; recent estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis results; levels of noncompliance by fishermen or individual states; impact of size/mesh regulations; sea sampling data; impact of gear other than otter trawls and gill nets on the mortality of bluefish; and any other relevant information.

      [FR Doc. 01-4168 Filed 2-20-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 218
        RIN 0648-XG273
        Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy Operations of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active Sonar in the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean and Eastern Indian Ocean

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

          ACTION:
          Receipt of application for rulemaking and letter of authorization; request for comments and information.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the use of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor Systems Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) sonar systems onboard U.S. Navy surveillance ships for training and testing activities conducted under the authority of the Secretary of the Navy in the western and central North Pacific and eastern Indian oceans beginning August 2019. Pursuant to the implementing regulations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing our receipt of the Navy's request for the development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals and inviting information, suggestions, and comments on the Navy's application and request.

          DATES:
          Comments and information must be received no later than August 13, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225 and electronic comments should be sent to ITP.Youngkin@noaa.gov.

            Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111 without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Dale Youngkin, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS; phone: (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) generally direct the Secretary of Commerce (further delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.
        An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings are set forth.
        NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
        The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
        The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated above and defined “harassment” as it applies to a “military readiness activity” as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B Harassment).
        Summary of Request
        On June 4, 2018, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting authorization to take individuals of 46 species of marine mammals (10 mysticete, 31 odontocete, and 5 pinniped species) representing 139 stocks, by harassment, incidental to training and testing activities conducted under the authority of the Secretary of the Navy (categorized as military readiness activities) using SURTASS LFA sonar beginning August 13, 2019.
        The Navy states that these training and testing activities may expose some of the marine mammals present in the Study Area to sound from low-frequency active sonar sources, which may result in the disruption of behavioral patterns. The Navy requests authorization to take individuals of 46 species or stocks of marine mammals by Level B Harassment.
        NMFS published the first incidental take rule for SURTASS LFA sonar, effective from August 2002 through August 2007, on July 16, 2002 (67 FR 46712); the second rule, effective from August 2007 through August 2012, on August 21, 2007 (72 FR 46846); and the third rule, effective from August 2012 through August 2012, on August 20, 2012 (77 FR 50290).

        In 2016, the Navy submitted an application for a fourth incidental take regulation under the MMPA (DoN, 2016) for the taking of marine mammals by harassment incidental to the deployment of up to four SURTASS LFA sonar systems from August 15, 2017 through August 14, 2022. NMFS published a proposed rule on April 27, 2017 (82 FR 19460). On August 10, 2017, the Secretary of Defense, after conferring with the Secretary of Commerce, determined that it was necessary for the national defense to exempt all military readiness activities that use SURTASS LFA sonar from compliance with the requirements of the MMPA for two years from August 13, 2017 through August 12, 2019, or until such time when NMFS issues regulations and a LOA under Title 16, Section 1371 for military readiness activities associated with the use of SURTASS LFA sonar, whichever is earlier. During the exemption period, all military readiness activities that involve the use of SURTASS LFA sonar are required to comply with all mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures set forth in the 2017 National Defense Exemption (NDE) for SURTASS LFA sonar. As a result of the NDE (available at http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/SURTASS_LFA_NDE_10Aug17.pdf), NMFS did not finalize its April 2017 proposed rule.

        For this current requested rule making, the Navy is proposing to continue using SURTASS LFA sonar systems onboard USNS surveillance ships for training and testing activities conducted under the authority of the Secretary of the Navy within the western and central North Pacific, and eastern Indian oceans. The operating characteristics of the LFA sonar (inclusive of compact LFA sonar systems) have remained the same since 2001 and are consistent with the parameters described in previous rulemakings. For this rulemaking, the Navy scoped the geographic extent of the Study Area to better reflect the areas where the Navy anticipates conducting SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities for the requested rule/LOA. Under the proposed action, the Navy would transmit 496 LFA sonar transmission hours per year pooled across all SURTASS LFA sonar equipped vessels in the first four years of the authorization, with an increase in usage to 592 LFA transmission hours in year five and continuing into the foreseeable future, regardless of the number of vessels. This is a reduction from the current condition of 1,020 LFA transmission hours per year (255 hours of LFA sonar per vessel per year) under the NDE, and the previously authorized 1,728 LFA transmission hours per year (432 hours of LFA sonar per vessel per year) under the 2012—2017 Rule.

