        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 578
        [Docket No. NHTSA-05-21161; Notice 1]
        RIN 2127-AJ62
        Civil Penalties

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document proposes to increase the maximum aggregate civil penalties for violations of statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA pertaining to odometer tampering and disclosure requirements and for vehicle theft protection violations. This action would be taken pursuant to the Federal Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, which requires us to review and, as warranted, adjust penalties based on inflation at least every four years.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposal are due July 25, 2005.

          Proposed effective date: 30 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
          • Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590.
          • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

            Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Request for Comments heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Kido, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, telephone (202) 366-5263, facsimile (202) 366-3820, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        In order to preserve the remedial impact of civil penalties and to foster compliance with the law, the Federal Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 2461 Notes, Pub. L. 101-410), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-134) (referred to collectively as the “Adjustment Act” or, in context, the “Act”), requires us and other Federal agencies to regularly adjust civil penalties for inflation. Under the Adjustment Act, following an initial adjustment that was capped by the Act, these agencies must make further adjustments, as warranted, to the amounts of penalties in statutes they administer at least once every four years.
        NHTSA's initial adjustment of civil penalties under the Adjustment Act was published on February 4, 1997. 62 FR 5167. At that time, we codified the adjustments in 49 CFR part 578, Civil Penalties. On July 14, 1999, we further adjusted certain penalties involving odometer requirements and disclosure, consumer information, motor vehicle safety, and bumper standards. 64 FR 37876.

        On August 7, 2001, we also adjusted certain penalty amounts pertaining to odometer requirements and disclosure and vehicle theft prevention. 66 FR 41149. In addition to increases in authorized penalties under the Adjustment Act, the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (“TREAD”) Act increased penalties under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as amended (sometimes referred to as the “Motor Vehicle Safety Act”). We codified those amendments on November 14, 2000. 65 FR 68108. Most recently, on September 28, 2004, we adjusted the maximum penalty amounts for a related series of violations involving the agency's vehicle safety, bumper standards, and consumer information provisions. 69 FR 57864.
        We have reviewed the civil penalty amounts authorized in part 578 and propose in this notice to adjust those penalties where warranted under the Adjustment Act. Those civil penalties that we are proposing to adjust address violations pertaining to odometer tampering and disclosure requirements and to vehicle theft protection provisions.
        Method of Calculation
        Under the Adjustment Act, we determine the inflation adjustment for each applicable civil penalty by increasing the maximum civil penalty amount per violation by a cost-of-living adjustment, and then applying a rounding factor. Section 5(b) of the Adjustment Act defines the “cost-of-living” adjustment as:
        The percentage (if any) for each civil monetary penalty by which—
        (1) The Consumer Price Index for the month of June of the calendar year preceding the adjustment exceeds
        (2) the Consumer Price Index for the month of June of the calendar year in which the amount of such civil monetary penalty was last set or adjusted pursuant to law.
        Since the proposed adjustment is intended to be effective before December 31, 2005, the “Consumer Price Index [CPI] for the month of June of the calendar year preceding the adjustment” would be the CPI for June 2004. This figure, based on the Adjustment Act's requirement of using the CPI “for all-urban consumers published by the Department of Labor” is 568.2.1
           The penalty amounts that NHTSA seeks to adjust based on the Act's requirements were last adjusted in 2001 for the odometer tampering and disclosure and vehicle theft protection provisions. The CPI figure for June 2001 is 533.3. Accordingly, the factor that we are using in calculating the proposed increases is 1.07 (568.2/533.3) for violations involving the odometer tampering and disclosure and vehicle theft protection provisions. Using 1.07 as the inflation factor, calculated increases under these adjustments are then subject to a specific rounding formula set forth in Section 5(a) of the Adjustment Act. 28 U.S.C. 2461, Notes. Under that formula:

            1 Individuals interested in deriving the CPI figures used by the agency may visit the Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index Home Page at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm. Scroll down to “Most Requested Statistics” and select the “All Urban Consumers (Current Series)” option, select the “U.S. ALL ITEMS 1967=100—CUUR0000AA0” box, and click on the “Retrieve Data” button.

        Any increase shall be rounded to the nearest
        (1) multiple of $10 in the case of penalties less than or equal to $100;
        (2) multiple of $100 in the case of penalties greater than $100 but less than or equal to $1,000;
        (3) multiple of $1,000 in the case of penalties greater than $1,000 but less than or equal to $10,000;
        (4) multiple of $5,000 in the case of penalties greater than $10,000 but less than or equal to $100,000;
        (5) multiple of $10,000 in the case of penalties greater than $100,000 but less than or equal to $200,000; and
        (6) multiple of $25,000 in the case of penalties greater than $200,000.
        Review of Civil Penalties Prescribed by Section 578.6
        Section 578.6 contains the civil penalties authorized for the statutes that we enforce. We have reviewed these penalties, applied the formula using the appropriate CPI figures, considered the nearest higher multiple specified in the rounding provisions, and tentatively concluded that only the penalties discussed below may be increased.
        Odometer Tampering and Disclosure, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 327 (49 CFR 578.6(f)(1))
        The maximum civil penalty for a related series of violations of 49 U.S.C. § 32709 is $120,000, as specified in 49 CFR 578.6(f)(1). Applying the appropriate inflation factor (1.07) to the calculation raises this figure to $128,400, an increase of $8,400. Under the rounding formula, any increase in a penalty's amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $10,000 in the case of penalties greater than $100,000. In this case, the increase would be $10,000. Accordingly, we propose that Section 578.6(f)(1) be amended to increase the maximum civil penalty to $130,000 for a related series of odometer tampering and disclosure violations. However, the maximum civil penalty for a single violation remains at $2,200 because the inflation-adjusted figure is not yet at a level to be increased. Similarly, the penalty amount prescribed in Section 578.6(f)(2) for a violation that involves the intent to defraud (the greater of three times actual damages or $2,000) remains the same.
        Vehicle Theft Protection, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 331 (Section 578.6(g)(1)-(2))
        Under 49 CFR 578.6(g)(1), the maximum civil penalty for a related series of violations of 49 U.S.C. 33114(a)(1)-(4) is $300,000. Applying the appropriate inflation factor (1.07) raises this figure to $321,000, which is an increase of $21,000. Under the formula, any increase in a penalty's amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $25,000 in the case of penalties greater than $200,000. In this instance, the rounding rules provide for an increase of $25,000. Accordingly, we propose that Section 578.6(g)(1) be amended to increase the maximum civil penalty to $325,000 for a related series of violations that pertain to NHTSA's vehicle theft protection provisions found at 49 U.S.C. 33114(a)(1)-(4).
        With regard to the maximum penalty for a single violation of 49 U.S.C. 33114(a)(5), as provided in 49 CFR 578.6(g)(2), applying the appropriate inflation factor (1.07) raises this amount to $128,400, an increase of $8,400. Using the rounding formula, which dictates rounding to the nearest $10,000 for penalty amounts greater than $100,000 but less than or equal to $200,000, the new adjusted amount changes to $130,000. Accordingly, we propose to amend the maximum civil penalty for a single daily violation of Section 578.6(g)(2) to $130,000.
        However, the maximum penalty for a single violation of 49 U.S.C. 33114(a)(1)-(4) remains at $1,100 because the inflation-adjusted figure is not yet at a level to be increased.
        Other Issues—Technical Correction
        Finally, the agency is proposing to amend the language in Section 578.6(g)(2) to achieve consistency within the text of the regulation. Specifically, the word “government” after “United States” will be capitalized to reflect that word's usage within other parts of Section 578.6.
        Effective Date

