        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 011018255-1255-01; I.D. 071001F]
        RIN 0648-AO51
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 11

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement Amendment 11 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (Amendment 11), as prepared and submitted by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.  This proposed rule would require owners or operators of all vessels harvesting shrimp in the exclusive economic zone of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf EEZ) to obtain a commercial vessel permit for Gulf shrimp; prohibit the use of traps to harvest royal red shrimp in the Gulf EEZ; and prohibit the transfer of royal red shrimp at sea.  The permit requirement would provide an accurate and efficient method of identifying and quantifying the number of vessels in the Gulf EEZ shrimp fishery.  The prohibition of the use of traps for royal red shrimp is intended to prevent gear conflict and potential overfishing.  The prohibition on transfer of royal red shrimp at sea is intended to enhance enforceability of the prohibition on use of traps in the fishery.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than 4:30 p.m., eastern standard time, on April 11, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule should be sent to Dr. Steve Branstetter, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL  33702.  Comments also may be sent via fax to 727-570-5583.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.

        Requests for copies of Amendment 11, which includes an  environmental assessment and regulatory impact review (RIR),  should be sent to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL  33619-2266; telephone:  813-228-2815; fax:  813-225-7015; e-mail:  gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org.  Copies of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's Minority Report on Amendment 11 may also be obtained from the same address.
        Comments regarding the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule should be sent to Robert Sadler, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC  20503 (Attention:  NOAA Desk Officer).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Dr. Steve Branstetter, telephone:  727-570-5305, fax:  727-570-5583, e-mail:  Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The fishery for shrimp in the Gulf EEZ is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP).  The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council), approved by NMFS, and implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
        Need for a Federal Commercial Vessel Permit for Gulf Shrimp
        The shrimp fishery is the largest fishery in terms of numbers of fishing vessels and participants in the Gulf of Mexico, but is one of the few federally managed fisheries with no fishing permit requirement.  Some data collection and vessel identification systems exist through either state or Federal programs, but none is comprehensive or specifically identifies shrimp fishing vessels that fish in the EEZ.  NMFS maintains two record systems, each with a limited purpose.  The Shrimp Landing File (SLF) contains landings by individual shrimp vessels over the course of a year.  The Vessel Operating Units File (VOUF) is similar, but the purpose of this file is to maintain a record of vessel characteristics (i.e., length, age, horsepower, etc.) for all active shrimp fishing vessels during a particular year.  Neither the SLF nor VOUF contains contact information for the owner, and neither indicates whether the vessel fishes in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ.  Similarly, state licensing files list active fishing vessels, but these files do not provide information on whether vessels fish in state or Federal waters, or both.  In some instances, these vessel licenses are not specific to a fishery; thus, they do not readily identify shrimp fishing vessels as opposed to vessels operating in other fisheries.  Trip ticket systems are not used by all the states, nor is the data collection uniform among those states that do have a trip ticket system.  Although the GulfFIN program, as administered by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, will standardize this information, this program is still under development.  NMFS has supported the development of a national Vessel Identification System under the auspices of the US Coast Guard (USCG).  However, the USCG is still reviewing options to implement this system, and its implementation is not anticipated in the near future.
        Because existing vessel identification systems are not  comprehensive nor do they specifically identify shrimp fishing vessels that fish in the EEZ, the Council concluded that a Federal vessel permit requirement for the shrimp fishery of the Gulf of Mexico was necessary to identify accurately the universe of vessels that fish for shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ and, thereby, to facilitate scientific assessments of annual fishing effort.  The database would provide an enumeration of the vessels that would be authorized to fish for shrimp in the EEZ on an annual basis.  A Federal permit system is a prerequisite tool for designing a statistically robust data collection program to canvass or randomly sample the activities of the shrimp fishery in the EEZ.  Previous data collection programs were hampered by the inability to specifically identify the universe of vessels fishing for shrimp in the Gulf EEZ.  The results of NMFS' 1992-1996 incidental harvest research program, as well as the Council's subsequent actions implemented in Amendment 9, which were based on the results of that program, have been questioned because the sampling was not conducted through a stratified random sampling effort.  Similarly, during the summer 1998 Red Snapper/Shrimp Research Program, the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) attempted to implement a trial logbook program.  That attempt was only partially successful because it failed to reach many of the intended participants in a timely manner.  Without information to identify readily the participants in the fishery, sampling programs have depended on non-random sampling.  A more robust analysis of the shrimp fishery is only possible through stratified random sampling of the existing fleet, and that kind of sampling is only possible where the specific vessels are readily identifiable.  The permit system will serve as a  source to identify a representative stratified random sample of shrimp vessels.  Once the Agency has more accurately determined the number of fishery participants through the permit system,  sample groups will be used to conduct research to collect biological, fishery, social, and economic data on the fishery, through use of observers, vessel monitoring systems, or other data collection methods.  Anticipated improvements from the permitting and subsequent sampling procedures would include more precise red snapper bycatch estimation and more accurate determinations of economic and community impacts.  Information collected under such future programs would aid in the formulation of sound management measures for the shrimp fishery and those finfish fisheries that are affected by bycatch and bycatch mortality arising from the shrimp fishery.  Therefore, the Council concluded that a requirement for a Federal commercial vessel permit for the  shrimp fishery in the Gulf EEZ should enhance the capability to achieve and maintain sustainable fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico.