        Description of the Specified Activity
        The Navy proposes to continue to use the system onboard USNS surveillance ships for training and testing activities conducted under the authority of the Secretary of the Navy in the western and central Pacific Ocean and eastern Indian Ocean. The U.S. Navy currently has four surveillance ships that utilize SURTASS LFA sonar systems: the USNS ABLE, the USNS EFFECTIVE, the USNS IMPECCABLE and the USNS VICTORIOUS. The Navy may develop and field additional SURTASS LFA equipped vessels, either to replace or complement the Navy's current SURTASS LFA capable fleet, and these vessels may be in use beginning in the fifth year of the time period covered by their latest application. Thus, the Navy's activity analysis included consideration of the sonar hours associated with future testing of new or updated LFA sonar system components and new ocean surveillance vessels. This resulted in two annual transmit hour scenarios: Years 1 to 4 would entail a maximum of 496 LFA transmission hours total per year across all SURTASS LFA vessels, while year 5 and beyond would include an increase in LFA sonar transmit hours to a maximum of 592 hours across all vessels to accommodate future testing of new ocean surveillance vessels and new or updated sonar system components. The number of transmission hours per year is pooled across all SURTASS LFA sonar equipped vessels, regardless of the number of ships. The SURTASS LFA sonar transmission hours represent a distribution across six activities that include:
        • Contractor crew proficiency training (80 hours/year);
        • Military crew (MILCREW) proficiency training (96 hours/year);
        • Participation in, or support of, Navy exercises (96 hours/year);
        • Vessel and equipment maintenance (64 hours/year);
        • Acoustic research testing (160 hours/year); and
        • New SURTASS LFA sonar system testing (96 hours/year, occurring in year 5 and beyond only).
        The application describes the activity types, the equipment and platforms involved, and the duration and potential locations of the specified activities.
        A suite of proposed mitigation measures have been included in the proposed action to minimize the potential effects to marine mammals that could potentially be affected during SURTASS LFA sonar activities. For training and testing activities of the proposed action, these mitigation measures include:
        • Restricting the use of SURTASS LFA sonar such that it will not operate in Arctic and Antarctic waters;
        • Restricting the use of SURTASS LFA sonar from within the foreign territorial seas of other nations;
        • Ensuring sound pressure levels (SPL) will not exceed 180 decibels (dB) re 1 micro pascals (μPa) root mean square (rms) within 12 nautical miles of any emerged features of any coastline, or within designated offshore biologically important areas (OBIAs) for marine mammals; and
        • Minimizing exposure of marine mammals to SURTASS LFA sonar signal received levels of 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) or more by monitoring for their presence and suspending sonar transmission when animals enter the mitigation zone.
        Information Solicited

        Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the Navy's request (see ADDRESSES). NMFS will consider all information, suggestions, and comments related to the Navy's request and NMFS' development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals by the Navy's SURTASS LFA sonar activities.

          Dated: July 9, 2018.
          Donna S. Wieting,
          Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2018-14967 Filed 7-12-18; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 12, 29, and 52
        [FAR Case 2018-023; Docket No. FAR-2018-0023, Sequence No. 1]
        RIN 9000-AN68
        Federal Acquisition Regulation: Taxes—Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan

          AGENCY:
          Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to add two new clauses that notify contractors of requirements relating to Afghanistan taxes or similar charges when contracts are being performed in Afghanistan.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat Division at one of the addresses shown below on or before November 19, 2019 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2018-023 using any of the following methods:
          • Regulations.gov: https://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “FAR Case 2018-023” under the heading “Enter Keyword or ID” and selecting “Search”. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “FAR Case 2018-023”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2018-023” on your attached document.
          • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), ATTN: Lois Mandell, 1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405.

            Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite “FAR Case 2018-023” in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Kevin Funk, Procurement Analyst, at 202-357-5805 or kevin.funk@gsa.gov for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite “FAR Case 2018-023.”