        The amendments would be effective 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The adjusted penalties would apply to violations occurring on and after the effective date.
        Request for Comments
        How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

        Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
        Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

        Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the beginning of this document, under ADDRESSES. You may also submit your comments electronically to the docket following the steps outlined under ADDRESSES.
        How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
        If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
        How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

        If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the following to the Chief Counsel (NCC-110) at the address given at the beginning of this document under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) A complete copy of the submission; (2) a redacted copy of the submission with the confidential information removed; and (3) either a second complete copy or those portions of the submission containing the material for which confidential treatment is claimed and any additional information that you deem important to the Chief Counsel's consideration of your confidentiality claim. A request for confidential treatment that complies with 49 CFR part 512 must accompany the complete submission provided to the Chief Counsel. For further information, submitters who plan to request confidential treatment for any portion of their submissions are advised to review 49 CFR part 512, particularly those sections relating to document submission requirements. Failure to adhere to the requirements of Part 512 may result in the release of confidential information to the public docket. In addition, you should submit two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given at the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES.
        Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

        We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice under DATES. In accordance with our policies, to the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after the specified comment closing date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing the proposed rule, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
        How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

        You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given near the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES.
        You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps:

        (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
        (2) On that page, click on “search.”
        (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-digit docket number shown at the heading of this document. Example: if the docket number were “NHTSA-2001-1234,” you would type “1234.”
        (4) After typing the docket number, click on “search.”
        (5) The next page contains docket summary information for the docket you selected. Click on the comments you wish to see.
        You may download the comments. The comments are imaged documents, in either TIFF or PDF format. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for new material.
        Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
        Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This action is limited to the proposed adoption of adjustments of civil penalties under statutes that the agency enforces, and has been determined to be not “significant” under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        We have also considered the impacts of this notice under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that a final rule based on this proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following provides the factual basis for this certification under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The proposed amendments almost entirely potentially affect manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.
        The Small Business Administration's regulations define a small business in part as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” 13 CFR 121.105(a). SBA's size standards were previously organized according to Standard Industrial Classification (“SIC”) Codes. SIC Code 336211 “Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing” applied a small business size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer. SBA now uses size standards based on the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”), Subsector 336—Transportation Equipment Manufacturing, which provides a small business size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer for automobile manufacturing businesses. Other motor vehicle-related industries have lower size requirements that range between 500 and 750 employees.2

            2 For example, according to the new SBA coding system, businesses that manufacture truck trailers, travel trailers/campers, carburetors, pistons, piston rings, valves, vehicular lighting equipment, motor vehicle seating/interior trim, and motor vehicle stamping qualify as small businesses if they employ 500 or fewer employees. Similarly, businesses that manufacture gasoline engines, engine parts, electrical and electronic equipment (non-vehicle lighting), motor vehicle steering/suspension components (excluding springs), motor vehicle brake systems, transmissions/power train parts, motor vehicle air-conditioning, and all other motor vehicle parts qualify as small businesses if they employ 750 or fewer employees. See http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable.pdf for further details.

        Many small businesses are subject to the penalty provisions of 49 U.S.C. Chapters 327 (odometer disclosure and tampering) or 331 (vehicle theft protection) and therefore may be affected by the adjustments that this NPRM proposes to make. For example, based on comprehensive reporting pursuant to the early warning reporting (EWR) rule under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 CFR Part 579, of the more than 60 light vehicle manufacturers reporting, over half are small businesses. Additionally, many of the roughly 80 manufacturers of medium-heavy medium heavy vehicles and buses, the more than 200 trailer manufacturers, and the approximately 12 motorcycle manufacturers providing comprehensive EWR reports are small businesses. Also, there are other, relatively low production light vehicle manufacturers that are not subject to comprehensive EWR reporting. There are approximately 15 manufacturers of child restraints and over 20 tire manufacturers that are reporting pursuant to the EWR rule. Also, there are numerous other low-volume specialty tire manufacturers that do not provide comprehensive EWR reports. Furthermore, there are about 130 registered importers. Equipment manufacturers are also subject to penalties under 49 U.S.C. 30165.
        The odometer tampering and disclosure and vehicle theft protection statutes addressed by this proposal cover passenger motor vehicles, which are within the compass of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As a result, the discussion of the numbers and sizes of light vehicle manufacturers above also covers those statutes.
        As noted throughout this preamble, this proposed rule would only increase the maximum penalty amounts that the agency could obtain for violations of provisions related to the odometer and theft protection provisions enforced by NHTSA. The proposed rule does not set the amount of penalties for any particular violation or series of violations. Under the vehicle theft protection statute, the penalty provision requires the agency to take into account the size of a business when determining the appropriate penalty in an individual case. See 49 U.S.C. 33115(a)(3) (vehicle theft protection—entity's size shall be considered). While the odometer disclosure and tampering statutory penalty provision does not specifically require the agency to consider the size of the business, the statute requires the agency to consider the impact of the penalty on an entity's ability to continue doing business. 49 U.S.C. 32709(a)(3)(B). The agency would also consider business size under its civil penalty policy when determining the appropriate civil penalty amount. See 62 FR 37115 (July 10, 1997) (NHTSA's civil penalty policy under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (“SBREFA”)). The penalty adjustments that are being proposed would not affect our civil penalty policy under SBREFA. As a matter of policy, we intend to continue to consider the appropriateness of the penalty amount to the size of the business charged.
        Since this regulation would not establish penalty amounts, this proposal will not have a significant economic impact on small businesses.
        Further, small organizations and governmental jurisdictions would not be significantly affected as the price of motor vehicles and equipment ought not to change as the result of this proposed rule. As explained above, this action is limited to the proposed adoption of a statutory directive, and has been determined to be not “significant” under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures.
        Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
        Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. NHTSA also may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
        We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this proposal does not have sufficient Federal implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. The proposal would not have any substantial impact on the States, or on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local officials.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-4, requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. Because this rule will not have a $100 million effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment will be prepared.
        National Environmental Policy Act
        We have also analyzed this rulemaking action under the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it has no significant impact on the human environment.
        Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
        This proposed rule does not have a retroactive or preemptive effect. Judicial review of a rule based on this proposal may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, we state that there are no requirements for information collection associated with this rulemaking action.
        Privacy Act

        Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 578
          Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Penalties, Rubber and rubber products, Tires.