        Two Council members submitted a minority report expressing opposition to the implementation of Amendment 11.  Their opposition was based on their belief that the permit requirements in Amendment 11 are inconsistent with national standards 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, are devoid of adequate rationale, and will result in additional bureaucracy and costs.  Copies of the minority report are available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
        Commercial Vessel Permit Requirement
        This proposed rule would require an owner or operator of a vessel that fishes for shrimp in the Gulf EEZ or possesses shrimp in or from the Gulf EEZ to have a valid commercial vessel permit for Gulf shrimp on board.  If Amendment 11 is approved, the permit requirement would become effective 90 days after the effective date of the final rule implementing the amendment.  No qualifying criteria (e.g., documentation of landings, earned income from fishing, or other participation requirements) are proposed for the Gulf shrimp permit.  If the permit requirement is approved, it would provide an accurate identification of the universe of vessels authorized to fish for shrimp in the Gulf EEZ.  Establishing this known universe of vessels would provide the basis for future development of additional data collection programs to evaluate, more comprehensively, the biological, economic, and social characteristics of the fishery.  When this information becomes available, the Council would be in a better position to evaluate whether any restrictive criteria for participation in the shrimp fishery should be considered in the future.
        Permit Procedures
        Required permitting procedures that apply to all Magnuson-Stevens Act permits issued by the Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, (RA) and that would apply to a Gulf shrimp permit are specified in 50 CFR 622.4.  These procedures include requirements related to the following:  application, fees, initial issuance, transferability, permit renewal, permit display, and other permit-related provisions.  Basic requirements and procedures are summarized here for the convenience of the reader.
        Permit Application
        Permit application forms would be available from the RA.  Completed application forms would have to be submitted to the RA at least 30 days prior to the date on which the applicant requests to have the permit made effective.  However, given the large volume of permit applications anticipated for the Gulf shrimp fishery, NMFS would strongly encourage applicants to submit completed applications as soon as possible after publication of the final rule implementing Amendment 11.  Any delay in submitting a completed application could result in an inability to issue a permit prior to the deadline for the permit requirement and, thus, preclude legal fishing for Gulf shrimp until the permit is issued.
        The application for a commercial vessel permit would have to be submitted by the owner (in the case of a corporation, an officer or shareholder; in the case of a partnership, a general partner) or operator of the vessel.  All vessel permits would be mailed to owners, whether the applicant is an owner or an operator.  An applicant would have to provide the following:
        (1) A copy of the vessel's valid USCG certificate of documentation or, if not documented, a copy of its valid state registration certificate.
        (2) Vessel name and official number.
        (3) Name, address, telephone number, and other identifying information of the vessel owner and of the applicant, if other than the owner.
        (4) Any other information concerning the vessel, gear characteristics, principal fisheries engaged in, or fishing areas, as specified on the application form.
        (5) Any other information that may be necessary for the issuance or administration of the permit, as specified on the application form.
        Permit Fees
        A fee would be charged for each application for a permit and for each request for replacement of such permit.  The amount of each fee would be calculated in accordance with the procedures of the NOAA Finance Handbook, available from the RA, for determining the administrative costs of each special product or service.  The fee may not exceed such costs and would be specified with each application form.  The appropriate fee would have to accompany each permit application or request for permit replacement.
        Initial Permit Issuance
        The RA would issue an initial permit at any time to an applicant if the application was complete.  An application would be complete when all requested forms, information, and documentation had been received.  Upon receipt of an incomplete application, the RA would notify the applicant of the deficiency.  If the applicant failed to correct the deficiency within 30 days of the date of the RA's letter of notification, the application would be considered abandoned.
        Duration
        A permit would remain valid for the period specified on it unless it was revoked, suspended, or modified pursuant to subpart D of 15 CFR part 904 or unless the vessel was sold.
        Transfer
        A vessel permit for Gulf shrimp would not be transferable or assignable.  A person who acquired a vessel and desired to conduct activities for which a Gulf shrimp vessel permit would be required would need to apply for a permit.  If the acquired vessel was already permitted, the application would need to be accompanied by the original permit and a copy of a signed bill of sale or equivalent acquisition papers.
        Renewal
        Although a permit would be issued on an annual basis, an application for its renewal would be required only every 2 years. In the interim years, renewal would be automatic (without application) for a vessel owner who had met the specific requirements for the permit, had submitted all reports required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and was not subject to a permit sanction or denial of a permit application in accordance with the procedures governing enforcement-related permit sanctions and denials found at subpart D of 15 CFR part 904.  An owner whose permit was expiring would be mailed a notification by the RA approximately 2 months prior to its expiration.  That notification would advise the status of the renewal.  That is, the notification would advise that the renewal would be issued without further action by the owner (automatic renewal); that the permit was ineligible for automatic renewal; or that a new application would be required.
        If the RA's notification indicates that the owner's permit would be eligible for automatic renewal, the RA would mail the automatically renewed permit approximately 1 month prior to expiration of the old permit.
        If the RA's notification indicates that the owner's permit would be ineligible for automatic renewal, the notification would specify the reasons and would provide an opportunity for correction of any deficiencies.  If the owner or dealer did not correct such deficiencies within 60 days after the date of the RA's notification, the renewal would be considered abandoned.

