        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 021113274-2274-01; I.D. 031501A]
        RIN 0648-AO79
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Exempted Fishing Activities

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues a proposed rule in accordance with framework procedures for adjusting the management measures of the Final Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks (HMS FMP), and Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan (Billfish FMP).  This proposed rule would modify existing regulations for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) exempted fishing activities.  The intent of the changes is to improve monitoring of exempted fishing activities for Atlantic HMS.  NMFS will hold a public hearing to receive comments from fishing participants and other members of the public regarding the proposed exempted fishing specifications.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on January 6, 2003.
          The public hearing date is December 16, 2002, 7 p.m.—9 p.m.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments on the proposed rule should be submitted to Christopher Rogers, Chief, Highly Migratory Species Management Division (F/SF1), Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD  20910.  Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 301-713-1917.  Comments regarding the collection-of-information requirement contained in this proposed rule should be sent to the Highly Migratory Species Management Division (F/SF1), 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attention:  NOAA Desk Officer). Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the internet.The public hearing location is:  Sea World Adventure Park, Ports of Call Building, 7007 Sea World Drive, Orlando, Florida, 32821.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sari Kiraly at 301-713-2347, fax 301-713-1917, e-mail Sari.Kiraly@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Under 50 CFR 635.32, and consistent with 50 CFR 600.745, NMFS may authorize for limited testing, public display, and scientific data collection purposes, the target or incidental harvest of species managed under an FMP or fishery regulations that would otherwise be prohibited.  Exempted fishing may not be conducted unless authorized by an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) or a Scientific Research Permit (SRP) issued by NMFS in accordance with criteria and procedures specified in those sections.  As necessary, an EFP or SRP would exempt the named party(ies) from otherwise applicable regulations under 50 CFR part 635.  Such exemptions could address fishery closures, possession of prohibited species, commercial permitting requirements, and retention and minimum size limits.
        This proposed action was developed in response to ongoing concerns related to past EFPs for the purpose of capturing regulated HMS, particularly sharks collected for public display, and is intended to strengthen the existing regulations that govern such EFP related activities.  The proposed rule is in accordance with framework procedures for adjusting management measures provided in the Final HMS FMP, and Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP.
        Exempted Fishing Operations
        With respect to exempted fishing activities, NMFS proposes the following new requirements:
        (1) Collectors of HMS for display purposes would be required to notify the local NMFS Office for Law Enforcement 72 hours prior to departing on a collection trip in federal or state waters as to collection plans and location, and number of animals to be collected.  Also, at the end of each collection trip, upon return to port the collector would be required to call the local NMFS Office for Law Enforcement to report the conclusion of the trip and whether any regulated HMS were collected.  In addition, in cases of HMS being shipped to other locations, the collector would be required to notify the local NMFS Office for Law Enforcement 48 hours prior to shipment.
        (2) In lieu of the conventional dart tags currently supplied to collectors by NMFS, all live HMS collected for the purpose of public display would be required to have microchip Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags, which will be supplied by NMFS, implanted by the collector. The use of PIT tags is intended to eliminate problems that frequently occur following implantation of the conventional dart tags.  Collectors would not be required to obtain PIT tag readers, but are advised to do so in order to verify that the PIT tag is properly implanted and can be read, and also to have available should law enforcement authorities other than NMFS Enforcement board the fishing vessel.  If a NMFS law enforcement officer is unable to detect with the NMFS reader a PIT tag in a HMS collected for display, the collection will be deemed unauthorized.
        (3) To minimize mortality associated with the live capture of HMS, permit conditions regarding fishing activities, such as gear deployment, monitoring, or soak time, would be specified on a case-by-case basis.  If such measures are not effective in limiting mortalities, other restrictions, such as allowing the use of only certain types of gear for the live capture of HMS for display, could be instituted to minimize the possibility of dead discards.
        (4) NMFS would reserve the right to place on-board an authorized collection vessel a fisheries observer to monitor activities governed by an EFP.
        (5) The proposed rule also modifies EFP requirements for swordfish offloading.  For the directed swordfish fishery, if vessel monitoring systems (VMS) are installed on vessels, separate EFPs to allow delayed offloading would no longer be required.
        Reporting Requirements
        NMFS proposes to enhance data collection and reporting by requiring the following:
        (1) To reinforce the importance of the year-end report to NMFS concerning the activities conducted under the EFP, in addition to the information currently required for submission, all applications for permit renewals would also be required to include the year-end report from the previous year in order to be considered complete.  Renewal applications would not be deemed complete until the year-end report containing all the specified information, is submitted.
        (2) In addition to reporting the retention of live HMS, all dead HMS caught and discarded under the permit would have to be reported - these dead discards will be counted against appropriate annual quotas.  Additionally, any HMS collected under state-issued permits by persons issued federal EFPs would have to be reported to NMFS within 5 days of collection. Reporting of HMS collected under state permits will provide important information as to the actual numbers of animals that are being removed from the stocks. If no HMS are collected in either federal or state waters in any given month, a “no-catch” report would have to be submitted to NMFS within 5 days of the last day of that month.
        (3) Several prohibitions are proposed to be added or modified to address a) submission of false information on permit applications or activity reports, and b) violations of any of the terms and conditions of the EFP.  These prohibitions are needed to facilitate enforcement of EFP application and reporting requirements.  Essentially, they extend the permitting, record-keeping, and reporting requirements otherwise applicable to vessels and dealers to those persons issued EFPs.
        Request for Comments
        In addition to the changes proposed in this proposed rule, comments are requested on the below-listed  potential regulatory requirements.  These measures are not being proposed at this time.  If, after receiving comments, NMFS decides to issue regulations to implement any of these provisions, NMFS will publish a proposed rule.
        (1) To qualify for an EFP for the live collection of HMS for public display purposes, the applicant would be required to demonstrate that holding facilities adequate for animal husbandry are maintained.  NMFS will consider accreditation in the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA), or equivalent standards, as meeting these requirements.
        (2) Based on available information on disease or mortalities while in captivity, NMFS could limit the issuance of EFPs for the collection of HMS species that are not likely to survive well in captivity, until such time that the best available new information indicates otherwise.  This measure could potentially reduce mortality of HMS held in captivity.
        (3) EFPs for the purpose of collecting live animals for public display could be issued only to aquariums and other display facilities that meet the AZA standards for such facilities - third party collectors would no longer be issued EFPs, but would be allowed to collect HMS as a third party contractor to the authorized institution.

        (4) Public display facilities, including aquariums that are not otherwise authorized by a collection permit, would be required to obtain from NMFS a display permit in order to maintain HMS in captivity.  To qualify for this permit, applicants would need to demonstrate the adequacy of the facility for animal husbandry.  NMFS would consider accreditation in the AZA, or equivalent standards, as meeting these requirements.
        Classification

        This proposed rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.