        1. The authority citation for 49 CFR Part 578 would continue to read as follows:

          Authority:
          Pub. L. 101-410, Pub. L. 104-134, 49 U.S.C. 30165, 30170, 30505, 32308, 32309, 32507, 32709, 32710, 32912, and 33115; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

        2. Section 578.6 would be amended by revising paragraphs (f)(1), (g)(1), and (g)(2) to read as follows:

          PART 578—CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES

            § 578.6
            Civil penalties for violations of specified provisions of Title 49 of the United States Code.

            (f) Odometer tampering and disclosure. (1) A person that violates 49 U.S.C. Chapter 327 or a regulation prescribed or order issued thereunder is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $2,200 for each violation. A separate violation occurs for each motor vehicle or device involved in the violation. The maximum civil penalty under this paragraph for a related series of violations is $130,000.

            (g) Vehicle theft protection. (1) A person that violates 49 U.S.C. 33114(a)(1)-(4) is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $1,100 for each violation. The failure of more than one part of a single motor vehicle to conform to an applicable standard under 49 U.S.C. 33102 or 33103 is only a single violation. The maximum penalty under this paragraph for a related series of violations is $325,000.
            (2) A person that violates 49 U.S.C. 33114(a)(5) is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $130,000 a day for each violation.

            Issued on: May 19, 2005.
            Jacqueline Glassman,
            Chief Counsel.

      [FR Doc. 05-10366 Filed 5-24-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Federal Emergency Management Agency
        44 CFR Parts 59, 61, and 62
        [Docket ID FEMA-2018-0026]
        RIN 1660-AA95
        National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): Conforming Changes To Reflect the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (BW-12) and the Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 (HFIAA), and Additional Clarifications for Plain Language; Correction

          AGENCY:
          Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:
          On July 16, 2018, FEMA published a proposed rule which would revise the National Flood Insurance Program's regulations to codify certain provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 and the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 that FEMA has already implemented and to clarify certain existing NFIP rules relating to NFIP operations and the Standard Flood Insurance Policy. In the preamble to the proposed rule, an incorrect web address appeared. This correction fixes that address.

          DATES:
          This correction is effective August 7, 2018. The closing of the comment period for the proposed rule published July 16, 2018, at 83 FR 39256, remains September 14, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          For information on submitting comments, see the July 16, 2018, proposed rule at 83 FR 39256.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In proposed rule document 2018-13292 appearing on pages 32956 through 33015 in the issue of Monday, July 16, 2018, make the following correction:

        1. On page 32957, in the third column, in the first full paragraph, correct the web address “www.nfipservice.com” to read “https://www.nfipdirect.fema.gov”.

          Brock Long,
          Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

      [FR Doc. 2018-16718 Filed 8-6-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 9111-52-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 91
        RIN 1018-AU56
        Revision of Federal Duck Stamp Contest Regulations

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, or we), propose to revise the regulations governing the annual Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Contest [also known as the Federal Duck Stamp Contest (contest)]. Our proposed amendments would raise the contest entry fee by $25, to $125; update contest opening and entry deadline dates, locations, and mail and Internet site information; specify penalties for contestants who contact judges or copy designs from the Internet; relieve restrictions on our ability to announce judges' names; clarify ambiguous language in our regulations concerning matting of entries and minimum age of entrants; and update or correct technical advising for the contest, the common names and spelling of species on our list of contest design subjects, and minor grammar errors.

          DATES:
          To ensure our consideration, we must receive your comments on this proposal by May 12, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any one of the following methods:
          1. Federal Duck Stamp Web site: http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          2. E-mail: duckstamps@fws.gov.

          3. Fax: 703-358-2009 to Chief, Federal Duck Stamp Office.
          4. U.S. Mail: Chief, Federal Duck Stamp Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop MBSP-4070, Arlington, VA 22203-1622.
          5. Hand Delivery: Federal Duck Stamp Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Room 4070, Arlington, VA.
          6. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

          For more information on requirements for submitting or viewing comments, see “Public Comments Solicited” under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Patricia Fisher, Chief, Federal Duck Stamp Office, (703) 358-2000 (phone), duckstamps@fws.gov (e-mail), or (703) 358-2009 (fax).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        We propose to revise the regulations governing the annual Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Contest [also known as the Federal Duck Stamp Contest (contest)]. Our proposed amendments would raise the contest entry fee by $25, to $125; update contest opening and entry deadline dates, locations, and mail and Internet site information, so that our regulations would be brought up to date with our current and new practices. They would also specify penalties for contestants who contact judges or copy designs from the Internet; relieve restrictions on our ability to announce judges' names; clarify ambiguous language in our regulations concerning matting of entries and minimum age of entrants; and update or correct contest technical advisor information, the treatment and spelling of species' common names on our contest design subject list, and minor grammar errors. We do not believe the proposed changes have much impact on the body of the regulations, and, except for the plagiarism penalty, the increase in the entry fee, and the penalty for contacting judges, they relieve restrictions on the public, clarify existing and new practices, or make corrections. Therefore we believe 30 days will allow the public sufficient time to review and respond to our proposed changes. The public will benefit from having final regulations in place well in advance of our June 2006 contest opening date.

        Background
        History of the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp (Duck Stamp) Program
        On March 16, 1934, Congress passed and President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. Popularly known as the Duck Stamp Act, it required all waterfowl hunters 16 years or older to buy a stamp annually. The revenue generated was originally earmarked for the Department of Agriculture, but 5 years later was transferred to the Department of the Interior and the Service. We are legislatively mandated to use the revenue first to administer the Duck Stamp permit program and contest, and secondly for conservation, to buy or lease waterfowl sanctuaries.
        In the years since its enactment, the Federal Duck Stamp Program has become one of the most popular and successful conservation programs ever initiated. Today, some 1.8 million stamps are sold each year, and as of 2004, Federal Duck Stamps have generated more than $700 million for the preservation of more than 5.2 million acres of waterfowl habitat in the United States. Numerous other birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians have similarly prospered because of habitat protection made possible by the program. An estimated one-third of the Nation's endangered and threatened species find food or shelter in refuges preserved by Duck Stamp funds. Moreover, the protected wetlands help dissipate storms, purify water supplies, store flood water, and nourish fish hatchlings important for sport and commercial fishermen.
        History of the Duck Stamp Contest