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background

        Agreements established with the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan exempt the United States Government and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Forces, and their contractors from liability for Afghanistan taxes and similar charges (e.g. customs, duties, fees).
        The Security and Defense Cooperation Agreement (the Agreement) between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States of America was signed on September 30, 2014, and entered into force on January 1, 2015. The Agreement exempts the United States Government, and its contractors and subcontractors (other than those that are Afghan legal entities or residents), from paying any tax or similar charge assessed on activities associated with contracts performed within Afghanistan. The Agreement also exempts the acquisition, importation, exportation, reexportation, transportation, and use of supplies and services in Afghanistan, by or on behalf of the United States Government, from any taxes, customs, duties, fees, or similar charges in Afghanistan.
        The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between NATO and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was issued on September 30, 2014, and entered into force on January 1, 2015. The SOFA exempts NATO Forces and its contractors and subcontractors (other than those that are Afghan legal entities or residents) from paying any tax or similar charge assessed within Afghanistan. The SOFA also exempts the acquisition, importation, exportation, reexportation, transportation and use of supplies and services in Afghanistan from all Afghan taxes, customs, duties, fees, or similar charges.
        DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to add two new FAR clauses to notify contractors of the exemptions under the Agreement and the SOFA.
        This FAR rule was opened at the request of DoD's Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF). The RRTF was established under Executive Order 13777, titled “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which requires agencies to evaluate existing regulations on whether they should be repealed, replaced, modified, or retained. The focus of the DoD RRTF was to reduce regulatory burden on the public. The DoD RRTF recommended this case be opened, since these policies apply to multiple federal agencies identified in this rule as a “covered agency.” Some covered agencies have developed agency-level clauses. Therefore, the recommendation was made to elevate and include this policy in the FAR. This measure eliminates the need for agency-unique supplemental regulations and ensures unified guidance among the affected agencies, consistent with the purpose of the FAR system.
        II. Discussion and Analysis
        This proposed rule would notify contractors about the tax exemptions described in Section I of this preamble by adding the following two clauses:
        • FAR 52.229-XX, Taxes-Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan, is proposed for inclusion in all solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, with performance in Afghanistan, unless the clause at 52.229-YY is used. The Agreement incorporated by this clause exempts: (1) The United States Government, and its contractors and subcontractors, (other than those that are Afghan legal entities or residents), from paying any tax or similar charge assessed on activities associated with contracts within Afghanistan; and (2) the acquisition, importation, exportation, reexportation, transportation, and use of supplies and services in Afghanistan, by or on behalf of the United States Government, from any taxes, customs, duties, or similar charges in Afghanistan. Contractors are required to exclude any Afghan taxes, customs, duties, or similar charges from contract prices, other than those charged to Afghan legal entities or residents.
        • FAR 52.229-YY, Taxes—Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan (North Atlantic Treaty Organization Status of Forces Agreement) is proposed for inclusion, instead of clause 52.229-XX, Taxes-Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan, in all solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, with performance in Afghanistan awarded on behalf of NATO. The SOFA incorporated by this clause exempts: (1) NATO Forces and its contractors and subcontractors (other than those that are Afghan legal entities or residents) from paying any tax or similar charge assessed within Afghanistan; and (2) the acquisition, importation, exportation, transportation, and use of supplies and services in Afghanistan, by or on behalf of the U.S. Government, from all Afghan taxes, customs, duties, or similar charges.
        Since both agreements are currently effective for contractors operating in Afghanistan, this rule is only notifying contractors about the exemptions from liability for Afghanistan taxes, customs, duties, fees or similar charges. The rule is not adding any new requirements for contractors; however, it is providing unified guidance for contractors performing in Afghanistan. DoD issued a final rule on December 30, 2015, at 80 FR 81467 that added similar clauses for applicable DoD contracts.
        III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Items
        This rule creates two new clauses: (1) FAR 52.229-XX, Taxes—Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan, and (2) FAR 52.229-YY, Taxes—Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan (North Atlantic Treaty Organization Status of Forces Agreement). The objective of the rule is to notify U.S. Government contractors that contracts performed in Afghanistan are exempt from payment liability for Afghan taxes, customs, duties, fees or similar charges pursuant to the Agreement and SOFA.
        DoD, GSA, and NASA are applying these two clauses to applicable solicitations and contracts below the SAT and to the acquisition of commercial items, including COTS items, as defined at FAR 2.101. This rule clarifies the application of requirements relating to treatment of Afghan taxes, customs, duties, fees or similar charges for contracts performed in Afghanistan. Not applying these clauses to contracts below the SAT and for the acquisition of commercial items, including COTS items, would exclude contracts intended to be covered by this rule and undermine the overarching purpose of the rule for providing guidance to all applicable contractors. Consequently, DoD, GSA, and NASA are applying the rule to applicable contracts below the SAT and for the acquisition of applicable commercial items, including COTS items.
        IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is a not significant regulatory action and, therefore, is not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        V. Executive Order 13771
        This rule is not subject to E.O. 13771, because this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
        VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        DoD, GSA, and NASA do 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 this rule only clarifies contractor exemptions from Afghan taxes, customs, duties, fees or similar charges on contracts performed in Afghanistan. However, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been performed, and is summarized as follows:

          DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to add two new clauses that notify contractors of requirements relating to Afghanistan taxes, customs, duties, fees, or similar charges when contracts are being performed in Afghanistan.
          The Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the U.S. Government exempts the Government, and its contractors and subcontractors (other than those that are Afghan legal entities or residents), from paying any tax or similar charge assessed on activities associated with contracts performed within Afghanistan.
          The SOFA between NATO and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan exempts NATO Forces and its contractors and subcontractors (other than those that are Afghan legal entities or residents) from paying any tax or similar charge assessed within Afghanistan.
          The objective is to notify contractors of both the Agreement and SOFA to clarify how they apply to contracts performed in Afghanistan.

          According to data in the Federal Procurement Data System, the Government awarded an annual average of 4,277 contracts for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 with the principal place of performance in Afghanistan to 444 unique contractors annually, of which 488 contracts were awarded annually to 110 unique small businesses (23 percent). There was an average of 488 contracts with the principal place of performance in Afghanistan awarded annually to small businesses in fiscal years 2017 and 2018. There was an average of 3,789 contracts with the principal place of performance in Afghanistan awarded annually to large businesses. The number of potential subcontractors to which the clause would flow down was calculated by using a ratio of 1:3, subcontractors per prime contract (4,277 annual prime contracts). This equates to 1,426 subcontractors, of which DoD, GSA, and NASA estimate that 75 percent would be small entities (i.e., 1,069). The total number of prime contractor and subcontractor small businesses impacted annually is 1,577.
          The proposed rule does not include additional reporting, record keeping requirements, or other compliance requirements. The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
          There are no available alternatives to the proposed rule to accomplish the desired objective of the statute. We do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because the rule is not implementing any new requirements with which small entities must comply. Also, small entities will benefit from having one governmentwide clause that identifies the current requirements relating to Afghanistan taxes or similar charges when contracts are being performed in Afghanistan.

        The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
        DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C 610 (FAR Case 2018-023), in correspondence.
        VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
        This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR parts 12, 29, and 52
          Government procurement.

          William F. Clark,
          Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

        Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 12, 29, and 52 to read as follows:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 12, 29, and 52 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.