        For the purposes of NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6, the AA has preliminarily determined that this action would not have a significant effect, individually or cumulatively, on the human environment, that it has been sufficiently analyzed in a prior FMP, and that it involves only minor technical additions, corrections or changes to the regulations.  Accordingly, under sections 5.05 and 6.03a3(b) of NAO 216-6, this action is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
        This proposed rule contains a new collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the PRA.  The requirement for exempted fishing activity reporting has been submitted to OMB for approval. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 minutes per notification phone call at the beginning and completion of a collection trip and upon shipment of any animals.  The estimated time to prepare a catch report required by an EFP issued for display collection is 5 minutes, and to prepare a “no-catch” report the estimated time is 2 minutes. The estimated application preparation and year-end report preparation times for display EFPs are 30 minutes each.  Application of  a PIT tag to a HMS captured for display is estimated to take 2 minutes.

        Public comment is sought regarding:  whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency; whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.  Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS and OMB (see
          ADDRESSES).
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as follows.  Most of the entities that would be affected by this proposed rule would be considered small entities.  The cost to EFP applicants is minimal, estimated at $3.75 per applicant for the letter, information card, and telephone calls needed to apply, report, and notify.  The cost of PIT tags will be incurred by NMFS, which will supply the tags to each permittee.  If NMFS decided to select a vessel governed by an EFP for observer coverage, pursuant to 50 CFR 645.7, there would be no significant economic impact.  NMFS would provide the observer, and the vessel operator would only be required to provide accommodations and food for the observer equivalent to those provided to the crew.  Thus, there would be no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  Accordingly, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared for this proposed rule.
        The proposed action would not significantly change the operations of any HMS fishery and is not expected to increase threats to endangered or threatened species listed under the Endangered Species Act.  A Biological Opinion (BiOp) issued June 14, 2001, concluded that continued operation of the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of sea turtle species under NMFS jurisdiction.  NMFS has implemented the reasonable and prudent alternative specified in the BiOp in a final rule July 9, 2002 (67 FR 45393).  The measures proposed would not have any additional impact on sea turtles as these actions would not likely increase or decrease pelagic longline effort, nor are they expected to shift effort into other fishing areas.  No irreversible and irretrievable commitment are expected from this proposed action that would have the effect of foreclosing the implementation of the requirements of the BiOp.
        It is not anticipated that this proposed action would have any impacts on essential fish habitat and, therefore, no consultation is required.
        The AA has determined that this action would have no impacts on the enforceable policies of those Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean coastal states that have approved coastal zone management plans under the Coastal Zone Management Act.  Accordingly, NMFS has submitted consistency  determinations to those states with a request for concurrence.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635

        Fisheries, Fishing , Fishing Vessels, Foreign Relations, Intergovernmental Relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics, Treaties.

          Dated: December 2, 2002.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is proposed to be amended as follows:

            PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

          1.  The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          2.  In § 635.28, paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) is revised to read as follows:

            § 635.28
            Closures.

            (c) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (i) * * *

            (A)  No more than 15 swordfish per trip may be possessed in or from the Atlantic Ocean north of 5° N. lat. or landed in an Atlantic coastal state on a vessel using or having on board a longline.  However, Atlantic swordfish legally taken prior to the effective date of the closure may be possessed in the Atlantic Ocean north of 5°  N. lat. or landed in an Atlantic coastal state on a vessel with a longline on board, provided the harvesting vessel does no fishing after the closure in the Atlantic Ocean north of 5°  N. lat., and reports positions with a vessel monitoring system, as specified in § 635.69.  NMFS may adjust the incidental catch retention limit by filing with the Office of the Federal Register for publication notification of the change at least 14 days before the effective date.  Changes in the incidental catch limits will be based upon the length of the directed fishery closure and the estimated rate of catch by vessels fishing under the incidental catch quota.

          3.  In § 635.32, paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(4) are revised, and paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (c)(3)(iv) are added to read as follows:

            § 635.32
            Specifically authorized activities.

            (c) Exempted fishing permits.  (1) For activities consistent with the purposes of this section and § 600.745(b)(1) of this chapter, other than scientific research conducted from a scientific research vessel, NMFS may issue exempted fishing permits.  Application procedures shall be as indicated under § 600.745(b)(2) of this chapter, except that NMFS may consolidate requests for the purposes of obtaining public comment.  In such cases, NMFS may file with the Office of the Federal Register for publication notification on an annual or, as necessary, more frequent basis to report on previously authorized exempted fishing activities and to solicit public comment on anticipated exempted fishing requests.  Applications for permit renewals are required to include the year-end report from the previous year in order to be considered complete.  Renewal applications will be deemed incomplete unless a complete package, including the year-end report containing all the specified information is submitted.

            (3) * * *
            (i) Collectors of HMS for display purposes must notify the local NMFS Office for Law Enforcement 72 hours, excluding weekends and holidays, prior to departing on a collection trip in federal or state waters as to collection plans and location, and the number of animals to be collected.  Also, at the end of each collection trip, upon return to port the collector must call the local NMFS Office for Law Enforcement to report the conclusion of the trip and whether any regulated HMS were collected.  In addition, in the case of HMS being shipped to other locations, the collector must notify the local NMFS Office for Law Enforcement 48 hours prior to shipment.
            (ii) All live HMS collected for the purpose of public display are required to have microchip Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags, which will be supplied by NMFS, implanted by the collector.  Collectors are not required to obtain PIT tag readers, but are advised to do so in order to verify that the PIT tag is properly implanted and can be read.  If a NMFS law enforcement officer is unable to detect a PIT tag in a HMS collected for display with the NMFS reader, the collection will be deemed unauthorized.
            (iii) Permit conditions regarding fishing activities, such as gear deployment, monitoring, or soak time, will be specified on a case-by-case basis.  If such measures are not effective in limiting mortalities, other restrictions, such as allowing the use of only certain types of gear for the live capture of HMS for display, may be instituted to minimize the possibility of dead discards.
            (iv) NMFS reserves the right to place on-board an authorized  collection vessel a fisheries observer to monitor activities governed by an EFP.
            (4) Written reports on fishing activities and disposition of catch for each fish collected under the permit must be submitted to NMFS, at an address designated by NMFS, within 5 days of the collection.  An annual written summary report of all fishing activities and disposition of all fish collected under the permit must also be submitted to NMFS at an address designated by NMFS.  NMFS will provide specific conditions and requirements consistent with the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks in the EFP.  In addition, all dead HMS caught and discarded under the permit must be reported.  Also, any HMS collected under state-issued permits by persons issued federal EFPs must be reported to NMFS within 5 days of collection.  If no HMS are collected in either federal or state waters in any given month, a “no-catch” report must be submitted to NMFS within 5 days of the last day of that month.