        The first Federal Duck Stamp was designed at President Roosevelt's request by Jay N. “Ding” Darling, a nationally known political cartoonist for the Des Moines Register and a noted hunter and wildlife conservationist. In subsequent years, noted wildlife artists were asked to submit designs. The first Federal Duck Stamp Contest was opened in 1949 to any U.S. artist who wished to enter, and 65 artists submitted a total of 88 design entries. Since then, the contest has attracted large numbers of entrants, and it remains the only art competition of its kind sponsored by the U.S. Government. The Secretary of the Interior appoints a panel of noted art, waterfowl, and philatelic authorities to select each year's winning design. Winners receive no compensation for the work, except a pane of their stamps, but winners may sell prints of their designs, which are sought by hunters, conservationists, and art collectors.
        Proposed Changes
        The regulations governing the contest are at 50 CFR part 91. Our proposed amendments raise the entry fee from $100 to $125, to help offset the rising cost of administering the contest, update the contest regulations concerning opening and entry deadline dates, making the new dates earlier than the ones currently specified in part 91, and specify penalties for contestants who contact judges. These revisions also remove a restriction governing our ability to announce names of judges. To update our regulations to reflect the ascendance of Internet technology, we also now expressly prohibit contestants from copying designs from the Internet. Although in the past we have held the contest solely in Washington, DC, from 2005 on, we have begun and plan to continue to hold the contest in a different U.S. location each year. Therefore, we will update contest location information. These changes also clarify ambiguous language in our regulations concerning matting of entries and minimum age of entrants. These amendments also update Service mail and Internet site information; update the common names and spellings of species on our list of potential contest design subjects; update the regulations to reflect a change in technical advising for the contest; and correct minor grammar errors.
        Service Mailing Addresses; Location of Contest
        We correct the address of the Duck Stamp Office as it appears at § 91.1(b) and § 91.16(b), because the office is no longer in Washington, DC, but is now located in Arlington, VA.
        The current regulations at § 91.22 reflect the long tradition of the contest being held in Washington, DC, at the Main Interior Building auditorium. However, the 2006 contest will be the second contest to take place outside of Washington, DC. We plan to hold future duck stamp contests in various U.S. locations corresponding to flyways. Therefore, we are removing the sentence from § 91.22 that states that the contest is held in the Main Interior Building auditorium. Holding the contest in various geographic locations will help attract more attention to the program, hopefully increasing the number of contest entries and giving a greater number of people throughout the U.S. access to the contest. The overall goal is to increase duck stamp stales to gain additional funds with which to purchase waterfowl habitat. The 2005 Duck Stamp Contest was the first contest ever held outside Washington, DC and took place at the Memphis College of Arts, in Memphis, TN. The 2006 contest will also be held in Memphis, at the same location.
        Updating Species' Common Names or Spellings

        Section 91.4 contains our list of eligible species. For each year's contest, we choose five or fewer species from the list; one or more of those species (or a combination thereof; see § 91.14) are the only acceptable subjects for entries during that contest year. We announce each year's eligible species in a Federal Register notice, as well as in other materials we prepare and make available. Our list in § 91.4 contains scientific and common names accepted by the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU; http://www.aou.org/; see also the AOU Check-list at http://www.aou.org/checklist/birdlist46.pdf, our standard reference on taxonomy, nomenclature, and capitalization). Since we first wrote our regulations, the AOU has changed the common name for the species Clangula hyemalis, from “Oldsquaw” to “Long-tailed Duck.” For Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens), we add the clarification that both “white” and “blue” morphs are on the list in § 91.4. We make these changes, along with spelling corrections of some other names, to our list in § 91.4 so that this list will reflect the most current scientific and common names.
        Contest Opening and Entry Deadline Dates
        We are correcting § 91.11 of the regulations to bring the dates of the contest into alignment with current practices. The contest is now being held in early fall. Therefore, we now open the contest and start accepting entries on June 1 of each year, instead of July 1, as currently specified in the regulations. If you wish to enter a design in the contest, you must postmark your packaged entry no later than midnight on August 15. The current regulations give this deadline as September 15, but it is no longer correct.

        When we first wrote our regulations and codified them in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the Internet was not as widely used as it is today. Therefore, we are taking this opportunity to add to § 91.11(c) that you can obtain the most up-to-date contest information by viewing the Web site http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps or by calling (703) 358-2000.

        Increase in Contest Entry Fee; Clarification of Minimum Age of Entrants
        We propose to raise the contest entry fee from $100 to $125 (§ 91.12), to help offset the rising cost of administering the contest. This modest increase is our first since 1996. It will help us continue to improve the contest. We also propose to change the language specifying minimum age of contest entrants so that the minimum age will remain 18 no matter when the contest begins.
        Clarification of Entry Format Requirements
        We are revising our regulations concerning contest entry format to more specifically guide entrants on proper matting procedures. In the past, some entrants have used glue to affix matting to their pictures, or have used other incorrect practices. You must not permanently affix matting to your picture, because if you later sell your picture, someone who has bought it might want to put it in another mat for framing. However, it is best to present your entry for the contest with matting affixed to the front of it, because judges will be judging your entry as it appears with matting—i.e., the judges do not look at extra painting that may lie beneath the matting. We are revising our regulations at § 91.13 to say that you must affix matting to your picture with white or clear tape that can be removed later.
        Preventing Internet Plagiarism; Including Noneligible Species in Designs
        Existing § 91.14 specifies that “an entry design may not be copied or duplicated from previously published art, including photographs.” We now update this section to add that an entry design may not be copied or duplicated from images in any format on the Internet. This section also explains that a live portrayal of any bird(s) of the five or fewer identified eligible species must be the dominant feature of the design, but that the design may depict other appropriate things such as hunting dogs, as long as the eligible bird or birds are in the foreground and center of attention We propose to add that appropriate noneligible bird species are also allowed to appear in the background of the design. We have been verbally advising entrants that noneligible bird species are allowed in the background of designs; therefore, we simply want to codify the practice we have been following.
        Penalties for Contestants Who Contact Judges; Broadening the Judge Selection Process
        We are amending § 91.21 to add penalties for contestants who contact judges before or during the contest. The penalty will be disqualification from that year's contest. Also, that person will be prohibited from entering the following 3 contests. Thus, the person would be prohibited from entering a total of 4 contests. In this same section, we are removing a restriction governing our selection of judges by removing from § 91.21(a) the stipulation that we will announce judges' names on the first day of the contest. This change allows us to announce our judges prior to the start of each year's contest, rather than waiting until the contest actually starts, and thereby allows us to publicize the contest more widely.
        Technical Advising for the Contest
        In our current regulations at § 91.24, we state that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing analyzes contest finalists' entries and advises us of any serious anatomical problems or design problems from the perspective of an engraver. However, since we wrote those regulations, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing has ceased production of stamps. Therefore, we are revising § 91.24 to note that our technical advisor is now the U.S. Postal Service.
        Required Determinations
        Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)
        This document is not a significant rule and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
        1. This rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
        2. This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. The rule deals solely with the Federal Duck Stamp Contest. No other Federal agency has any role in regulating this endeavor.
        3. This rule does not alter budgetary effects or entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients. There are no entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs associated with the regulation of the Federal Duck Stamp Contest.
        4. This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues. This rule is primarily a reorganization and clarification of existing regulations. New provisions proposed in the rule are in compliance with other laws, policies, and regulations.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The changes we propose are intended primarily to clarify the requirements for the contest. In addition, these changes do not affect the information collected These changes will affect individuals, not businesses or other small entities as defined in the RFA. The fee increase to $125 per entrant from $100 per entrant represents a $25.00 total increase per entrant. In recent years we have received an average of 250 entries per year. If this average remains constant, then approximately $6,250.00 is the estimated annual increase to the public to participate in the program.
        Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
        This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
        1. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
        2. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions.
        3. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

        This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.
        Takings (E.O. 12630)

        In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.