          PART 12—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

        2. Amend section 12.301 by redesignating paragraph (d)(12) as paragraph (d)(14), and adding new paragraphs (d)(12) and (d)(13) to read as follows:

          12.301
           Solicitation provisions and contract clauses for the acquisition of commercial items.

          (d) * * *
          (12) Insert the clause at 52.229-XX, Taxes—Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan, as prescribed in 29.402-3(a).
          (13) Insert the clause at 52.229-YY, Taxes—Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan (North Atlantic Treaty Organization Status of Forces Agreement), as prescribed in 29.402-3(b).

          29.001
          [Added]

         3. Add section 29.001 to read as follows:

          29.001
          Definitions.
          As used in this part—
          “North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Forces” means the Members of the Force, Members of the Civilian Component, NATO Personnel and all property, equipment, and materiel of NATO, NATO Member States, and Operational Partners present in the territory of Afghanistan.
          “U.S. Forces” means the entity comprising the members of the force and of the civilian component, and all property, equipment, and materiel of the United States Armed Forces present in the territory of Afghanistan.

          29.402-3
           [Added]

        4. Add section 29.402-3 to read as follows:

          29.402-3
           Taxes—Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan.
          (a) Use the clause at 52.229-XX, Taxes—Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan, in solicitations and contracts with performance in Afghanistan awarded by or on behalf of U.S. Forces, unless the clause at 52.229-YY is used.

          (b) Use the clause at 52.229-YY, Taxes—Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan (North Atlantic Treaty Organization Status of Forces Agreement), instead of the clause at 52.229-XX, Taxes—Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan, in solicitations and contracts with performance in Afghanistan awarded on behalf of or in support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which are governed by the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).

          PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

            52.229-XX and 52.229-YY
            [Added]

        5. Add sections 52.229-XX and 52.229-YY to read as follows:

          52.229-XX
          Taxes—Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan.
          As prescribed in 29.402-3(a), use the following clause:
          Taxes—Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan (Date)

            (a) Definition. “U.S. Forces,” as used in this clause, means the entity comprising the members of the force and of the civilian component, and all property, equipment, and materiel of the United States Armed Forces present in the territory of Afghanistan.
            (b) Tax exemption. This acquisition is covered by the Security and Defense Cooperation Agreement (the Agreement) between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Afghanistan) and the United States of America signed on September 30, 2014, and entered into force on January 1, 2015.
            (1) The Agreement exempts the United States Government, and its contractors and subcontractors (other than those that are Afghan legal entities or residents), from paying any tax or similar charge assessed on activities associated with this contract within Afghanistan if the activities are on behalf of or in support of U.S. Forces. The Agreement also exempts the acquisition, importation, exportation, reexportation, transportation, and use of supplies and services in Afghanistan, on behalf of or in support of U.S. Forces, from any taxes, customs, duties, fees, or similar charges imposed by the Government of Afghanistan.
            (2) The Contractor shall exclude any Afghan taxes, customs, duties, fees, or similar charges from the contract price, other than those charged to Afghan legal entities or residents.
            (3) The Agreement does not exempt Afghan employees of Government contractors and subcontractors from Afghan tax laws. To the extent required by Afghan law, the Contractor shall withhold tax from the wages of these employees and remit those payments to the appropriate Afghan taxing authority. These withholdings are an individual's liability, not a tax against the Contractor.
            (c) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in all subcontracts, including subcontracts for commercial items.

          (End of clause)

          52.229-YY
          Taxes—Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan (North Atlantic Treaty Organization Status of Forces Agreement).
          As prescribed in 29.402-3(b), use the following clause:
          TAXES—FOREIGN CONTRACTS IN AFGHANISTAN (NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT) (DATE)

            (a) Definition. “North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Forces,” as used in this clause, means the Members of the Force, Members of the Civilian Component, NATO Personnel and all property, equipment, and materiel of NATO, NATO Member States, and Operational Partners present in the territory of Afghanistan.
            (b) Tax exemption. This acquisition is covered by the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) entered into between NATO and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Afghanistan) issued on September 30, 2014, and entered into force on January 1, 2015.
            (1) The SOFA exempts NATO Forces and its contractors and subcontractors (other than those that are Afghan legal entities or residents) from paying any tax or similar charge assessed within Afghanistan if the activities are on behalf of or in support of NATO Forces. The SOFA also exempts the acquisition, importation, exportation, reexportation, transportation and use of supplies and services in Afghanistan on behalf of or in support of NATO Forces from all Afghan taxes, customs, duties, fees, or similar charges.
            (2) The Contractor shall exclude any Afghan taxes, customs, duties, fees or similar charges from the contract price, other than those charged to Afghan legal entities or residents.
            (3) Afghan citizens employed by NATO contractors and subcontractors are subject to Afghan tax laws. To the extent required by Afghan law, the Contractor shall withhold tax from the wages of these employees and remit those withholdings to the appropriate Afghan taxing authority. These withholdings are an individual's liability, not a tax against the Contractor.
            (c) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in all subcontracts including subcontracts for commercial items.