          4.  In § 635.71, paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(26) are revised to read as follows:

            § 635.71
            Prohibitions.

            (a) * * *
            (6) Falsify or fail to record, report, or maintain information required to be recorded, reported, or maintained, as specified in § 635.5 or in the terms and conditions of a permit issued under § 635.4 or an exempted fishing permit or scientific research permit issued under the authority of § 635.32.

            (26) Violate the terms and conditions or any provision of a permit issued under § 635.4, or an exempted fishing permit or scientific research permit issued under the authority of § 635.32.

      [FR Doc. 02-30874 Filed 12-3-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA 02-13954; Notice 1]
        RIN 2127-AI36
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection, Seat Belt Assemblies

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

          ACTION:
          Termination of rulemaking; denial of petition for rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          In April 2000, NHTSA received a petition for rulemaking requesting that the agency amend its safety standards to require that vehicle manufacturers either offer consumers the option of longer seat belts on new vehicles or make seat belt extenders available for purchase. The purpose of the petition was to accommodate individuals who, because of their size, cannot use the seat belts in the vehicle of their choice. The agency granted the petition on February 28, 2001 and began to gather data on the availability of longer belts and to estimate the underserved population. In August 2002, the agency received a second petition for rulemaking requesting the same amendments.
          Based on its analysis of available data, NHTSA is terminating rulemaking on the April 2000 petition, and is denying the August 2002 petition for rulemaking.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For non-legal issues, you may contact Sanjay Patel, Office of Crashworthiness Standards. Telephone: (202) 366-4583, Facsimile: (202) 366-4329.
          For legal issues, you may contact Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief Counsel. Telephone: (202) 366-5263, Facsimile: (202) 366-3820.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background

        On April 18, 2000, Ms. Elizabeth Fisher petitioned the agency to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, to require vehicle manufacturers to provide seat belts that fit all passengers (Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7580-01). Ms. Fisher's petition stated that the existing provisions of FMVSS No. 209 only require belts to fit adult males weighing up to 97.5 kg (215 lbs.) and requested that NHTSA initiate a rulemaking action to require vehicle manufacturers to provide a means for any passenger who fits inside the vehicle to be able to fasten the seat belt. The petition suggested that this could be accomplished either by requiring manufacturers to make longer seat belts available as a vehicle option or by requiring that all vehicle manufacturers make seat belt extenders available to those who wish to purchase them.
        FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, and FMVSS No. 209 require that seat belt assemblies shall be capable of adjustment to fit occupants up to the size of the 95th percentile male, as defined by these standards. These standards define the mass of the 95th percentile male as 97.5 kg (215 lbs.). However, Ms. Fisher, using Body Mass Index (BMI) data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) of the National Center for Health Statistics, argued that more than 22 percent of the U.S. adult population is larger than a person who is 1.83 meter (6 ft) tall and weighs 97.5 kg (215 lbs.).1
           She believes that belts that just meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 209 would not accommodate these larger Americans.

            1 As discussed below, NHTSA does not agree that BMI is the appropriate measure for determining dimensions for seat belt fit.

        The agency granted the petition on February 28, 2001, and began to gather data on the availability of longer belts and on the size of the population who cannot currently buckle up. The result of this effort is contained in a NHTSA Technical Report 2
           that is available in the Docket for this notice. Another research report upon which we relied in making the decision to terminate rulemaking is “FMVSS 208 Belt Fit Evaluation, Possible Modification to Accommodate Larger People,” Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC), 1988. It is also available in the Docket for this notice.

            2 “Accommodation of Larger Occupants in Current Seat Belt Assemblies,” NHTSA Technical Report, July 2002.

        On August 19, 2002, the agency received a second petition for rulemaking on this issue from Mr. Jay Levy. Mr. Levy petitioned for the same amendments to FMVSS No. 209 as those cited in Ms. Fisher's petition. Mr. Levy's petition duplicated the exact arguments stated in Ms. Fisher's petition and did not provide any new information.
        II. Reasons for Termination
        Both Ms. Fisher's and Mr. Levy's petitions contend that if a person can physically “fit” in a vehicle, the person should also be able to fasten his or her seat belt. However, in establishing minimum performance requirements for seat belts, including the size of these belts, the agency cannot base the applicability of those requirements on such an imprecise guideline. It would be difficult for the agency or vehicle manufacturers to determine what size person can “fit” in each particular vehicle. It would also be difficult, near the outer limits of known dimensions for the vehicle using population, to determine how much longer seat belts would have to be. In order for the agency to develop an objective and reasonable regulation, we would have to know or estimate the dimensions of the largest vehicle users. Therefore, the agency went about determining what would be required to formulate requirements to serve the population that the petitioner believes is not currently served.
        In determining the required seat belt length for a particular size person, the most critical measurement is seated hip circumference. The seated hip circumference of an occupant determines the length the belt must travel to come across the occupant to the latch. The seated hip circumference of the 95th percentile adult male referred to in FMVSS No. 209 is 1199 mm (47 in.). The estimated seated hip circumference of the 99th percentile adult person (including male and female) in the U.S. population is 1509 mm (59 in.).3

            3 This dimension is estimated from the standing hip circumference measured in the NHANES III using a calculation described in the NHTSA Technical Report.

        From this seated hip circumference, the agency estimated, using geometric approximation, the additional belt length needed to go around the hips of occupants larger than the 95th percentile male. We determined that a person with the 99th percentile hip circumference from the NHANES III data would need 254 mm (10.0 in.) additional belt length above that needed for a FMVSS No. 209 95th percentile male. Adding an assumption that the 99th percentile person would be wearing bulky winter clothing (which the standard does not require), the agency concluded that the additional belt length needed increases to 348 mm (13.7 in.).
        Next, we estimated how many people cannot use their seat belts because the belts are too short to buckle. This involved examining three elements: (1) How many people have a hip circumference larger than the 95th percentile male, but not larger than that of the 99th percentile person from NHANES III, (2) how many vehicle make/models have standard belts that will not accommodate a person larger than the NHANES III 99th percentile male, and (3) how many of these vehicles do not have seat belt extenders or longer belts available.
        We estimated from the NHANES III data that the total U.S. population older than 13 years with a hip circumference between that of the 95th percentile male and that of the NHANES III 99th percentile person is 38,191,527 persons or 19 percent. The agency also estimated that 1,980,744 persons, or 1 percent of the population 13 years and older, are larger than the NHANES III 99th percentile person.
        Having determined the numbers of people likely to need additional belt length if all belts were no longer than the minimum length required by our standards, the agency then considered the question of how these larger people are currently being accommodated by vehicles now on the market. For many reasons, manufacturers provide additional belt length beyond the minimum required by NHTSA. In response to our inquiry, General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Honda provided extra belt length information about their respective model year 2003 vehicle make/models. The information provided by these four manufacturers covers 136 vehicle models.4
           These manufacturers each provide an average of 18 to 20 inches of extra belt length for the driver and right front passenger positions in their respective model year 2003 vehicles. This extra belt length is more than enough to accommodate our estimate of what is needed for a 99th percentile person, including any additional length to go around the torso of the person. A detailed summary of the additional belt length information by specific make/model from these manufacturers, and all others we contacted, is provided in the Docket for this notice. Based on the available data, it appears that most vehicles can fit all but the largest users with the original belts.