        Federalism (E.O. 13132)
        In accordance with E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. A federalism assessment is not required.
        Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
        In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        This proposed rule does not contain new or revised information collections for which Office of Management and Budget approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.) is therefore not required.
        Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
        Under the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there are no effects.
        Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
        On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule proposes to revise the current regulations in 50 CFR part 91 that govern the duck stamp contest. This proposed rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is a not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
        Clarity of This Regulation
        E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
        1. Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
        2. Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?
        3. Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, and so forth) aid or reduce its clarity?
        4. Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections?
        5. Is the description of the rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful toward your understanding the proposed rule? What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

        Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to this address: Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

        Public Comments Solicited

        We are asking the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party to comment on this rule so that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Comments will become part of the Administrative Record for this rulemaking action. You may inspect comments at the hand-delivery address (given in the ADDRESSES section) during normal business hours.

        If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods listed under ADDRESSES. Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: 1018-AU56” and your name and return U.S. mail address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly at (703) 358-2000. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 91
          Hunting, Wildlife.

        Proposed Regulation Promulgation
        Accordingly, we propose to amend part 91, subchapter G of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

          PART 91—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 718j; 31 U.S.C. 9701.

          2. Amend § 91.1(b) by revising the second sentence and adding a third sentence to read as follows:

            § 91.1
            Purpose of regulations.
            (a) * * *

            (b) * * * A copy of the regulations, along with the Reproduction Rights Agreement and Display and Participation Agreement, may be requested from the Federal Duck Stamp Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr. MBSP-4070, Arlington, VA 22203-1622. These documents can also be downloaded from our Web site: http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps/.

            3. Amend § 91.2 by revising the definition of Display and participation agreement to read as follows:

            § 91.2
            Definitions.

              Display and participation agreement—a document that each contestant must complete, sign, and submit with the entry. The signed agreement allows the Service to display the entry at various locations for promotional purposes, and requires the artist to participate in events on behalf of the Federal Duck Stamp Program.

            4. Revise § 91.4 to read as follows:

            § 91.4
            Eligible species.

            Five or fewer of the species listed below will be identified as eligible each year; those eligible species will be provided to each contestant with the information provided in § 91.1.

            (a) Whistling-Ducks. (1) Fulvous Whistling-Duck (Dendrocygna bicolor)
            (2) Black-bellied Whistling-Duck (Dendrocygna autumnalis)
            (b) Swans. (1) Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator)
            (2) Tundra Swan (Cygnus columbianus)
            (c) Geese. (1) Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons)
            (2) Snow Goose (including “white” and “blue” morphs) (Chen caerulescens)
            (3) Ross's Goose (Chen rossii)
            (4) Emperor Goose (Chen canagica)
            (5) Canada Goose (Branta canadensis)
            (d) Brant. (1) Brant (Branta bernicla)
            (e) Dabbling Ducks. (1) Wood Duck (Aix sponsa)
            (2) American Wigeon (Anas americana)
            (3) Gadwall (Anas strepera)
            (4) American Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca carolinensis)
            (5) Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)
            (6) Mottled Duck (Anas fulvigula)
            (7) American Black Duck (Anas rubripes)
            (8) Northern Pintail (Anas acuta)
            (9) Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors)
            (10) Cinnamon Teal (Anas cyanoptera)
            (11) Northern Shoveler (Anas clypeata)
            (f) Diving Ducks. (1) Canvasback (Aythya valisineria)
            (2) Redhead (Aythya americana)
            (3) Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris)
            (4) Greater Scaup (Aythya marila)
            (5) Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis)
            (g) Sea-Ducks. (1) Common Eider (Somateria mollissima)
            (2) King Eider (Somateria spectabilis)
            (3) Spectacled Eider (Somateria fischeri)
            (4) Steller's Eider (Polysticta stelleri)
            (5) Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus)
            (6) Long-tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis)
            (7) Black Scoter (Melanitta nigra)
            (8) Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata)
            (9) White-winged Scoter (Melanitta fusca)
            (10) Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola)
            (11) Barrow's Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica)
            (12) Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula)
            (h) Mergansers. (1) Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus)
            (2) Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator)
            (3) Common Merganser (Mergus merganser)
            (i) Stiff Tails. (1) Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis)
            5. Revise § 91.11 to read as follows:

            § 91.11
            Contest opening date and entry deadline.

            The contest will officially open on June 1 of each year. Entries must be postmarked no later than midnight, August 15. For the latest information on contest time and place as well as all deadlines, please visit our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps or call (703) 358-2000.
            6. Revise § 91.12 to read as follows:

            § 91.12
            Contest eligibility.
            United States citizens, nationals, or resident aliens are eligible to participate in the contest. Any person who has won the contest during the preceding 3 years will be ineligible to submit an entry in the current year's contest. All entrants must be at least 18 years of age by the contest opening date (see § 91.11) to participate in the Federal Duck Stamp Contest. Contest judges and their relatives are ineligible to submit an entry. All entrants must submit a nonrefundable fee of $125.00 by cashier's check, certified check, or money order made payable to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Personal checks will not be accepted.) All entrants must submit a signed Reproduction Rights Agreement and a signed Display and Participation Agreement.
            7. Revise § 91.13 to read as follows:

            § 91.13
            Technical requirements for design and submission of entry.
            The design must be a horizontal drawing or painting 7 inches high and 10 inches wide. The entry may be drawn in any medium desired by the contestant and may be either multicolored or black and white. No scrollwork, lettering, bird band numbers, signatures or initials may appear on the design. Each entry must be matted (on the front only) with a 9 inch by 12 inch white mat, 1 inch wide. The matting must be affixed with clear or white tape holding the matting to the picture. Entries must not be framed, or under glass, or have any protective covering (other than the matting) attached to them. The entire entry cannot exceed 1/4 inch in total thickness.
            8. Revise § 91.14 to read as follows:

            § 91.14
            Restrictions on subject matter for entry.
            A live portrayal of any bird(s) of the five or fewer identified eligible species must be the dominant feature of the design. The design may depict more than one of the eligible species. Designs may include, but are not limited to, hunting dogs, hunting scenes, use of waterfowl decoys, National Wildlife Refuges as the background of habitat scenes, noneligible species, or other designs that depict uses of the stamp for sporting, conservation, and collecting purposes. The overall mandate will be to select the best design that will make an interesting, useful, and attractive duck stamp that will be accepted and prized by hunters, stamp collectors, conservationists, and others. The design must be the contestant's original hand-drawn creation. The entry design may not be copied or duplicated from previously published art, including photographs, or from images in any format published on the Internet. Photographs, computer-generated art, or art produced from a computer printer or other computer/mechanical output device (airbrush method excepted) are not eligible to be entered into the contest and will be disqualified. An entry submitted in a prior contest that was not selected for a Federal or State stamp design may be submitted in the current contest if the entry meets the above criteria.
            9. Revise § 91.16(b) to read as follows:

            § 91.16
            Submission procedures for entry.