          (End of clause)

      [FR Doc. 2019-20046 Filed 9-19-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 80
        [WT Docket No. 00-48; FCC 06-129]
        Maritime Communications

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) furthers its ongoing efforts to ensure that its rules governing the Maritime Radio Services continue to promote maritime safety, maximize effective and efficient use of the spectrum available for maritime communications, accommodate technological innovation, avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens, and maintain consistency with international maritime standards to the extent consistent with the United States public interest. The Commission also seeks in this proceeding to ensure that it regulates the Maritime Radio Services in a manner that advances our Nation's homeland security.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before January 8, 2007, and reply comments are due on or before February 6, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 00-48; FCC 06-129, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

          For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jeffrey Tobias, Jeff.Tobias@FCC.gov, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1617, or TTY (202) 418-7233.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Third FNPRM) in WT Docket No. 00-48, FCC 06-129, adopted on August 29, 2006, and released on September 8, 2006. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
        1. The WT Docket No. 00-48 rulemaking proceeding was established to develop rules for domestic implementation of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS), a ship-to-shore and ship-to-ship distress communications system using satellite and digital selective calling (DSC) technology. The Commission takes the following significant actions in the Third FNPRM in WT Docket No. 00-48: (i) Proposes to cease authorizing INMARSAT-E emergency position indicating radiobeacons (EPIRBs) due to Inmarsat's planned cessation of service to such EPIRBs; (ii) requests comment on whether to require Global Positioning System (GPS) capability in VHF-DSC handheld units; (iii) requests comment on whether to require the carriage of at least one VHF handheld marine radio transceiver on all small passenger vessels that do not have a reserve power supply; (iv) requests comment on whether there is a need to make additional spectrum available for ship station facsimile communications, or to permit the transmission of data on VHF maritime voice channels; (v) requests comment on whether there is any need to continue limiting the number of frequencies that may be assigned to any particular private coast station; (vi) requests comment on updating the standards for ship radar equipment; and (vii) proposes to add a rule clarifying that GMDSS vessels subject to subpart W are required to test GMDSS radiotelephone equipment on a daily basis.
        I. Procedural Matters
        A. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding

        2. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules.

        B. Comment Dates

        3. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before January 8, 2007 and reply comments on or before February 6, 2007. All filings related to this Third FNPRM should refer to WT Docket No. 00-48.
        4. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.

        5. Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments.

        6. For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.
        7. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
        8. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
        9. The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
        10. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
        11. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

        12. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Parties shall also serve one copy with the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, or via e-mail to fcc@bcpiweb.com.
        13. Availability of documents. The public may view the documents filed in this proceeding during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, and on the Commission's Internet Home Page: http://www.fcc.gov. Copies of comments and reply comments are also available through the Commission's duplicating contractor: Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160, may be reached by e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com or via BCPI's Web site at http://www.bcpiweb.com. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act

        14. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “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).
        II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

        15. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Third FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Third FNPRM as provided in paragraph 82 of the item. The Commission will send a copy of the Third FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration. In addition, a copy of the Third FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.
        Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
        16. In the Third FNPRM, we seek comment on rule amendments that are intended to enhance maritime safety, promote the efficient use of the maritime radio spectrum, and, to the extent consistent with these first two objectives, remove unnecessary regulatory burdens. We also seek to conform the Commission's part 80 rules with international standards where doing so will not undermine domestic regulatory objectives. In the Third FNPRM, we first request comment on whether we should remove part 80 regulatory provisions providing for the certification and authorizing the use of INMARSAT-E EPIRBs in light of the planned cessation of service to such EPIRBs as of December 1, 2006. Second, we invite comment on a Coast Guard recommendation to require that VHF DSC handheld radios include an integral GPS capability to ensure that distress calls include accurate location information. Third, we ask commenters to consider whether small passenger vessels that do not have a reserve power supply should be required to carry at least one VHF marine radio transceiver. Fourth, we request comment on whether additional frequencies should be made available for ship station facsimile use, and whether the Commission should permit the transmission of data on VHF maritime voice channels. Fifth, we request comment on whether we should remove certain restrictions on the assignment of frequencies to private coast stations and marine utility stations in light of the current demand for such frequencies. Sixth, we solicit comment on updating the standards for ship radar equipment. Finally, we request comment on the proposed addition of a rule to subpart W of part 80 to clarify the continued applicability of a daily radiotelephone testing requirement to GMDSS vessels subject to subpart W.

        Legal Basis for Proposed Rules
        17. The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 303(r), and 332(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 332(a)(2).
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

        18. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data. A “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small. Below, we further describe and estimate the number of small entity licensees and regulatees that may be affected by adoption of rules discussed in the Third FNPRM.
        19. Small businesses in the aviation and marine radio services use a marine very high frequency (VHF), medium frequency (MF), or high frequency (HF) radio, any type of emergency position indicating radio beacon (EPIRB) and/or radar, an aircraft radio, and/or any type of emergency locator transmitter (ELT). The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to these small businesses. For purposes of this IRFA, therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to wireless telecommunications. Pursuant to this definition, a “small entity” for purposes of the ship station licensees, public coast station licensees, or other marine radio users that may be affected by these rules, is any entity employing 1,500 of fewer persons. 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS Code 517212).
        20. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic census categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” Under both categories, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the census category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small.
        21. VHF Public Coast Stations. Some of the rules proposed herein affect VHF public coast station licensees. The Commission has defined the term “small entity” specifically applicable to public coast station licensees as any entity employing less than 1,500 persons, based on the definition under the Small Business Administration rules applicable to radiotelephone service providers. See Amendment of the Commission's rules Concerning Maritime Communications, Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19853, 19893 (1998) (citing 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 4812, now NAICS Code 513322).
        22. Marine Radio Equipment Manufacturers. Some of the rules proposed herein may also affect small businesses that manufacture marine radio equipment. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to marine radio equipment manufacturers. Therefore, the applicable definition is that for Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturers. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,041 establishments in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,010 had employment of under 500, and an additional 13 had employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