            4 NHTSA does not routinely collect information from manufacturers on belt length beyond what is required for the 95th percentile male, but beginning with model year 2003, the agency does collect information for consumers on whether or not longer belts are available with vehicle make/models in our “Buying a Safer Car” program. NHTSA intends to make this information available on our Web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/ by selecting the vehicle of interest and clicking on “safety features.”

        To determine the availability of extra measures beyond standard belts, NHTSA contacted major vehicle manufacturers, to determine if they provide seat belt extenders, optional longer seat belts, or have other means for accommodating large users. A summary of this information is provided in Table 1. From this information, NHTSA calculated that 87.5 percent of vehicle make/models available today offer consumers either seat belt extenders or longer belts as an option. The remaining 12.5 percent do not offer longer belts or extenders but may already offer belts longer than the minimum length required by FMVSS No. 209.

          Table 1.—Availability of Seat Belt Extender or Longer Belts

            Company
            Extenderavailable

            Length ofextender (in)

            Linkable?(2 or more)

            Optionallonger
              seat belts?

            Vehiclesales*
              (2000)

            Hyundai
            No

            244,391

            Jaguar
            No

            43,728

            Kia
            No

            No
            160,606

            Porsche
            No

            No
            22,410

            Subaru
            No

            No
            172,216

            Honda, Acura
            No

            No
            1,158,860

            Volkswagen, Audi
            No
            No

            435,851

            Subtotal—NO

            2,238,062

            Land Rover
            No

            Yes
            27,148

            BMW
            No

            Yes
            189,423

            Mercedes Benz
            No

            Yes, case-by-case
            205,614

            Chrysler
            Yes
            6, 8
            Yes

            2,522,695

            Mazda
            Yes
            8, 9, 12

            255,526

            Toyota, Lexus
            Yes
            6, 9, 12, 15, 18

            1,619,206

            Volvo
            Yes

            123,178

            GM
            Yes
            9, 15
            No
            Cadillac Catera, 12″ only
            4,883,040

            Ford
            Yes
            8
            Yes
            No
            4,010,148

            Nissan, Infinity
            Yes
            8
            Yes
            No
            752,088

            Isuzu
            Yes
            6, 9, 12, 15, 18
            Yes
            No
            98,066

            Saab
            Yes
            6

            No
            39,479

            Mitsubishi
            Yes
            6-7
            Yes
            No
            314,417

            Suzuki
            Yes
            9, 15
            Yes
            No
            60,845

            Subtotal of vehicles with oversize provisions

            15,100,873

            Total

            17,338,935

          * The vehicle manufacturers identified the models for which they offer belt extenders or extra webbing. The vehicle sales data from Automotive News were used to quantify the number of vehicles in the fleet.

        Given that many vehicles have belts long enough to fit almost all users and that optional longer belts or seat belt extenders are available for 87.5 percent of the fleet, the agency believes that a requirement to increase the belt length in all vehicles is unnecessary. NHTSA's analysis indicates that for almost all of these large individuals, there are few practical obstacles to obtaining that benefit, although they may find it more difficult to do so in some vehicles when compared to others.
        Another factor in our decision is a concern that requiring manufacturers to provide either longer belts or belt extenders may have negative safety consequences. In the case of longer belts, the previously mentioned 1988 VRTC report described sled tests conducted with up to 254 mm (10 in.) of extra webbing in the restraint system. All tests were run at a 48 km/h (30 mph) change in velocity using a 50th percentile Hybrid III dummy in the front passenger seating position of a 1982 Chevrolet Celebrity. The amount of belt webbing spool-out increased from 41 mm to 76 mm (1.6 to 3.0 in.) with the increased belt length. Peak head, chest, and pelvic accelerations showed very little change with increased belt length. However, Head Injury Criterion did show an increase of about 12 percent. The greatest change appeared to be an increase of 17 percent in the neck flexion moment. The results of the sled tests also indicated an increase in dummy excursion relative to the vehicle with increasing belt length. The maximum resultant excursion of the head varied from the baseline by 76 mm (3 in.). A linear regression through the data showed a 26 mm (1.02 in.) increase in resultant head excursion for each additional 100 mm (3.98 in.) of belt length. Thus, an addition of 254 mm (10 in.) in belt length translates to 65 mm (2.6 in.) greater head excursion than the baseline.
        The results of the VRTC study were obtained from the front passenger seat of a single vehicle without an air bag or seat belt pretensioner. Since belt webbing properties have not changed substantively since the 1980s, these estimates would appear to be reasonable for current belt systems with added webbing on the retractor. Seat belt pretensioners may prevent extra belt spool-out associated with longer belts. However, where pretensioners are not used, increased excursion values due to longer belts may significantly increase the risk of injury due to contact with the vehicle interior.
        Belts may also be made longer by the use of belt extenders. Belt extenders, which would only be used by persons needing additional webbing length, would avoid some of the risks of increased spool-out and excursion associated with longer belts. However, as described in the NHTSA Technical Report, proper fit is necessary when using belt extenders. If the location of the extender places the buckle a distance of no more than 152 mm (6 in.) from the occupant's vertical center-line, the shoulder belt will not provide proper torso restraint and may pull the lap belt up onto the abdomen during a frontal impact, possibly leading to greater excursion and/or internal injury. The risks of belt extenders would be accentuated where the extender is not properly sized for the user or where a person of more average size inadvertently used a belt with an extender attached.
        III. Options for Larger Persons

        NHTSA's decision to terminate this rulemaking does not foreclose opportunities for larger persons to use seat belts that fit. Both vehicles and vehicle occupants are found in a variety of shapes and sizes. A given vehicle may not be able to accommodate all persons. For reasons other than girth, a vehicle may be unsuitable for some users. For example, very tall persons may need a vehicle with a high roof to afford sufficient visibility and comfort. Particularly short statured persons may need to avoid purchasing vehicles whose design places them in close proximity to the driver's air bag.
        Vehicle buyers should take care to be sure that the vehicle they choose is suitable for their needs, including having belts that fit. If the original belts in a vehicle do not fit, it may be possible to obtain longer belts or belt extenders from the vehicle manufacturer. Vehicles with optional longer belts are available as listed in Table 1. Although dealers may not always be aware that longer optional belts or belt extenders are available, vehicle purchasers can and should insist that dealers check with the manufacturer. If available, the purchaser should make their inclusion in the vehicle a condition of the sale.
        In those instances in which longer belts or belt extenders are needed and are not available from the vehicle manufacturer, there are means available for modifying the vehicle to accommodate the physical needs of a particular buyer. One option is to purchase belt extenders from an aftermarket supplier or to have belt extenders made. Also, some businesses that modify vehicles to accommodate people with disabilities will modify seat belts.
        Another alternative is to have more extensive modifications made on the vehicle itself.5
           Seat positioning can also influence the seat belt fit. For vehicles with at least one end of the belt anchored to the vehicle and not to the seat, an additional 51 mm (2 in.) to 76 mm (3 in.) in belt length is gained for every 25 mm (inch) of rearward seat movement. If a seat position is found that allows the seat belt to fit, but causes the pedals to be out of reach, adjustable pedals may be available as optional equipment. Alternatively, pedal extenders can be obtained.