            (b) Each entry should be appropriately wrapped to protect the art work and then either hand-delivered or sent by registered mail, certified mail, express mail, or overnight delivery service to the address is § 91.1(b) of this part.
            10. Revise § 91.17 to read as follows:

            § 91.17
            Property insurance for contest entries.
            Each contestant is responsible for obtaining adequate insurance coverage for his/her entry. Neither the Service nor the Department of the Interior will insure the entries, nor is the Service or Department responsible for loss or damage unless such is caused by Service or Department negligence or willful misconduct. The Service and Department reserve the right to determine whether negligence or willful misconduct led to artwork being damaged. Entry fees for the subsequent year's contest may be waived for artists whose artwork we determine to be damaged by any negligence on our part. This waiver remains at our discretion.
            11. Amend § 91.21 by removing the final sentence from paragraph (a) and adding a new paragraph (c), to read as follows:

            § 91.21
            Selection and qualification of contest judges.

            (c) Disqualification. Any contestant who contacts a judge prior to or during the contest will automatically be disqualified from the current year's contest and barred from entering the three contests that come after the current year's contest.
            12. Revise § 91.22 to read as follows:

            § 91.22
            Display of contest entries.
            The Federal Duck Stamp Office assigns all eligible entries a number as entries are received. That office displays the entries in numerical order at the contest site.

            § 91.24
            [Amended]
            13. Amend § 91.24(f) by removing the words “Bureau of Engraving and Printing” and adding the words “U.S. Postal Service” in their place.

            Dated: March 30, 2006.
            Matt Hogan,
            Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. E6-5223 Filed 4-11-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 070906497-7584-01]
        RIN 0648-AW03
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; For-Hire Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Control Date

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

          ACTION:
          Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that it is considering, and is seeking public comment on proposed rulemaking to control future access to the South Atlantic for-hire fishery. If a management regime is developed and implemented under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the control date would limit the number of participants in the fishery. This announcement is intended, in part, to promote awareness of the potential eligibility criteria for future access so as to discourage speculative entry into the fishery while the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS consider whether and how access to the for-hire fishery should be controlled.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before 5 p.m., local time, November 26, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AW03, by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov by clicking on “Search For Dockets” at the top of the screen, then enter the following identifier: 0648-AW03 in the “RIN” field and click the “Submit” button.
          • Fax: Attn: Kate Michie 727-824-5308.
          • Mail: Kate Michie, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; toll free 1-866-SAFMC-10 or 843-571-4366; kim.iverson@safmc.net.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        At the June 2007 Council meeting, the Council recommended a control date of March 8, 2007, applicable to persons who are contemplating entering any for-hire fishery (charter and headboats) in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic region. The Council requested that this control date be published in the Federal Register to notify fishermen that if they enter such a fishery after March 8, 2007, they may not be assured of future access if the Council and/or NMFS decide to limit entry or impose other measures to manage these fisheries.

        Establishment of the control date responds to the Council's concerns that for-hire fisheries are expanding quite rapidly and the perception that many of those new entrants lack experience and professional expertise in the subject fishery.
        Control dates are intended to discourage speculative entry into a fishery, as new entrants entering the fishery after the control date are forewarned that they are not guaranteed future participation in the fishery.
        Establishment of this control date does not commit the Council or NMFS to any particular management regime or criteria for entry into the for-hire fishery. Fishermen are not guaranteed future participation in the fishery regardless of their level of participation before or after the control date. The Council may recommend a different control date or it may recommend a management regime that does not involve a control date. Other criteria, such as documentation of landings or fishing effort, may be used to determine eligibility for participation in a limited access fishery. The Council and/or NMFS also may choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the fisheries, in which case the control date may be rescinded. Any action by the Council will be taken pursuant to the requirements for fishery management plan and amendment development established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        This notification also gives the public notice that interested participants should locate and preserve records that substantiate and verify their participation in any for-hire fishery in the South Atlantic EEZ.

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

          Dated: October 22, 2007.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E7-21099 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Parts 73 and 76
        [MM Docket No. 98-204, DA 02-1007]
        Revision of Broadcast and Cable EEO Rules and Policies

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of reply comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Media Bureau (Bureau) grants a motion for procedural relief filed by the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC). The intended effect is to grant an extension of the reply comments filing deadline.

          DATES:
          Reply comments are due May 29, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Estella Salvatierra, Media Bureau. (202) 418-1450.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        1. This is a synopsis of the Media Bureau's Review of the Commission's Broadcast and Cable Equal Employment Opportunity Rules and Policies, DA 02-1007, released May 1, 2002. On December 21, 2001, the Commission released a Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 98-204, 67 FR 1704 (January 14, 2002) (Second NPRM) requesting comment on various proposals concerning the Commission's broadcast and cable EEO rules and policies.
        2. On April 25, 2002, MMTC filed a Motion for Extension of Reply Comment Deadline requesting an extension of time for the filing date for reply comments.
        3. MMTC requests that the Commission extend the reply comment deadline from May 15, 2002, to May 29, 2002. Because the Bureau believes that the public interest would be served by an extension of the reply comment period in this proceeding, we grant MMTC's request and extend the date for filing reply comments to May 29, 2002.
        4. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Motion for Extension of Reply Comment Deadline filed by MMTC is granted.
        5. It is therefore ordered that the date for filing reply comments in this proceeding is extended to May 29, 2002.
        6. This action is taken pursuant to authority found in sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 4(i) and 303(r), and §§ 0.204(b), 0.283 and 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.204(b), 0.283 and 1.46.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          W. Kenneth Ferree,
          Chief, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 02-11388 Filed 5-7-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
        36 CFR Part 800
        RIN 3014-AA06
        Protection of Historic Properties

          AGENCY:
          Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is extending by 30 days the public comment period for the proposed amendments to the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Such proposed amendments were published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2003. This extended comment period will afford greater opportunity to all interested parties to review and submit comments on the proposal.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before November 26, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Address all comments concerning this proposed rule to the Executive Director, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 809, Washington, DC 20004. Fax (202) 606-8672. You may submit electronic comments to: achp@achp.gov. For electronic comments, please type “Regs Amendment 2003” in the subject line of the e-mail.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Javier Marqués, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 809, Washington, DC 20004; (202) 606-8503.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        In response to requests filed with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the comment period for the proposed amendments to the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act now ends on November 26, 2003. This is an extension of 30 days beyond the comment period established in the Federal Register on September 25, 2003.