        23. We believe three of the possible rule changes discussed in the Third FNPRM may potentially have a direct, significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As noted, we have requested comment on whether to require GPS capability in VHF-DSC handheld radios, on whether to require that small passenger vessels carry at least one VHF handheld marine radio transceiver, and on whether to update the standards for ship radar equipment. We invite interested parties to address the economic impact of these possible rule changes on small vessel operators, small marine radio equipment manufacturers and other small businesses that may be subject to the new requirements. We seek information on whether the compliance costs may outweigh the safety benefits of these rule changes, and whether there are alternative means of securing the safety benefits of these requirements through means that are less burdensome to regulatees.

        24. We do not believe any of the other matters discussed in the Third FNPRM would have a direct, significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, any commenters that disagree with that tentative conclusion are asked to explain the basis of that disagreement.
        Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
        25. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives, among others:
         (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
        26. In the Third FNPRM, we ask that commenters provide information on the incremental cost to manufacturers and consumers if the Commission were to adopt a requirement for GPS capability in VHF-DSC handheld units. We describe here, and seek comment on, possible alternatives to imposing such a requirement that might minimize the economic impact on small entities. First, we ask commenters to consider whether it would be appropriate to exempt any class of small entities from such a requirement. Commenters advocating such an exemption should propose criteria for identifying entities that should be exempt, and should explain why they believe such an exemption represents a reasonable compromise between the goals of promoting maritime safety and minimizing compliance costs for small entities. In addition, if we do determine to impose a new requirement for GPS capability in VHF-DSC handheld radio equipment, we would consider whether we should continue to certify VHF-DSC equipment without such capability for a specified additional period of time, and/or whether we should adopt grandfathering protections to allow the continued sale and use of such non-GPS VHF-DSC handheld equipment for a specified period of time or indefinitely. Interested parties should address these alternatives. Finally, we seek comment on whether an alternative, less costly equipment requirement could adequately address the concern that distress communications include accurate coordinates for the vessel in distress.
        27. In the Third FNPRM, we also seek comment on whether the Commission should require carriage of at least one VHF handheld marine radio transceiver on small passenger vessels that do not carry a reserve power supply. Our understanding is that such handheld radio equipment can be purchased for under fifty dollars at retail, making it a far less expensive proposition for small vessel owners and operators than would expanding the reserve power supply requirement to all small passenger vessels, regardless of size. Notwithstanding the relative inexpensiveness of VHF handheld marine radios, and the important safety benefits that would accrue from imposing such a carriage requirement, we request that interested parties address whether the costs of such a requirement would outweigh the safety benefits, and to suggest any alternatives, exemptions or phased-in implementation schedules that the Commission might adopt to reduce the compliance burden of such a requirement on small entities.
        28. In the Third FNPRM, we also invite comment on revising the standards for ship radar equipment. We seek comment on the impact of such a revision on radar equipment manufacturers and on the owners and operators of vessels required to be fitted with radar equipment. Given that we contemplate amending our rules only to reflect the most up-to-date international standards for ship radar equipment, we question whether such an amendment would impose any new compliance burden on small entities, since they may already be required to, or have decided it is prudent to, manufacture and use equipment that conforms to those international standards. To the extent such an amendment would be deemed to create a new compliance burden, we ask interested parties whether and how that burden can be eliminated or mitigated for small entities, both small manufacturers and small owners and operators of vessels fitted with radar equipment. Commenters should consider the possibility of retaining the existing part 80 radar standards, incorporating by reference only some of the newer international radar standards, exempting certain entities from the requirement to comply with the newer international radar standards, and/or providing transition periods before compliance is required (so that, e.g., radar equipment can still be certified based on compliance with the current standards for a specified period of time) and grandfathering protection (to permit the continued manufacture, sale, importation, and use of radar equipment certified under the old standards, either for a specified period of years or indefinitely). Commenters are also invited to suggest alternatives other than those discussed here.
        Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules
        29. None.
        III. Ordering Clauses

        30. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r) and 403, this Third FNPRM is adopted.

        31. Pursuant to the applicable procedures set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on this Third FNPRM on or before January 8, 2007 and reply comments on or before February 6, 2007.

        32. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Third FNPRM and also the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. E6-18755 Filed 11-7-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
        44 CFR Part 61
        RIN 3067-AD34
        National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); Increased Rates for Flood Coverage

          AGENCY:
          Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed Rule.