            5 Vehicles are often modified for people with disabilities. NHTSA is not suggesting that large individuals are disabled. However, modifiers are experienced at fitting vehicles to the unique physical characteristics of certain users. The process is described in Adapting Motor Vehicles for People with Disabilities, DOT HS 809 014, and also available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/adaptive/brochure/index.html.

        The agency believes that additional regulatory requirements are not needed to enable larger size persons to find a vehicle that will accommodate their needs and allow them to buckle up. Publication of information on the availability of longer belts as standard equipment 6
           and longer belts or belt extenders as options, should allow larger persons to choose models from vehicle manufacturers who are responsive to their needs. Finally, if an individual cannot find a vehicle fitting their needs with a belt that fits, or an available OEM belt extender, a vehicle modifier may be able to fashion a suitable belt extender, produce and install a longer belt, or move the original seat to provide additional belt length.

            6 NHTSA currently provide information about the availability of seat belt extenders on our Web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/.

        IV. Conclusion
        In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's review of the petitions for rulemaking. In view of the considerations discussed above, the agency has concluded that there is no reasonable possibility that the amendments requested by the petitioners would be issued at the conclusion of the rulemaking proceeding. Accordingly, rulemaking on the petition from Ms. Fisher is terminated, and the petition for rulemaking submitted by Mr. Levy is denied.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

          Issued on: January 13, 2003.
          Stephen R. Kratzke,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 03-1134 Filed 1-16-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Parts 2 and 25
        [IB Docket No. 02-364; FCC No. 04-134]
        Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          This document solicits comment on redistributing additional spectrum in the 1.6 GHz band (L-band or Big LEO band). Specifically, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) initiated the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in this proceeding to determine whether mobile-satellite service (MSS) operators using different technologies could share additional spectrum in the L-band.

          DATES:
          Comments are due September 8, 2004, and reply comments are due September 23, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-B204, Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jennifer Gorny, Howard Griboff, or James Ball, Policy Division, International Bureau, (202) 418-1460.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's FNPRM in IB Docket No. 02-364, FCC No. 04-134, adopted June 10, 2004, and released on July 16, 2004. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal reference room hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document is also available for download over the Internet at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ attachmatch/FCC-04-134A1.doc. The complete text may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, in person at 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, via telephone at (202) 488-5300, via facsimile at (202) 488-5563, or via e-mail at Commission@bcpiweb.com.

        Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, “get form <your e-mail address>.” A sample form and directions will be sent in reply. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. The Commission's contractor, Natek, Inc., 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. 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. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
        Summary of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
        On July 16, 2004, the Commission released a Report and Order, Fourth Report and Order and FNPRM in this proceeding. The Report and Order and Fourth Report and Order relating to this proceeding is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. The FNPRM seeks comment on proposals for reassigning or reallocating a portion of spectrum in the Big LEO L-band. In the attached Report and Order, we adopt provisions that permit time division multiple access (TDMA) and code division multiple access (CDMA) MSS operators to share 3.1 megahertz of spectrum at 1618.25-1621.35 MHz, based on the record before us. In adopting these provisions, we have approved a sharing plan that provides the opportunity for the TDMA MSS operator to have greater capacity to serve its customers' needs, while at the same time not causing significant harm to the CDMA MSS operator's ability to serve its current and future customers. We recognize, however, that the current TDMA MSS system is capable of operating on frequencies as low as 1616 MHz, and thus an opportunity for further sharing between the TDMA and CDMA MSS operators could exist at 1616-1618.25 MHz. We issue this FNPRM in IB Docket No. 02-364, to explore whether and how sharing an additional 2.25 MHz in the L-band may be possible.
        In particular, parties should discuss how to ensure that shared use of this band does not adversely impact the ability of both CDMA and TDMA MSS operators to provide a wide-range of services, including aviation services. Second, we seek comment on whether and how sharing of this spectrum by TDMA and CDMA MSS operators would impact CDMA MSS operators' ability to provide viable ancillary terrestrial component services. Further, we seek comment on how any additional sharing requirements might impact the ability of Globalstar, as the CDMA MSS operator, to provide global communications. For example, Globalstar's French license starts at 1615 MHz, and Globalstar's Italian and Russian licenses are limited to frequencies above 1616 MHz.
        We also seek comment on what benefits might be gained by permitting additional sharing and how any technical limitations should be weighed in comparison against these benefits. We are particularly interested in any alternative sharing approaches that take into account any technical limitations and that would permit us to make the most efficient use of this spectrum.
        Procedural Issues
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines “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). The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Satellite Telecommunications, which consists of all such companies having $12.5 million or less in annual revenue.

        The Commission established the original Big LEO band plan in 1994 and has modified that plan in the attached Report and Order. In that Report and Order, the Commission allows the TDMA and CDMA MSS operators to share 3.1 megahertz in the L-band at 1618.25-1621.35 MHz. The spectrum sharing plan in the L-band should promote the efficient use of spectrum by increasing the number of licensees that use the spectrum. We recognize, however, that Iridium, the current TDMA MSS operator, is capable of operating in spectrum as far down as 1616 MHz. Thus, the purpose of the attached FNPRM is to initiate and conduct a review of whether it would be feasible for the TDMA and CDMA MSS operators to share an additional 2.25 megahertz of spectrum at 1616-1618.25 MHz. This proposed band plan change is designed to further improve spectral efficiency within the L-band.
        The proposal in the FNPRM impacts only Big LEO MSS licensees and currently, only two MSS licensees are operating in Big LEO spectrum. We do not consider these entities to be small businesses because small businesses would not likely be able to satisfy the capital requirements for launching and operating these satellite systems. Thus, the change we propose will not have a substantial economic impact on small entities.