        If the RA's notification indicates that a new application would be required, the notification would include a preprinted renewal application.  If the RA receives an incomplete application, the RA would notify the applicant of the deficiency.  If the applicant failed to correct the deficiency within 30 days of the date of the RA's letter of notification, the application would be considered abandoned.
        A vessel owner or dealer who did not receive a notification from the RA regarding status of renewal of a permit by 45 days prior to expiration of the current permit would have to contact the RA.
        Display
        The vessel permit would have to be carried on board the vessel.  The operator of a vessel would have to present the permit for inspection upon the request of an authorized officer.
        Prohibition on the Use of Traps in the Royal Red Shrimp Fishery and on Transfer of Royal Red Shrimp At Sea
        Royal red shrimp have been a small component of the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery since the early 1960s, and are traditionally harvested using modified shrimp trawls at depths exceeding 100 fathoms (183 meters).  The Council concluded that allowing trap gear in this fishery would likely lead to gear conflicts and could lead to overfishing.  An emergency interim rule prohibiting the use of trap gear in the royal red shrimp fishery within the EEZ of the Gulf of Mexico was promulgated on September 19, 2000, (65 FR 56500), and extended until September 14, 2001 (66 FR 14862, March 14, 2001).  The Council requested that NMFS take that emergency action until regulations could be implemented through the proposed amendment to the FMP.
        The intended effect of the proposed rule to prohibit the use of traps in this fishery is to prevent gear conflict that could compromise vessel safety and to prevent overfishing in the royal red shrimp fishery.  Gear conflicts would otherwise be likely to occur between the traditional trawl fishery and the proposed trap line fishery on the royal red shrimp fishing grounds.  This could result in substantial damage and loss of fishing gears and an increase in cost for participants in the fishery.  Gear conflicts also would introduce vessel safety issues because of the depth of the fishing effort, the weight of the deployed gears (especially if they become tangled), and the fact that the fishing grounds are far offshore.  Additionally, the introduction of new fishing effort could lead to overfishing of the resource.  Since 1993, landings from the traditional trawl fishery have ranged from 200,000 to 335,000 lb (90,719 to 151,953 kg), which is approaching the maximum sustainable yield of 392,000 lb (177,808 kg) for the fishery.  The prohibition of the transfer of royal red shrimp in the Gulf EEZ and of royal red shrimp taken in the Gulf EEZ regardless of where the transfer takes place is necessary to enhance the enforceability of the prohibition of the use of traps in the fishery.
        Additional Information

        Additional background and rationale for the measures discussed here are contained in Amendment 11, the availability of which was announced in the Federal Register (66 FR 37634; July 19, 2001).  The public comment period on Amendment 11 expired on September 17, 2001.  All comments received on Amendment 11 or on this proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the preamble to the final rule.
        Classification
        On October 17, 2001, NMFS approved Amendment 11 based on a  determination that it was consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.  In making that determination, NMFS took into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period on Amendment 11.

        This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 because of its controversial nature.  Copies of the RIR are available (see ADDRESSES).
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as follows:

          The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the rule.  The proposed rule would: require all vessels (including boats) harvesting shrimp in the Gulf EEZ to obtain a commercial vessel permit for Gulf shrimp; prohibit the use of traps to harvest royal red shrimp in the Gulf EEZ; and prohibit the transfer of royal red shrimp at sea.
          This permit requirement is needed to identify and quantify the number of vessels in the shrimp fishery of the Gulf EEZ.  Under the existing FMP, shrimp vessels in the Gulf EEZ are not required to have federal permits.  Consequently, the only means of determining the numbers of vessels operating in the Gulf EEZ are through NMFS' shrimp landings file (SLF), NMFS' vessel operating units file (VOUF), and state license files.  Some states require licenses for shrimp vessels while others only license the activity (commercial landings).  These data sources do not provide an accurate and direct means of determining the numbers of vessels participating in the shrimp fishery in the Gulf EEZ.
          Mandatory vessel permitting proved to be an effective way of obtaining information on the number of potentially active vessels and participants in other commercial and for-hire fisheries operating in the Gulf EEZ, including the reef fish and coastal migratory pelagics fisheries.  These data combined with logbook reporting, observer reports, and other surveys provided managers with essential information on effort, catch, bycatch, and other important parameters regarding these fisheries.  Having a known universe of vessels operating in the Gulf EEZ shrimp fishery will help provide the same opportunities for scientists and managers to collect data on effort, catch, bycatch, and other important parameters of both targeted shrimp stocks, as well as bycatch species that may or may not be under separate management regimes.  Presently, without permits, the numbers of vessels that operate in the Gulf EEZ shrimp fishery can only be estimated using the SLF, VOUF, and/or state license files.
          The royal red shrimp fishery in the Gulf traditionally operated as a trawl fishery.  Traps are not included on the list of allowable gear for the royal red shrimp fishery, or the penaeid shrimp fishery in general.  However, a recent request to allow trap gear was considered and denied due to potential gear conflicts and the increased possibility of exceeding maximum sustainable yield as a result of this new effort.  The prohibition on the use of traps was implemented through an emergency interim rule which expired on September 14, 2001.  Consequently, unless a more permanent prohibition through a plan amendment is implemented, future use of trap gear could occur legally under 50 CFR, Part 600.747.  The prohibition on the transfer of royal red shrimp at sea is intended to enhance enforceability of the prohibition of the use of traps in the fishery.  The transfer prohibition is not expected to impact fishery participants using authorized gear, i.e. trawls, since transfer at sea has not been and is not a customary practice in the royal red shrimp fishery.
          Generally, a fish-harvesting business is considered a small business if it is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation, and if it has annual receipts not in excess of $3.0 million.  Although there are several fleet operations in the Gulf shrimp fishery, their actual number is not known, in part due to the lack of permit data.  Considering the low likelihood that these operations are dominant in the harvesting sector of the shrimp fishery, the gross receipts criterion may be used to define a small business in the shrimp fishery.