        The Section 106 regulations set forth how Federal agencies take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Most of the proposed amendments to those regulations respond to recent court decisions which held that (1) the ACHP could not force a Federal agency to change its determinations regarding whether its undertakings affected or adversely affected historic properties, and (2) that Section 106 does not apply to undertakings that are merely subject to State or local regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal agency. Another proposed amendment clarifies the time period for objections to “No Adverse Effect” findings. The last proposed amendments clarify that the ACHP can propose an exemption to the Section 106 process on its own initiative, rather than needing a Federal agency to make such a proposal. See the proposal as published in the Federal Register (68 FR 55354, September 25, 2003) for further information.

          Dated: October 20, 2003.
          John M. Fowler,
          Executive Director.

      [FR Doc. 03-26799 Filed 10-22-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-10-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Federal Emergency Management Agency
        44 CFR Part 206
        [Docket ID FEMA-2011-0004]
        RIN 1660-AA02;Formerly 3067-AC69
        Disaster Assistance; Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

          AGENCY:
          Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; withdrawal.

          SUMMARY:
          On May 1, 1998, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the categories of projects eligible for funding under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The NPRM proposed to define eligible mitigation activities under the HMGP to include minor flood control projects that do not duplicate the efforts and authorities of other Federal agencies. It proposed to include vegetation management programs for wildfire hazard mitigation and erosion hazard mitigation in the list of eligible activities; it proposed to remove development or improvement of warning systems from the list of eligible project types; and modified language relating to general, allowable open space, recreational, and wetlands management uses. FEMA is withdrawing the NPRM so that relevant issues involved in the NPRM may be further considered and because portions of it are redundant or outdated.

          DATES:
          The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on May 1, 1998 (63 FR 24143), is withdrawn as of October 3, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:

          The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and this withdrawal notice may be found under Docket ID: FEMA-2011-0004 and are available online by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting FEMA-2011-0004 in the “Keyword” box, and then clicking “Search.” The Docket is also available for inspection or copying at FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Room 840, Washington, DC 20472.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Cecelia Rosenberg, Federal Insurance and Mitigation, DHS/FEMA, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598-3015. Phone: (202) 646-3321. Facsimile: (202) 646-2880. E-mail: Cecelia.Rosenberg@dhs.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        Authorized by section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5170c, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides States, Tribes, and local governments financial assistance to implement measures that permanently reduce or eliminate future damages and losses from natural hazards.
        The HMGP regulations at 44 CFR part 206, subpart N, address the eligibility of multi-hazard mitigation projects through a list of general eligibility criteria: a project must be cost-effective, be environmentally sound, must address a repetitive problem, and must contribute to a long-term solution. Further, HMGP funds cannot be used to fund projects that are available under other Federal authorities. The regulations also provide a list of eligible types of projects. The project-type listing is not all-inclusive. FEMA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (63 FR 24143, May 1, 1998) proposing the following revisions to the HMGP regulations.
        Minor Flood Control Projects

        Under the NPRM, minor flood control projects that do not duplicate the flood prevention activities of other Federal agencies would be eligible for HMGP funding. Major flood control projects, such as dikes, levees, dams, channelization, channel widening, stream realignment, seawalls, groins, and jetties, would be distinguished from minor flood control activities. Typically, funding for major flood control projects would fall under the water resources design and construction authorities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
        Wildfire and Erosion
        Under the NPRM, vegetation management related to wildfire and erosion hazard mitigation measures would be eligible for HMGP funding. This would reflect FEMA's multi-hazard HMGP objectives and priorities authorized by section 404 of the Stafford Act.
        Warning Systems
        The NPRM sought to minimize an emphasis on warning systems by removing them from the list of eligible projects. This was due to benefit/cost considerations. The benefits of some hazard mitigation project types can be difficult to show using FEMA's conventional benefit/cost calculation methodology. Because of this in certain circumstances FEMA will allow applicants to demonstrate project cost-effectiveness using means other than the conventional benefit/cost methodology. The NPRM proposed to remove warning systems from the example list of eligible project types because the project type does not lend itself to use of the conventional benefit/cost methodology.
        Allowable Open Space Uses
        The NPRM proposed a revision to the list of allowable open space uses for previously funded and acquired open space land by replacing the word “previous” (which was actually a typo in the regulation that should have been “pervious”) with the more widely familiar term of permeable.
        II. Summary of Comments
        FEMA received 12 comments on the NPRM from State and local governments. Several commenters had reservations about the NPRM's possible effects on the eligibility of certain flood control projects because these projects were viewed as good hazard mitigation activities that should be funded by FEMA. Some commenters expressed concern regarding the term “minor flood control” and the criteria used to define it. Two commenters were concerned that major flood control projects may become ineligible due to concerns of duplicating other Federal assistance, and were concerned about the applicability of this rationale to the practice of partnering with other Federal agencies. One commenter urged FEMA to recognize the importance of allowing HMGP funding to be used for mitigation activities related to facilities that would be regarded as major structural flood control facilities.
        One commenter expressed support for the wildfire and erosion vegetation management provisions in the NPRM, and was concerned that vegetation management activities were not extended to other project types. Another commenter expressed concern that wildfire and erosion vegetation provisions may conflict with other pre-existing regulatory requirements.
        Two commenters expressed dissatisfaction with the NPRM's removal of warning systems from the list of “traditionally” eligible HMGP activities.
        One commenter requested consideration of allowable open space activities beyond the scope of the NPRM.
        III. Reason for Withdrawal
        FEMA is withdrawing the NPRM so that relevant issues involved in the NPRM may be further considered and because portions of it are redundant. The definition of minor flood control projects is being examined in greater detail relative to the HMGP eligibility criteria of the regulations at 44 CFR 206.434(c). Further, the distinction that minor flood control projects not duplicate the activities of other Federal agencies is redundant because the existing program regulations, at 44 CFR 206.434(f), clearly state that HMGP funds cannot be used as a substitute or replacement to fund projects or programs that are available under other Federal authorities. Therefore, to state the requirement again is redundant, and to highlight it for minor flood control projects over other project types may lead to some confusion regarding its applicability to all project types.
        FEMA considers the other provisions of the NPRM to be outdated. Eligibility considerations of vegetation management are addressed through FEMA's existing HMGP regulations identifying general eligibility considerations, and there is no significant benefit derived from listing them specifically. Removing warning systems from the list of eligible projects could create the impression that they are not eligible for funding.
        The remaining proposed revision, to replace the word “previous” (a typo for “pervious”) with “permeable” is not sufficient reason for continuing the NPRM as the original word and the word proposed to replace it mean essentially the same thing.
        IV. Conclusion
        FEMA is withdrawing the May 1, 1998 NPRM for the reasons stated in this notice.

          W. Craig Fugate,
          Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

      [FR Doc. 2011-25102 Filed 9-30-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 170915903-7999-01]
        RIN 0648-XF706
        Pacific Island Fisheries; 2017 Hawaii Kona Crab Annual Catch Limit and Accountability Measure

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed specification; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes a 2017 annual catch limit (ACL) of 3,500 lb for Hawaii Kona Crab, and an accountability measure (AM) to correct or mitigate any overages of catch limits. The proposed ACL and AM support the long-term sustainability of fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands.