        The Commission therefore certifies, pursuant to the RFA, that the proposal in this FNPRM, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If commenters believe that the proposals discussed in the FNPRM require additional RFA analysis, they should include a discussion of these issues in their comments and additionally label them as RFA comments. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including a copy of this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. In addition, a copy of the FNPRM and this initial certification will be published in the Federal Register.

        Ordering Clauses

        Pursuant to sections 4(i), 7, 302(a), 303(c), 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157, 302(a), 303(c), 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the FNPRM is adopted.

        The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this FNPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 04-18147 Filed 8-6-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
        Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
        27 CFR Part 9
        [Notice No. 901]
        RIN 1512-AA07
        Proposal To Establish a River Junction Viticultural Area (98R-192P)

          AGENCY:
          Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), Department of the Treasury.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is considering the establishment of a viticultural area located in southern San Joaquin County, California, to be known as “River Junction.” This proposed viticultural area is the result of a petition filed by Mr. Ronald W. McManis. ATF believes that the establishment of viticultural areas and the subsequent use of viticultural area names as appellations of origin in wine labeling and advertising allow wineries to designate the specific areas where the grapes used to make the wine were grown and enable consumers to better identify the wines they purchase.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by Ocotber 10, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:

          Send comments to: Chief, Regulations Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, P.O. Box 50221, Washington, DC 20091-0221; ATTN: Notice No. 901. For additional information on submitting comments, see the Public Participation section.
          A copy of the petition, the proposed regulations, the appropriate maps, and any written comments in response to this notice of proposed rulemaking will be available for public inspection during normal business hours at: ATF Reference Library, Office of Liaison and Public Information, Room 6480, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20226.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Tim DeVanney, Regulations Division, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20226; Telephone (202) 927-8196.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        On August 23, 1978, ATF published Treasury Decision ATF-53 (43 FR 37672, 54624) revising regulations in 27 CFR part 4. These regulations allow the establishment of definite American viticultural areas. The regulations also allow the name of an approved viticultural area to be used as an appellation of origin in the labeling and advertising of wine.
        On October 2, 1979, ATF published Treasury Decision ATF-60 (44 FR 56692), which added a new part 9 to 27 CFR, providing for the listing of approved American viticultural areas. Section 4.25a(e)(1), Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, defines an American viticultural area as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries of which have been delineated in subpart C of part 9. Section 4.25a(e)(2) outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area. Any interested person may petition ATF to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. The petition should include:
        (a) Evidence that the name of the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known as referring to the area specified in the petition;
        (b) Historical or current evidence that the boundaries of the viticultural area are as specified in the petition;
        (c) Evidence relating to the geographical features (climate, soil, elevation, physical features, etc.) which distinguish the viticultural features of the proposed area from surrounding areas;
        (d) A description of the specific boundaries of the viticultural area, based on features which can be found on United States Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) maps of the largest applicable scale; and
        (e) A copy of the appropriate U.S.G.S. map(s) with the boundaries prominently marked.
        Petition
        ATF has received a petition from Mr. Ronald W. McManis, proposing to establish a new viticultural area in southern San Joaquin County, California, to be known as “River Junction.” The proposed viticultural area is located at the western edge of San Joaquin Valley (also known as the Central Valley) and the southernmost edge of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. It contains approximately 1,300 contiguous acres, of which 740 are currently planted to vineyards. Present agricultural use of the area is primarily 700 acres of Chardonnay grapes. An additional 40 acres are planted to Cabernet Sauvignon grapes.
        Evidence That the Name River Junction Is Locally or Nationally Known

        According to the petitioner, the origin of the name, “River Junction,” refers to the junction of the Stanislaus River with the San Joaquin River. Mr. McManis states, “The name is in prominent use within the proposed viticultural area, undoubtedly because of the significant prehistoric, historic, and ongoing influence of the rivers' confluence on the immediate area.” The petitioner owns a vineyard in the proposed viticultural area. The property, purchased in the early 1990's, was previously known as “River Junction Vineyards.” The petitioner submitted a vineyard block map of his ranch which shows the historical ownership of the vineyards by the designation “R” for “River Junction Vineyards.” These vineyards are located within the proposed viticultural area.
        The name “River Junction” is also used for River Junction Reclamation District No. 2064, a State of California Special District dating from at least 1925. River Junction Reclamation District includes Bret Harte Gardens subdivision, filed October 11, 1922. Since this subdivision assumes reclamation within the District, it seems likely that “River Junction,” as a District name, dates at least to 1922. The name is also used for River Junction Farms subdivision no. 2 within the River Junction Reclamation District.
        Historical or Current Evidence That the Boundaries of the Proposed Viticultural Area Are Specified in the Petition
        The petitioner states that the proposed viticultural area is bounded on the north by an old river terrace shelf delineated by Division Road; on the northwest by a drainage boundary enhanced and delineated by Airport Way; on the west and south by the San Joaquin River; and on the south and east by the Stanislaus River.
        According to the petitioner, following the Federal Swampland Act of 1850, reclamation of wetlands was begun. The petitioner states that a portion of the proposed area was designated as a State Reclamation District, River Junction Reclamation District No. 2064, and that the proposed River Junction viticultural area “* * * occupies the southern one-third of the California State Reclamation District No. 2064 and is the same as River Junction Farms Subdivision No. 2, except that it does not include 195 acres at the northeast corner of that subdivision.”
        As indicated, the petitioner owns a vineyard in the proposed viticultural area. Most of the property, purchased in the early 1990's, was previously known as River Junction Vineyards and is located within the northwest and southwest boundaries of the proposed viticultural area, west of Two Rivers Road.
        Evidence Relating to the Geographical Features
        Topography
        The petitioner has supplied the following topographical evidence to show that the proposed area is distinct from surrounding areas:
        (a) South, east and west boundaries. The proposed River Junction viticultural area is bounded on the west by relatively steep slopes and the San Joaquin River, and is bounded on the south and east by gentle, nearly flat topography and the Stanislaus River. The proposed area is locally unique in terms of topography: Its gentle, persistent southwest slope and higher boundaries form a shallow, slightly tilted bowl about 18 to 25 feet in elevation at the center. Original natural boundaries to the west, south and east have been exaggerated by engineered, permanent levees that range from about 35 to 42 feet in elevation. Geographical analyses, provided by the petitioner, show a transect through the proposed River Junction viticultural area and illustrate the elevation differences that distinguish it.
        (b) Northern boundary. The northern boundary of the proposed area is an abrupt, natural elevation change at about the 29 foot contour, delineated by Division Road. Physical evidence indicates that Division Road was placed on the upper side of a pre-existing natural river terrace boundary. The topographic change marked by the road exactly follows geologic and soil type boundaries extending from the east to the center of section 7 on the Ripon, CA quadrangle map T3S/R7E and westward to Airport Way. The natural extension of “Red Bridge Slough” to the northwest is further evidence that this boundary is a natural river terrace.
        (c) Northwest boundary. The northwest boundary of the proposed River Junction viticultural area is delineated by Airport Way, a subtle natural high that is exaggerated by the raised roadbed. Elevation ranges from about 29 to 35 feet. Available geologic and historic evidence strongly supports the conclusion that, like Division Road, Airport Way follows a natural topographic high. The U.S.G.S. maps submitted by the petitioner show two separate sloughs draining from the Airport Way/Division Road intersection. An unnamed slough on the U.S.G.S. Ripon, CA quadrangle map drains southeast through the proposed River Junction viticultural area, while the other slough, called “Red Bridge Slough” on the U.S.G.S. Vernalis, CA quadrangle map, flows in the opposite direction. A 1925 Reclamation District Map (“southern part”) provided by the petitioner also shows the two sloughs. These two sloughs coincide with occurrences of Merritt soils, which fan out to the northwest and southeast of the Airport Way/Division Road intersection. This provides further evidence that the intersection of Airport Way and Division Road has historically sat on naturally higher topography from which the soils accumulated downhill in two directions.
        Soil
        The petitioner provided the following evidence regarding the soil composition of the proposed River Junction viticultural area:
        (a) Formation and distribution of local soils. The proposed River Junction viticultural area contains soils that are generally grouped as alluvial, and which formed on the geologic parent material of recent river channel deposits that are exposed in, and partly define, the proposed area. Soils that formed on the stream channel deposits and derived from these deposits, are similar to one another in nature, and are characteristic of the parent sedimentary deposits. These soils are identified as “recent alluvial floodplains soils” and “delta and floodplains soils” in the U.S. Department of Agriculture soils reports for San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties.
        Where the Stanislaus River joins the San Joaquin River, bounding topography is steeper to the west and flatter to the east, thus restricting the westward limits of soils. West of the San Joaquin River, northeast facing slopes limit alluvial soils to an area only about 1/2 mile or less in width. These soils, primarily Merritt-Columbia-Dello series and Dospalos-Bolfar complex, are bounded on the west by basin soils of the Willows-Pescadero series and terrace soils of the Capay series. Conversely, east of the San Joaquin River, flatter topography has allowed alluvial soils to accumulate to a width of 1 to 11/2 miles.
        South of the Stanislaus River there are mostly Columbia-Temple series soils, bounded by basin soils of the Waukena-Fresno association, and alluvial fan soils of the Modesto-Chualar group that extend eastward.