          Based on SLF and VOUF, the number of shrimp vessels in the Gulf ranges from approximately 3,500 to 5,000.  State license files indicate that there are 13,163 shrimp boats in the Gulf.  The proposed Gulf shrimp vessel permit would be required on all shrimp vessels fishing in the EEZ.  This would affect practically all shrimp vessels and at least some shrimp boats.  The number of affected shrimp boats is unknown, but will ultimately depend on the number of boats that prosecute the EEZ component of the fishery.
          Ward et al. (1995) reported that the average gross revenues for shrimp vessels are approximately $82,000 (converted to 1999 prices, based on the producer price index (PPI) for all commodities).  One standard deviation from this average provides a range of $16,000 to $425,000.  Considering that even the upper limit of the revenue range is well below the $3.0 million threshold, all shrimp vessel operations, and thus undoubtedly all shrimp boat operations as well, are small business entities.  Thus, the substantial number criterion would be met.  Within these small entities, significant variations of revenues occur by size of vessels and by home port state.  Ward et al. (1995) estimated that average annual revenues of shrimp vessels in the Gulf (as adjusted by the PPI in 1999) by length of vessel are: $4,000 for vessels less than 25 ft (7.6 m), $23,000 for vessels between 25 and 50 ft (7.6 and 15.2 m) and, $198,000 for vessels greater than 50 ft (15.2 m).  Broken down by homeport state, the average annual revenues of shrimp vessels are: $112,000 for Alabama, $106,000 for Florida, $9,000 for Louisiana, $45,000 for Mississippi, and $192,000 for Texas.
          For purposes of NMFS' rules, the determination whether a “significant economic impact” results is determined by examining two issues: disproportionality and profitability.  To determine disproportionate impacts, the pertinent question is whether the regulations place a substantial number of small entities at a significant competitive disadvantage compared to large entities.  All the commercial entities potentially affected by the proposed rule are considered small entities so that the issue of disproportionality does not arise in the present case.   The pertinent question in determining profitability is whether the regulations significantly reduce profit for a substantial number of small entities.  Ward et al. (1995) estimated the profits (total revenues less total costs) of shrimp vessels in the Gulf.  The average net revenues (profits) for a shrimp vessel in the Gulf are approximately $12,000 (converted to 1999 prices, based on the producer price index (PPI) for all commodities).  Average profit for vessels by vessel length are: $1,598 for vessels less than 25 ft (7.6 m), $7,949 for vessels between 25 and 50 ft (7.6 and 15.2 m), and $8,457 for vessels greater than 50 ft (15.2 m).  Broken down by homeport state, average profits are: $4,769 for Alabama, $29,832 for Florida, $3,286 for Louisiana, $13,876 for Mississippi, and $11,452 for Texas.  The cost of a vessel permit is $50.  Thus, the permit costs as a percent of profit would be approximately 0.4 percent per vessel on average.  By vessel size category, permit costs as a percentage of profits would be 3.1 percent for vessels less than 25 ft (7.6 m), 0.6 percent for vessels between 25 and 50 ft (7.6 and 15.2 m), and 0.6 percent for vessels greater than 50 ft (15.2 m).  By homeport state, permit costs as a percentage of profits would be 1.0 percent for Alabama vessels, 0.2 percent for Florida vessels, 1.5 percent for Louisiana vessels, 0.4 percent for Mississippi vessels, and 0.4 percent for Texas vessels.
          Traps have not been an allowable gear in the royal red shrimp fishery prior to this rule, due to, first, their exclusion from the allowable gear list for this fishery and, second, an emergency interim rule prohibiting their use that expired on September 14, 2001.  Although only one fisherman has petitioned to use trap gear in the royal red shrimp fishery, designation of the gear as allowable for this fishery, which will occur automatically without promulgation of this rule, would make it available to all fishermen.  It is indeterminate, however, how many fishermen might elect to utilize the gear or how said use would affect the economic performance of the fishing operations.  Although it can probably be presumed that the petitioning fisherman may have intended to test the gear, extension of same to any portion of other fishermen is without empirical basis.  Further, in the absence of economic data on the use of trap gear in this fishery, it is not possible to precisely characterize potential foregone opportunity.  The historical lack of interest in the use of trap gear in the royal red shrimp fishery, as evidenced by the single petition for allowance, suggests that the economic rationale for its use is not strong, leading to a conclusion that continued prohibition would not generate significant adverse economic impacts in terms of foregone opportunity.  Further, although it is not known whether the petitioning fisherman made investments in the gear prior to either it's approval or testing, significant investment prior to such would not have been financially sound and is unlikely to have occurred.  With regard to transfer at sea, since this practice does not occur in the royal red shrimp fishery, this prohibition will not generate any adverse impacts.  The permit costs, $50.00 per vessel, and burden time, $4.00 per vessel, (estimated at 20 minutes per permit application) are the only costs imposed by the permitting requirement.  The estimated vessel cost is $54.00 per vessel and $378,000 for the industry for the first year.  As such, the proposed rule would not effect a significant reduction in vessel profits.  Therefore, the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis was not required.

        Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
        This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the PRA--namely, a requirement to submit an application for a Gulf shrimp commercial vessel permit and a vessel identification requirement.  In addition, NMFS intends to revise the Multiple Fishery Vessel Application (Application) that will be used for the Gulf shrimp permit and is used for other fishery permits issued by the NMFS Southeast Regional Office.  NMFS intends to add data fields for the applicant's birth date, street address, and county; vessel net tonnage; vessel gross tonnage, and vessel hull identification number.  The permit application requirement and the new application data field requirements have been submitted to OMB for approval.  The public reporting burden for the collection of information related to the Gulf shrimp permit application and the additional data elements on the Application is estimated to average 20 minutes per response.  This estimate of the public reporting burden includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collections of information.  The vessel identification requirement was previously approved by OMB under control number 0648-0358, with an estimated response time of 45 minutes total per vessel.

        Public comment is sought regarding:  whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.  Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection-of-information requirements, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and to OMB (see ADDRESSES).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands.

          Dated: February 19, 2002.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs,National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

            PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

          1.  The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

          2.  In § 622.2, the definition of “Shrimp” is revised to read as follows:

            § 622.2
            Definitions and acronyms.

            Shrimp means one or more of the following species, or a part thereof:
          (1) Brown shrimp, Farfantepenaeus aztecus.

          (2) White shrimp, Litopenaeus setiferus.