          SUMMARY:
          We (the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration of FEMA) propose to change the way premiums are calculated for policyholders who purchase flood insurance coverage under the NFIP for “Pre-FIRM” buildings in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). (The term “Pre-FIRM buildings” means buildings whose construction began on or before December 31, 1974, or before the effective date of the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), whichever date is later. Most Pre-FIRM buildings and their contents are eligible for subsidized rates under the NFIP.)
          We are planning to increase flood insurance rates to be implemented in coordination with the elimination of the Expense Constant, a flat charge that the policyholder currently pays to defray certain expenses of the Federal Government related to flood insurance. As part of this planned increase in rates, we are proposing to increase Pre-FIRM subsidized rates. As a result of this change, the same amount of premium revenue will still be collected to cover those expenses currently generated by the Expense Constant; however, policyholders will pay for those expenses through premiums that vary by the amount of insurance that they purchase, instead of a flat charge per policy. The end result will be revenue neutral.

          DATES:
          We invite comments on this proposed rule, which we should receive on or before March 5, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Thomas Hayes, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 202-646-3419, (facsimile) 202-646-7970, or (e-mail) Thomas.Hayes@fema.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 requires us to charge full-risk premiums for flood insurance coverage on buildings when their construction began after December 31, 1974, or on or after the effective date of the Flood Insurance Rate Map, if the second date is later. (We call such construction “Post-FIRM” construction.)
        The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 also authorizes us to apply chargeable premiums to Pre-FIRM property and gives FEMA flexibility to set the flood insurance rates for such property. The legislation calls for us to balance the need to offer reasonable rates that encourage people to buy flood insurance with the statutory goal to distribute burdens fairly between all who will be protected by flood insurance and the general public.
        Through the years, FIMA has increased these rates five times with the latest being the final rule 67 FR 8902, published February 27, 2002. Each of the prior changes has been implemented in order to distribute burdens fairly among all who will be protected by flood insurance and to reduce the burden on the general public.
        However, with this rule, the proposed rate increase will simply offset the revenue that the Program would otherwise forego through the elimination of the Expense Constant, as explained in the next section. This rule is revenue-neutral, whereas the previous rules resulted in premium increases for the class of Pre-FIRM SFHA policyholders.

        While this proposed change to offset the elimination of the Expense Constant will be premium-neutral for the class of Pre-FIRM SFHA policyholders, it will result in slightly different premiums for individual policyholders. For residential structures, the largest net premium increase for any policyholder will be $24, while policyholders that purchase either Contents-only (e.g., renters) or building-only coverage will see net premium decreases of at least $10. Non-Residential policyholders will have slightly different results.
        Section 572 of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-325, 42 U.S.C. 4015, however, imposes the following annual limitation on rate increases under the NFIP:
        “Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the chargeable risk premium rates for flood insurance under this title for any properties within any single risk classification may not be increased by an amount that would result in the average of such rate increases for properties within the risk classification during any 12-month period exceeding 10 percent of the average of the risk premium rates for properties within the risk classification upon commencement of such 12-month period.”
        This regulation complies with this statutory limitation on annual rate increase under the NFIP, since it will be revenue neutral.
        Proposed Changes and Their Purposes
        We are proposing to increase the rates for Pre-FIRM SFHA policies to offset the revenue that the Program would otherwise forego through the elimination of the Expense Constant. The Expense Constant is a flat charge that the policyholder currently pays to defray certain expenses of the Federal Government related to flood insurance. This proposed change will be premium-neutral for the class of Pre-FIRM SFHA policyholders.

        FIMA believes that eliminating the Expense Constant will help us further the goals of the flood program, especially in regard to policy growth. Currently, policyholders see two flat charges on their flood insurance premium bills—$50 for the Expense Constant, and $30 for the Federal Policy Fee (a statutorily-mandated fee to cover certain administrative expenses of the National Flood Insurance Program that are not covered by the Expense Constant). Our marketing research has indicated that this is viewed very unfavorably by prospective insureds. They view it as having to pay $80 before they can even purchase any flood insurance coverage. By eliminating the expense constant, we can hopefully overcome an objection at the point of sale, while still generating the same average revenue per policy. Although we are unable to quantify the expected impact of this proposal on future policy sales, we expect it to help the program generate a modest increase in policies in force.
        As an additional benefit, this will bring the NFIP in closer conformity with the insurance industry standard of practice for property insurance where expense constants are rarely used. This proposal will make the NFIP's premium calculation more like that for other property lines. As such, it should also make it more intuitive for insurance agents to process flood insurance.
        Comparison of Proposed Rate Increases with Current Rates
        The following chart compares the current rates we charge for Pre-FIRM SFHA properties with the proposed rate increases for Pre-FIRM, SFHA properties. Also these proposed increases apply only to the rates charged for the “first layer” of flood insurance coverage set by Congress in Section 1306 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (Pub. L. 90-448):

            Type of structure
            Current A zone 1 rates per year per $100 coverage on—
            Structure
            Contents
            Proposed A zone 1 rates per year per $100 coverage on—
            Structure
            RCBAP 2

            High rise
            Low rise
            All other
            Contents

            1. Residential:

            No Basement or Enclosure
            .68
            .79
            .85
            .70
            .76
            .96

            With Basement or Enclosure
            .73
            .79
            .90
            .75
            .81
            .96

            2. All other including hotels and motels with normal occupancy of less than 6 months duration:

            No basement or Enclosure
            .79
            1.58
            N/A
            N/A
            .83
            1.62

            With basement or Enclosure
            .84
            1.58
            N/A
            N/A
            .88
            1.62

            1 A zones are zones A1-A30, AE, AO, AH, and unnumbered A zones.

            2 Residential Condominium Building Association Policies (RCBAP) are distinguished between High Rise (those structures that have 3 or more floors and 5 or more units) and Low Rise (those structures that have either less than 3 floors or less than 5 units).