        North of the Stanislaus River, elevation is slightly higher than to the south, and topography is nearly flat but includes subtle northwest-facing and more strongly expressed southwest-facing slopes. Here the alluvial soils reach 11/2 miles in width and are composed of Merritt-Grangeville-Columbia series with lesser amounts of Dello and Egbert soils. They are bounded to the east by terrace soil groups, primarily of the Delhi-Veritas-Tinnin series.
        (b) Unique soil composition of proposed area. The proposed River Junction viticultural area is a mix of soils that differs from the surrounding areas. Among the total soils, nearly one-half are sandy types, and about one-fourth of the total is fine sandy loam of the Grangeville series. Soil types include about 25 percent Grangeville fine sandy loam; about 50 percent Merritt silty clay loam; nearly 25 percent Columbia fine sandy loams; and less than 1 percent Veritas silty clay loam. None of the surrounding areas has nearly as high a ratio between sandy loam to clay loam soils. Grangeville sandy loam is unusual in this part of the southern delta. The single other local occurrence of Grangeville sandy loam soil is west of the San Joaquin River, 11/2 miles northwest, and is less than 11 acres in area.
        The petitioner states that Grangeville and Columbia series are formed in alluviums derived from granitic rock sources and the Merritt series is formed in alluviums from mixed rock sources. The Grangeville, Merritt, and Columbia series of soils are characterized as “prime farmland.” These soils are all very deep, less well drained, and have moderate to high water capacity. Permeability ranges from moderately slow in the Merritt series to rapid in the Columbia and Grangeville series. They occupy nearly flat areas at low elevation and are occasionally flooded. They are exceedingly fertile soils that are capable of supporting wine grapes, almonds, tomatoes, sugar beets, wheat and other crops. Grapes have been grown on Columbia soils, but apparently, in San Joaquin County at least, have not been previously grown on bottomlands with Grangeville and Merritt.
        Soil samples collected on-site at the proposed viticultural area during October 1997 include one sample from each of the dominant units. According to the petitioner, brief low-power microscopic analysis from each of these samples indicated similar texture and composition. All samples contained abundant angular quartz grains and mica flakes, indicating granitic origin. These soils are mineralogically young and should be expected to be very high in available minerals.
        (c) Comparisons with surrounding areas. The petitioner states that the proposed River Junction viticultural area is clearly distinct from all potentially comparable adjacent local tracts, including the Red Bridge Slough, Walthall Slough, and Northeast areas.
        As would be expected of deposits formed along rivers, downstream alluvial soils have a wider distribution than does their parent alluvial substrate, due to stream transport, while upstream the derived soils are less widely distributed than the underlying stream channel deposits.
        In the proposed River Junction viticultural area, derived alluvial soils strictly overlap but do not extend beyond their parent recent river deposits. The strict relationship between the channel deposits and their derived soils in the proposed area results in a strikingly distinct northern boundary.
        The location of these soil changes corresponds to the location of a strongly expressed terrace (distinct change in elevation) which angles northwest from the Stanislaus River near its mouth. Its upper side is nearly exactly followed by Division Road. This terrace probably marks the highest flood stage in historically recent times and suggests that soils in the area are probably derived from Stanislaus River alluvium. This would explain the distinctively high granitic content of these soils as compared with the surrounding area.
        The petitioner states that, in the Red Bridge Slough area (north of the proposed area's boundary following Airport Way), overlap of alluvial soils with parent channel deposits is less exact and the soils are restricted to the west of the Slough. This tract has a slight northwest slope and, based on field observation, is wetter than the proposed River Junction viticultural area. It has no strongly expressed northern or eastern boundaries, and thus would have less temperature extremes than the proposed area due to the absence of topographic enclosure.
        The Red Bridge Slough area also has different soils than the proposed River Junction viticultural area. It contains about 35 percent Columbia loam. At its center it includes 10 percent Egbert silty clay loam. No Grangeville sands are present. As indicated above, the tract is part of River Junction Reclamation District No. 2064, recorded as River Junction Farms subdivision no. 3 in 1925. Durham Ferry State Recreation Area occupies about 20 percent of the tract, and the remaining part is essentially flat at 20-25 feet elevation.
        Southeast of Walthall Slough, located north of the Red Bridge Slough area, the relationship between channel deposits and derived soils is obscure. Here the soils occupy a larger expanse than do the underlying stream deposits. They include nearly 40 percent Columbia soils and about 20 percent Dello clay loam. No Grangeville sands are present. Topographically, this area is essentially flat to slightly northwest sloping. In terms of soils and the microclimate that would be inferred from the flat and open topography, it is completely different from the proposed viticultural area.
        To the northeast, recent river alluvium still underlies the soils but soils in this area include about 20 percent Veritas and Manteca series. No Grangeville sands are present. Otherwise, the Merritt and Columbia soils percentages are comparable to the proposed River Junction viticultural area. However, this area is higher and flatter, averaging about 30-35 feet elevation, and has no distinct topographic boundaries. Therefore, it undoubtedly has less temperature extremes than the proposed viticultural area. This area comprises about 195 acres of the original River Junction Farms subdivision no. 2.
        Climate
        The proposed River Junction viticultural area is shown on a Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta map (“Base Map Source—Department of Water Resources”) submitted by the petitioner. The proposed viticultural area appears within the boundaries of the aforementioned delta, at the southeasternmost tip. The petitioner claims that the southernmost edge of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is more modified by inland weather patterns than other parts of the Delta. This part of the Delta experiences more extreme high and low temperatures, although still receiving maritime influence. The proposed River Junction viticultural area is at the boundary between coastal and continental weather influence. It is subject to little rainfall (10 to 11 inches per year) and at its southernmost part lies within the rain shadow of the coast ranges to the west. This is the driest part of the Delta and can be considered as arid to semiarid with coastal influence.