          (3) Pink shrimp, Farfantepenaeus duorarum.

          (4) Royal red shrimp, Hymenopenaeus robustus.

          (5) Rock shrimp, Sicyonia brevirostris.

          (6) Seabob shrimp, Xiphopenaeus kroyeri.

          3.  In § 622.4, paragraph (a)(2)(xi) is added to read as follows:

            § 622.4
            Permits and fees.

          (a) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (xi) Gulf shrimp. For a person aboard a vessel to fish for  shrimp in the Gulf EEZ or possess shrimp in or from the Gulf EEZ, a valid commercial vessel permit for Gulf shrimp must have been issued to the vessel and must be on board.

          4.  In § 622.6, paragraph (a)(1)(i) introductory text is revised to read as follows:

            § 622.6
            Vessel and gear identification.

          (a) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (i) Official number. A vessel for which a permit has been issued under § 622.4 must display its official number--

          5.  In § 622.31, paragraph (k) is added to read as follows:

            § 622.31
            Prohibited gear and methods.

          (k) Traps for royal red shrimp in the Gulf EEZ and transfer at sea. A trap may not be used to fish for royal red shrimp in the Gulf EEZ.  Possession of a trap and royal red shrimp on board a vessel is prohibited.  A trap used to fish for royal red shrimp in the Gulf EEZ may be disposed of in any appropriate manner by the Assistant Administrator or an authorized officer.  In addition, royal red shrimp cannot be transferred in the Gulf EEZ, and royal red shrimp taken in the Gulf EEZ cannot be transferred at sea regardless of where the transfer takes place.

      [FR Doc. 02-4451 Filed 2-22-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Part 513
        [GSAR Case 2007-G502; Docket 2008-0007; Sequence 16]
        RIN 3090-AI67
        General Services Acquisition Regulation; GSAR Case 2007-G502; Rewrite of GSAR Part 513, Simplified Acquisition Procedures

          AGENCY:
          Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, General Services Administration (GSA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The General Services Administration (GSA) is proposing to amend the General Services Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to revise and update the agency's implementation of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat on or before September 30, 2008 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by GSAR Case 2007-G502 by any of the following methods:

        • Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting “GSAR Case 2007-G502” under the heading “Comment or Submission”. Select the link “Send a Comment or Submission” that corresponds with GSAR Case 2007-G502. Follow the instructions provided to complete the “Public Comment and Submission Form”. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “GSAR Case 2007-G502” on your attached document.
        • Fax: 202-501-4067.
        • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4041, ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC 20405.

          Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite GSAR Case 2007-G502 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
          For clarification of content, contact Ms. Meredith Murphy at (202) 208-6925. For information pertaining to the status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), Room 4041, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-4755. Please cite GSAR Case 2007-G502.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background

        This is part of the GSAM Rewrite Project, initiated in 2006 to revise, update, and simplify the GSAM. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), with a request for comments, was published in the Federal Register at 71 FR 7910, February 15, 2006. No public comments were received in response to Part 513. Prior to publication of this proposed rule, the draft coverage was circulated within GSA to the Services and regions. A total of 57 comments, from within the agency, were received from 16 commenters. The proposed rule incorporates those recommendations where appropriate. The current GSAM Part 513 implements three of the FAR Part 13 subparts and the policy at 513.003. There are no clauses associated with Part 513, and no supplementary subparts. The proposed rule deletes the policy statement at 513.003 and certain GSA-specific forms that are redundant to standard or optional forms in the FAR, as well as the GSAM text associated with them.

        The GSA review team noted that GSAR Part 513 material currently coded as regulatory, i.e., GSAR, does not, in fact, contain regulatory material. GSAR 513.302-70, 513.303-3(a) and (b), and 513.307 are considered policy because these sections merely direct contracting officers to use certain forms in certain circumstances, and to include any geographic limitations and instructions in Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs). There are no clauses or solicitation provisions in these sections. Therefore, the team has recommended changing the referenced material (formerly shaded gray) to GSAM rather than GSAR. The effect is to remove all of the Part 513 GSAR material. However, this former GSAR material has been retained, with some modifications, in the GSAM, which will also be available to the public on the GSAM web site, once the revisions are made final.
        The following sections explain in detail the changes that are proposed to the former GSAR, now GSAM, Part 513 coverage. This information is not being provided for comment, but rather to simply notify the reader about changes to the former GSAR, now GSAM.

          513.302-70: References to electronic processing systems were updated at 513.302-70, and paragraph (f) relating to the outdated Standard Form (SF) 44 procedure was deleted. The GSA Forms 300 and 300A, Order for Supplies and Services, and Order for Supplies and Services—Continuation, respectively, are proposed for removal in favor of the preferred Optional Form (OF) 347, Order for Supplies and Services, and OF 348, Order for Supplies or Services—Continuation. These forms are outdated for a number of reasons:
        • Part 553 shows GSA Forms 300 and 300A as being 14 pages in length; effectively, however, it is a two-page form (Form 300 is the front and Form 300A is the back) repeated seven times. With electronic commerce, those additional copies are no longer needed.
        • The form is required to be printed and used in a pin-feed format, an outdated technology.
        • The second page of the form contains outdated clauses. Also, including clauses on a GSA form does not allow for frequently required updates.
        • Variations of the GSA Forms 300 and 300A are in use in at least four different software systems: NEAR, Pegasys, ITSS, and Comprison. However, none of these four systems uses the actual Form 300, and all four systems have modified the Form 300—but each has modified the form in different ways. In other words, there is not a single consistent format being used for the GSA Form 300 at GSA.