          DATES:
          NMFS must receive comments by January 4, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0120, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0120, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Send written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

            Instructions: NMFS may not consider comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on https://www.regulations.gov change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible.

          NMFS prepared an environmental analysis that describes the potential impacts on the human environment that would result from the proposed ACL and AM. Copies of the environmental analyses and other supporting documents are available at https://www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sarah Ellgen, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5173.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Kona crab fishery in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (generally 3-200 nm from shore) around Hawaii is managed under Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaiian Archipelago (FEP). The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) developed the FEP, and NMFS implemented the plan under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        The FEP contains a process for the Council and NMFS to specify ACLs and AMs; that process is codified at Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 665.4 (50 CFR 665.4). The regulations require NMFS to specify, every fishing year, an ACL for each stock and stock complex of management unit species (MUS) in an FEP, as recommended by the Council and considering the best available scientific, commercial, and other information about the fishery. If a fishery exceeds an ACL, the regulations require the Council to take action, which may include reducing the ACL for the subsequent fishing year by the amount of the overage, or other appropriate action.

        The Council recommended that NMFS specify an ACL of 3,500 lb of Hawaii Kona crab for fishing year 2017, which began on January 1 and ends on December 31. The Council based its ACL recommendation on a recommendation of acceptable biological catch of 3,500 lb from its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and the results of an October 2015 stock assessment that included commercial catch data from 1970 through 2006. The stock assessment found that the Hawaii Kona crab stock had reached an overfished status (<50 percent of BMSY, biomass at maximum sustainable yield) in 2006, and was likely still overfished in 2010. The assessment also included biomass projections for 2010-2030 under three commercial landings scenarios: Zero lb, 7,000 lb, and 8,000 lb.

        Hawaii State law prohibits retention of female crabs, but the assessment results included both males and females combined. The assessment acknowledged that the 2010-2030 stock status projections did not account for the effects of the State prohibition after September 2006 and, as a result, the projections are associated with a high degree of uncertainty. At a constant zero-lb annual harvest rate, the assessment predicted that the Kona crab stock would recover from overfished levels after 2015. At a constant 7,000-lb annual commercial harvest rate, the assessment estimated that Kona crab biomass would increase above 50 percent of BMSY by 2030 but explained that, due to uncertainty, there was a chance that stock biomass could potentially decline to zero lb by 2020. At a constant 8,000-lb annual harvest rate, the assessment predicted that stock biomass could reach zero lb by 2020.
        In 2015, NMFS contracted the Center for Independent (CIE) experts to review the stock assessment. Both the CIE reviewers and NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) agreed with the evaluation of the fishery for 2006, and the conclusion that stock projections beyond 2006 probably do not accurately describe current Hawaii Kona crab stock size or structure. PIFSC also agreed with the CIE review that further work is needed to provide advice on the status of the population in more recent years. Therefore, PIFSC is planning to complete a benchmark assessment for Hawaii Kona crab in 2019, which could be available for management use in fishing year 2020.

        In developing the proposed ACL recommendation, the Council also considered information indicating a 50:50 male to female landings ratio, and information suggesting that crabs disentangled from Kona crab may have injuries that could result in mortality rates as high as 100 percent if limbs are lost. Therefore, to meet the objective of rebuilding stock biomass to levels above 50 percent of BMSY, and limit total fishing mortality to 7,000 lb, the Council recommended an ACL of 3,500 lb.
        As an AM, NMFS proposes to apply a three-year average catch to evaluate fishery performance against the proposed ACLs. Specifically, NMFS proposes to use the average catch of fishing years 2015, 2016, and 2017, to evaluate fishery performance against the 2017 ACL. If, after the end of the fishing year, NMFS and the Council determine that the three-year average catch exceeded the specified ACL, NMFS and the Council will reduce the ACL for that fishery by the amount of the overage in the subsequent year. The Council recommended an AM based on multi-year average catch data to reduce the influence of inter-annual variability in catch estimates in evaluating fishery performance against the ACL.

        NMFS will consider public comments on the proposed ACL and AM and will announce the final specification in the Federal Register. NMFS must receive any comments by the date provided in the DATES heading, not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date. Regardless of the final ACL and AM specification, all other management measures will continue to apply in the fisheries.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that this proposed specification is consistent with the FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities
        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 specification, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A description of the proposed action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for it are contained in the preamble to this proposed specification.
        NMFS proposes to specify a 2017 annual catch limit (ACL) of 3,500 lb for Kona crab in Hawaii, as recommended by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council). The 2017 proposed ACL is based on updated scientific information made available to NMFS. The proposed ACL is much lower than the ACL implemented each year from 2012 and 2015, which had been 27,600 lb. NMFS did not implement an ACL for this stock in 2016.
        This rule would affect participants in the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for Hawaii Kona crab. Kona crab landings averaged 2,658 lb from 2014-2016, with an estimated ex-vessel value of $20,965, based on a price of $5.99 per lb. The amount of Kona crab landed each year has generally declined since 2011, when 51 fishermen reported landing 10,883 lb. During the 2016 fishing year, 24 fishermen reported landing 2,577 lb. In 2015, 26 fishermen reported landing 2,332 lb. In 2014, 30 fishermen reported landing 3,067 lb.
        Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all vessels in the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for Kona crab are small entities under the Small Business Administration's definition of a small entity. That is, they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, independently owned or operated, not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $11 million, the small business size standard for commercial fishing (NAICS Code: 11411). Therefore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Furthermore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of vessels based on gear, home port, or vessel length.

        Even though this proposed action would apply to a substantial number of vessels, this action should not result in significant adverse economic impact to individual vessels. NMFS and the Council are not considering in-season closure in the Kona crab fisheries to which this ACL apply because fishery management agencies are not able to track catch relative to the ACLs during the fishing year. As a result, fishermen would be able to fish throughout the entire year. In addition, the ACLs, as proposed, would not change the gear types, areas fished, effort, or participation of the fishery during the 2017 fishing year. A post-season review of the catch data would be required to determine whether the fishery exceeded its ACL by comparing the ACL to the most recent three-year average catch for which data is available. If an ACL is exceeded, the Council and NMFS would take action in future fishing years to correct the operational issue that caused the ACL overage. NMFS and the Council would evaluate the environmental, social, and economic impacts of future actions, such as changes to future ACLs or AMs, after the required data are available. Specifically, if NMFS and the Council determine that the three-year average catch for a fishery exceeds the specified ACL, NMFS would reduce the ACL for that fishery by the amount of the overage in the subsequent year.
        The proposed action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules and is not expected to have significant impact on small entities (as discussed above), organizations, or government jurisdictions. The proposed action also will not place a substantial number of small entities, or any segment of small entities, at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities. For the reasons above, NMFS does not expect the proposed action to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As such, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        This action is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.

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

          Dated: December 14, 2017.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2017-27322 Filed 12-19-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P