        The petitioner states that, as would be expected of a topographical depression, the local microclimate of the proposed River Junction viticultural area is singular. The proposed viticultural area is distinctively cooler than the immediate surrounding area (Modesto, Stockton, Tracy Carbona, Tracy Pumping Plant, and Rivercrest Vineyards). Temperature data from 1995 and 1996 were recorded by a weather station located near the center of the proposed River Junction viticultural area, at Rivercrest Vineyards. The monthly-averaged data, provided by the petitioner, show that minimum temperatures are consistently slightly cooler than elsewhere in the region, especially in summer. Average high temperatures are similar to Antioch and Lodi, which are significantly closer to the Suisun and San Francisco Bays and would be expected to experience more coastal cooling. According to the petitioner, average low temperatures are generally the coolest among Tracy Carbona and Tracy Pumping Plant. Significantly, minimum August temperatures are 2 to 5 degrees cooler than Tracy, Stockton, and Modesto.
        Grapes grown here are also subject to seasonally later frosts as pointed out by an unpublished agricultural analysis by Cook and Lider dated 1972, submitted by the petitioner.
        Public Participation—Written Comments
        ATF requests comments from all interested persons. ATF specifically requests comments on the clarity of the proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand. All comments received on or before the closing date will be carefully considered.
        Comments received after that date will be given the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closing date.
        ATF will not recognize any material in comments as confidential. Comments may be disclosed to the public. Any material that a respondent considers to be confidential or inappropriate for disclosure to the public should not be included in the comment. The name of any person submitting a comment is not exempt from disclosure.
        Comments may be submitted by facsimile transmission to (202) 927-8525, provided the comments: (1) Are legible; (2) reference this notice number; (3) are 81/2″ × 11″ in size; (4) contain a legible written signature; and (4) are three pages or less in length. Comments sent by FAX in excess of three pages will not be accepted. Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be acknowledged. Facsimile transmitted comments will be treated as originals.

        Comments may be submitted by e-mail by sending the comments to: nprm@atfhq.atf.treas.gov. E-mail comments must: (1) Contain your name, mailing address, and e-mail address; (2) reference this notice number (in the heading/subject line); (3) appear legible when printed on not more than three pages 81/2″ × 11″ in size. Receipt of e-mail will not be acknowledged. E-mail comments will be treated as originals.

        E-mail comments may also be submitted using the comment form provided with the online copy of the proposed rule on the ATF Internet web site at: http://www.atf.treas.gov/core/alcohol/rules/rules.htm.

        Executive Order 12866
        It has been determined that this proposed regulation is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this proposal is not subject to the analysis required by this Executive Order.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        It is hereby certified that this proposed regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The establishment of a viticultural area is neither an endorsement nor approval by ATF of the quality of wine produced in the area, but rather an identification of an area that is distinct from surrounding areas. ATF believes that the establishment of viticultural areas merely allows wineries to more accurately describe the origin of their wines to consumers, and helps consumers identify the wines they purchase. Thus, any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the result of the proprietor's own efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from the region.
        Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required because the proposal, if promulgated as a final rule, is not expected (1) to have significant secondary, or incidental effects on a substantial number of small entities; or (2) to impose, or otherwise cause a significant increase in the reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance burdens on a substantial number of small entities.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)) and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this notice of proposed rulemaking because no requirement to collect information is proposed.
        Drafting Information
        The principal author of this document is Tim DeVanney, Regulations Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

          List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
          Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection, Viticultural areas, Wine.

        Authority and Issuance
        Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 9, American Viticultural Areas, is amended as follows:

          PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS

            Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            27 U.S.C. 205.

              Par. 2. Part 9 is amended by adding § 9.164 to subpart C as follows:

            § 9.164
            River Junction.
            (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “River Junction.”
            (b) Approved maps. The appropriate maps for determining the boundaries of the River Junction viticultural area are the following two 1:24,000 Scale U.S.G.S. topographical maps. They are titled:
            (1) Ripon, CA 1969, photorevised 1980;
            (2) Vernalis, CA 1969, photorevised 1980;
            (c) Boundaries. The River Junction viticultural area is located in southern San Joaquin County, California. The boundaries are as follows:
            (1) Beginning on the Vernalis, CA quadrangle map at the intersection of the secondary highway Airport Way and the San Joaquin River levee, near Benchmark 35 in T3S/R6E;
            (2) Then in a southeasterly direction, follow the levee along the San Joaquin River onto the Ripon, CA quadrangle map;
            (3) Then in a northerly direction around Sturgeon Bend in section 18 T3S/R7E;
            (4) Then continuing in a generally southeasterly, then northeasterly direction along the levee adjoining the Stanislaus River through sections 19, 20 and 17 to the point where the levee intersects sections 17 and 8;
            (5) Then continuing in a northerly direction along the levee in section 8 for approximately 1,000 feet;
            (6) Then in a straight line in a northwesterly direction for approximately 100 feet to the intersection with Division Road;
            (7) Then in a southwesterly, then northwesterly direction along Division Road through sections 8, 17, 18 and 7 to the intersection with the secondary highway Airport Way;
            (8) Then in a southwesterly direction along Airport Way onto the Vernalis quadrangle map to the starting point at the intersection of Airport Way and the San Joaquin River levee T3S/R6E.

            Dated: July 21, 2000.
            Bradley A. Buckles,
            Director.

      [FR Doc. 00-20340 Filed 8-9-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4810-31-P