        OF 347 and OF 348 are very similar to the GSA Forms 300 and 300A, without the outdated and duplicative elements of the latter. FAR Drafting Conventions establish an order of preference as follows: Standard Forms first, Optional Forms second, and agency-specific forms third. GSA is in the process of procuring a new billing and invoicing system. This should provide the ideal opportunity to change over from the GSA forms to the Optional Forms and to make all processes consistent. However, we recognize that the change will take some time to complete, and we propose to delay the effective date for cancellation of the GSA Forms 300 and 300A six months beyond the effective date of GSAM Part 513. The delayed effective date will be accomplished as part of the GSA Order implementing the revised Part 513.

          513.303-3: The GSAM addresses four key areas of Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) that have presented the most procedural issues for procurement personnel. Therefore, the existing GSAM 513.303-3 is retained, but it is modified to include reference to the GSA Form 3521, Blanket Purchase Agreement. Also, an outdated reference to GSA 525.570 was deleted.

          513.307: This section currently is a single line authorizing the use of the GSA Form 3521 for preparation of a blanket purchase agreement. GSA is retaining the form but moving the reference to 513.303, Blanket purchase agreements (BPAs).
        This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The General Services Administration does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the changes are primarily editorial in nature. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been performed. We invite comments from small businesses and other interested parties. GSA will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected GSAR Part 513 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (GSAR case 2007-G502), in correspondence.
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act

        The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the GSAM do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 513
          Government procurement.

          Dated: July 24, 2008.
          Al Matera,
          Director, Office of Acquisition Policy.

        Therefore, under the authority of 40 U.S.C. 121(c), GSA proposes to remove 48 CFR part 513.

          PART 5137—[REMOVED]

      [FR Doc. E8-17549 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-61-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2014-0038; 4500030113]
        RIN 1018-BA13
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Status for 21 Species and Proposed Threatened Status for 2 Species in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period and notice of public hearings.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), recently published a proposed listing for 21 plant and animal species from the Mariana Islands (U.S. Territory of Guam and the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) as endangered species and 2 plant species from the Mariana Islands as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and announced a 60-day public comment period on the proposed actions, ending December 1, 2014. We now reopen the public comment period for an additional 30 days, and announce two public hearings and four public information meetings on our proposed rule. We are taking these actions to allow all interested parties additional time and opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.

          DATES:

            Written Comments: We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before February 11, 2015, or provided at the public hearings. Please note comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. Any comments that we receive after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on the proposed rule.

            Public Hearings and Information Meetings:

            Public hearings
            Public information meetings

              Guam: Tuesday, January 27, 2015, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

              Guam: Tuesday, January 27, 2015, from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

              U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI): Wednesday, January 28, 2015, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (island of Saipai)

              U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI):
              • Wednesday, January 28, 2015, from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
              • Thursday, January 29, 2015, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (island of Rota).
              • Saturday, January 31, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. (island of Tinian).

          ADDRESSES:

            Document Availability: You may obtain copies of the proposed rule at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2014-0038; from the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office's Web site (http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands ); or by contacting the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

            Comment Submission: You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments on the proposed listing rule to FWS-R1-ES-2014-0038.
          (2) By hard copy: Submit comments on the proposed listing rule by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2014-0038; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section, below, for more information).

            Locations of Public Hearings and Information Meetings:

            Public hearings
            Public information meetings

              Guam: University of Guam, in the Leon Guerrero School of Business and Public Administration Building, Anthony Leon Guerrero Multi-Purpose Room 129, located at UOG Station, Mangilao, Guam 96923.

              Guam: Same location as the public hearing.

              U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI): Island of Saipan, at the Multi-Purpose Center, located at Beach Road, Susupe, Saipan.

              U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI):
              • Island of Saipan, at the same location as the public hearing.
              • Island of Rota, at the Sinapalo Elementary School Cafeteria, located at Sinapalo I, Songsong Village, Rota, MP 96951.
              • Island of Tinian, at the Tinian Elementary School Cafeteria, located at San Jose Village, Tinian, MP 96952.

        People needing reasonable accommodation in order to attend and participate in either public hearing should contact Kristi Young, Deputy Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, as soon as possible (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kristi Young, Deputy Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Honolulu, HI 96850; telephone 808-792-9400; or facsimile 808-792-9581. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments

        We are reopening the public comment period for 30 days on our proposed rule to list 23 Mariana Islands species that was published in the Federal Register on October 1, 2014 (79 FR 59364), to allow all interested parties additional time to comment on the proposed rule. We will accept written comments and information until the date specified in the DATES section, above, or at the public hearings. We will consider all information and recommendations from all interested parties.
        For details on specific information we are requesting, please see the Information Requested section of our proposed rule (79 FR 59364; October 1, 2014).

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
        If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2014-0038 or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Authority

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

          Dated: December 19, 2014.
          Rowan W. Gould,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-00259 Filed 1-9-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
        38 CFR Part 3
        RIN 2900-AJ99
        Review of Benefit Claims Decisions