            Type of structure
            Current V zone 1 rates per year per $100 coverage on—
            Structure
            Contents
            Proposed V zone 1 rates per year per $100 coverage on—
            Structure
            RCBAP 2

            High rise
            Low rise
            All other
            Contents

            1. Residential:

            No Basement or Enclosure
            .91
            1.06
            1.08
            .93
            .99
            1.23

            With Basement or Enclosure
            .98
            1.06
            1.15
            1.00
            1.06
            1.23

            2. All other including hotels and motels with normal occupancy of less than 6 months duration:

             No basement or Enclosure
            1.06
            2.10
            N/A
            N/A
            1.10
            2.14

            With basement or Enclosure
            1.12
            2.10
            N/A
            N/A
            1.16
            2.14

            1 V zones are zones V1-V30, VE, and unnumbered V zones.

            2 Residential Condominium Building Association Policies (RCBAP) are distinguished between High Rise (those structures that have 3 or more floors and 5 or more units) and Low Rise (those structures that have either less than 3 floors or less than 5 units).

        Prior to this change, as shown in the Current A Zone and Current V Zone table, RCBAP policyholders were always charged the same building rates as everyone else. In order to accomplish the elimination of the Expense Constant in a revenue-neutral manner, it is now necessary to vary the rates as shown in the Proposed tables.
        National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

        Pursuant to section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4317 et seq., we are conducting an environmental assessment of this proposed rule. The assessment will be available for inspection through the Rules Docket Clerk, Federal Emergency Management Agency, room 840, 500 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20472.
        Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
        We have prepared and reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993, a significant regulatory action is subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
        (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
        (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
        (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
        (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

        For the reasons that follow we have concluded that the proposed rule is neither an economically significant nor a significant regulatory action under the Executive Order. The rule will be premium neutral for the National Flood Insurance Fund. The adjustment in premiums rates will be offset by the elimination of the Expense Constant. It would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, the insurance sector, competition, or other sectors of the economy. It would create no serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. It would not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof. Nor does it raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
        The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of Executive Order 12866.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        This rule does not contain a collection of information and is therefore not subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
        Executive Order 13132, Federalism
        Executive Order 13132 sets forth principles and criteria that agencies must adhere to in formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, that is, regulations that have substantial direct effects on the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Federal agencies must closely examine the statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States, and to the extent practicable, must consult with State and local officials before implementing any such action.
        We have reviewed this proposed rule under E.O.13132 and have determined that the rule does not have federalism implications as defined by the Executive Order. The rule would adjust the premiums for buildings in Pre-FIRM Special Flood Hazard Areas. The rule in no way that we foresee affects the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or limits the policymaking discretion of the States.

          List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 61
          Flood insurance.

        Accordingly, we propose to amend 44 CFR Part 61 as follows:

          PART 61—INSURANCE COVERAGE AND RATES
          1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127 of Mar. 31, 1979, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p.376.
            2. Revise §61.9 (a) to read as follows:

            § 61.9
            Establishment of chargeable rates.
            (a) Under section 1308 of the Act, we are establishing annual chargeable rates for each $100 of flood insurance coverage as follows for Pre-FIRM, A zone properties, Pre-FIRM, V-zone properties, and emergency program properties.

                Type of structure
                Proposed A zone 1 rates per year per $100 coverage on—

                Structure
                RCBAP 3

                High rise
                Low rise
                All other
                Contents
                Proposed V zone 2 rates per year per $100 coverage on—

                Structure
                RCBAP 3

                High rise
                Low Rise
                All other
                Contents

                1. Residential:

                No Basement or Enclosure
                .85
                .70
                .76
                .96
                1.08
                .93
                .99
                1.23

                With Basement or Enclosure
                .90
                .75
                .81
                .96
                1.15
                1.00
                1.06
                1.23

                2. All other including hotels and motels with normal occupancy of less than 6 months duration:

                No basement or Enclosure
                N/A
                N/A
                .83
                1.62
                N/A
                N/A
                1.10
                2.14

                With basement or Enclosure
                N/A
                N/A
                .88
                1.62
                N/A
                N/A
                1.16
                2.14

                1 A zones are zones A1-A30, AE, AO, AH, and unnumbered A zones.

                2 V zones are zones V1-V30, VE, and unnumbered V zones.

                3 Residential Condominium Building Association Policies (RCBAP) are distinguished between High Rise (those structures that have 3 or more floors and 5 or more units) and Low Rise (those structures that have either less than 3 floors or less than 5 units).

            Dated: January 23, 2003.
            Anthony S. Lowe,
            Administrator,  Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration.

      [FR Doc. 03-2453 Filed 1-31-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6718-03-P