          AGENCY:
          Department of Veterans Affairs.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This document concerns the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adjudication regulations. We are proposing new provisions to allow any claimants who have filed a timely Notice of Disagreement to obtain a de novo review of their claims at the Veterans Service Center level. We believe this would provide a more efficient means for resolving disagreements concerning claims.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before April 18, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Mail or hand-deliver written comments to: Director, Office of Regulations Management (02D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW, Room 1154, Washington, DC 20420. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AJ99.” All comments received will be available for public inspection at the above address in the Office of Regulations Management, Room 1158, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jack Bisset, Consultant, Compensation and Pension Service, Regulations Staff, or Bob White, Team Leader, Plain Language Regulations Project, Veterans Benefits Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420, telephone (202) 273-7213 and (202) 273-7228, respectively (these are not toll-free numbers).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This document proposes to amend our adjudication regulations by establishing provisions at 38 CFR 3.2600 to allow any claimants who have filed a timely Notice of Disagreement to obtain a de novo review (a new and complete review with no deference given to the decision being reviewed) by Veterans Service Center personnel. The new provisions are based on the requirement in 38 U.S.C. 7105(d)(1) that, when a claimant files a Notice of Disagreement with the decision of an agency of original jurisdiction, the agency will “take such development or review action as it deems proper under the provisions of regulations not inconsistent with” title 38 of the United States Code. This proposed amendment would improve VA's service to claimants by resolving disagreements more quickly and by improving claimants' and their representatives' access to the person responsible for making the decision.
        We propose that the review be conducted by an Adjudication Officer, Veterans Service Center Manager, or Decision Review Officer (a new position within VA's Service Center), at VA's discretion. We believe these officials have the expertise to conduct such reviews. The review will be conducted by an individual who did not participate in the decision being reviewed. This requirement is similar to that for VA personnel conducting hearings under 38 CFR 3.103(c)(1). It will help ensure that reviews are truly de novo.
        The reviewer may conduct whatever development he or she considers necessary to resolve disagreements concerning decisions with which the claimant has expressed disagreement in the Notice of Disagreement, consistent with applicable law. This may include an attempt to obtain additional evidence or the holding of an informal conference with the claimant. Upon the request of the claimant, the reviewer will conduct a hearing under § 3.103(c). We believe that such procedures will allow the reviewer to resolve the claim fairly and promptly, and will afford the claimant an opportunity to present his or her case adequately.
        These proposed provisions would apply only to decisions that both have not yet become final (by appellate decision or failure to timely appeal) and with which the claimant has disagreed. This is consistent with the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 7104(b), 7105(c) and 7105(d).
        The review would be based on all the evidence of record and applicable law. Further, the review decision would have to include a summary of the evidence, a citation to pertinent laws, a discussion of how those laws affect the decision, and a summary of the reasons for the decision. This would ensure that the reviewer provides a fresh look at the case and provides an appropriate record of the decisionmaking process.
        Moreover, the reviewer would be authorized to grant a benefit sought in the claim, but would not be authorized to revise the decision in a manner that is less advantageous to the claimant than the decision under review. This will ensure that the claimant is not penalized for seeking a review. However, the reviewer would have the authority to reverse or revise any decision of the agency of original jurisdiction (including the decision being reviewed or any prior decision that has become final due to failure to timely appeal) on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error, even if disadvantageous to the claimant. All Service Center decisionmakers already have this authority (see 38 CFR 3.105(a)). This new delegation of authority would be consistent with 38 U.S.C. 5109A.
        The proposal provides that, upon receipt of a Notice of Disagreement, VA would notify the claimant in writing of his or her right to a review. To obtain such a review, the claimant would have to request it within 60 days of the date VA mails the notice. Written notification would ensure that VA would have a record of its notification, and the 60-day period would provide sufficient time for the claimant to determine whether he or she wants this review.
        The proposal also provides that a claimant may not have more than one of these reviews of the same decision and that this review would not limit the appellate rights of the claimant. We believe that one review is sufficient to resolve those claims that can be resolved before proceeding with appellate review.
        Proposed § 3.2600 is one of several provisions to be set forth in a new subpart D containing “universal adjudication rules” that would apply to claims which are governed by part 3 of title 38. This includes claims for benefits such as compensation, pension, dependency and indemnity compensation, burial benefits, and special benefits listed at §§ 3.800 through 3.814. The “universal adjudication rules” would also apply to claims for eligibility determinations (such as character of military discharge, military duty status and dependency status), apportionment of benefits to dependents, and waiver of recovery of overpayments. Proposed new § 3.2100 specifies the scope of applicability of the provisions in subpart D.
        We also propose to amend 38 CFR 3.105(b) (which concerns revision of decisions based on difference of opinion) to specify that a decision may be revised under § 3.2600 without being recommended to Central Office. This clarifies that the proposed review process created by § 3.2600 is not subject to the requirements of § 3.105(b).
        Unfunded Mandates

        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires (in section 202) that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before developing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private section of $100 million or more in any given year. This final rule will have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Secretary hereby certifies that the adoption of this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The proposed rule does not directly affect any small entities. Only VA beneficiaries are directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), these amendments are exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
        Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers
        The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers are 64.100, 64.101, 64.104, 64.105, 64.106, 64.109, 64.110, and 64.127.

          List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3
          Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Health care, Pensions, Veterans, Vietnam.

          Approved: December 21, 1999.
          Togo D. West, Jr.,
          Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 38 CFR part 3 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 3—ADJUDICATION

            Subpart A—Pension, Compensation, and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation

          1. The authority citation for part 3, subpart A continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.

          2. In § 3.105, paragraph (b) is amended by adding, as the last sentence, “However, a decision may be revised under § 3.2600 without being recommended to Central Office.”
          3. A new Subpart D is added to read as follows:

              Subpart D—Universal Adjudication Rules That Apply to Benefit Claims Governed by Part 3 of This Title
              General
              Sec.
              3.2100
              Subpart D's Scope of Applicability
              Revisions
              3.2600.
              Review of benefit claims decisions.

            Subpart D—Universal Adjudication Rules That Apply to Benefit Claims Governed by Part 3 of This Title

              Authority:
              38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.

            General

              § 3.2100
              Subpart D's Scope of Applicability.
              Unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this subpart apply only to claims governed by part 3 of this title.

                (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a))
                Revisions

              § 3.2600
              Review of benefit claims decisions.
              (a) A claimant who has filed a timely Notice of Disagreement with a decision of an agency of original jurisdiction on a benefit claim has a right to a review of that decision under this section. The review will be conducted by an Adjudication Officer, Veterans Service Center Manager, or Decision Review Officer, at VA's discretion. An individual who did not participate in the decision being reviewed will conduct this review. Only a decision that has not yet become final (by appellate decision or failure to timely appeal) may be reviewed. Review under this section will encompass only decisions with which the claimant has expressed disagreement in the Notice of Disagreement. The reviewer will consider all evidence of record and applicable law, and will give no deference to the decision being reviewed.
              (b) VA will notify the claimant in writing of his or her right to a review under this section. To obtain such a review, the claimant must request it within 60 days of the date VA mails the notice. A claimant may not have more than one review under this section of the same decision. This review does not limit the appellate rights of a claimant.
              (c) The reviewer may conduct whatever development he or she considers necessary to resolve any disagreements in the Notice of Disagreement, consistent with applicable law. This may include an attempt to obtain additional evidence or the holding of an informal conference with the claimant. Upon the request of the claimant, the reviewer will conduct a hearing under § 3.103(c).
              (d) The reviewer may grant a benefit sought in the claim notwithstanding § 3.105(b), but, except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, may not revise the decision in a manner that is less advantageous to the claimant than the decision under review. A review decision made under this section will include a summary of the evidence, a citation to pertinent laws, a discussion of how those laws affect the decision, and a summary of the reasons for the decision.
              (e) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, the reviewer may reverse or revise (even if disadvantageous to the claimant) prior decisions of an agency of original jurisdiction (including the decision being reviewed or any prior decision that has become final due to failure to timely appeal) on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error (see § 3.105(a)).

                (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5109A and 7105(d))

      [FR Doc. 00-3870 Filed 2-17-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 8320-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 210521-0114; RTID 0648-XW035]
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Annual Specifications; 2021-2022 Annual Specifications and Management Measures for Pacific Sardine

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement annual harvest specifications and management measures for the northern subpopulation of Pacific sardine (hereafter, Pacific sardine), for the fishing year from July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022. The proposed action would prohibit most directed commercial fishing for Pacific sardine off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. Pacific sardine harvest would be allowed only in the live bait fishery, minor directed fisheries, as incidental catch in other fisheries, or as authorized under exempted fishing permits. The incidental harvest of Pacific sardine would be limited to 20 percent by weight of all fish per trip when caught with other stocks managed under the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan, or up to 2 metric tons per trip when caught with non-Coastal Pelagic Species stocks. The proposed annual catch limit for the 2021-2022 Pacific sardine fishing year is 3,329 metric tons. This proposed rule is intended to conserve and manage the Pacific sardine stock off the U.S. West Coast.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by June 10, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2021-0045, by the following method:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-2021-0045 in the Search box. Click on the “Comment” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Taylor Debevec, West Coast Region, NMFS, (562) 619-2052, Taylor.Debevec@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        NMFS manages the Pacific sardine fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast (California, Oregon, and Washington) in accordance with the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set annual catch levels for the Pacific sardine fishery based on the annual specification framework and control rules in the FMP. These control rules include the harvest guideline (HG) control rule, which, in conjunction with the overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) rules in the FMP, are used to manage harvest levels for Pacific sardine, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        During public meetings each year, the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) presents the estimated biomass for Pacific sardine to the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), including the Council's CPS Management Team (Team), CPS Advisory Subpanel (Subpanel) and Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). The Team, Subpanel, and SSC review the biomass and the status of the fishery, and recommend applicable catch limits and additional management measures. Following Council review and public comment, the Council adopts a biomass estimate and recommends catch limits and any in-season accountability measures to NMFS. NMFS publishes annual specifications in the Federal Register to establish these catch limits and management measures for each Pacific sardine fishing year. This rule proposes the Council's recommended catch limits for the 2021-2022 fishing year, as well as management measures to ensure that harvest does not exceed those limits and the adoption of an OFL and ABC that take into consideration uncertainty surrounding the current estimate of biomass for Pacific sardine.
        Recommended Catch Limits
        According to the FMP, the catch limit for the primary directed fishery is determined using the FMP-specified HG formula. This Pacific sardine HG control rule, the primary mechanism for setting the primary directed fishery catch limit, includes a CUTOFF parameter, which has been set as a biomass level of 150,000 mt. This amount is subtracted from the annual biomass estimate before calculating the applicable HG for the fishing year. Since this year's biomass estimate, 28,276 metric tons (mt), is below that value, the formula results in an HG of zero, and no Pacific sardine are available for the primary directed fishery during the 2021-2022 fishing season. This is the seventh consecutive year that the primary directed fishery is closed.
        During the 2019-2020 fishing year, the estimated biomass of Pacific sardine dropped below its 50,000-mt minimum stock size threshold (MSST), which triggered an overfished determination process. Accordingly, NMFS declared the stock overfished on June 26, 2019, and notified the Council on July 9, 2019. Since then, NMFS has worked with the Council to develop a rebuilding plan for Pacific sardine. At its September 2020 meeting, the Council recommended Amendment 18 to the CPS FMP, which would implement a rebuilding plan for Pacific sardine. NMFS published a Notification of Availability (86 FR 14401) for Amendment 18 to the CPS FMP on March 16, 2021, with a comment period ending on May 17, 2021.
        At the Council's April 2021 meeting, the Council's SSC reviewed the SWFSC 2021-2022 Pacific sardine stock assessment “Catch-only projection of the Pacific sardine resource in 2021 for U.S. management in 2021-2022.” The SWFSC completes annual assessments for Pacific sardine. The type of assessment alternates between benchmark assessments in one year and updated assessments the following two years. Both types of assessments are based largely on data collected from annual research cruises. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a CPS research cruise was not conducted in 2020. As a result, the SWFSC produced a catch-only projection, based on the 2020 benchmark assessment, to provide a biomass estimate for harvest specifications during the 2021-2022 fishing year.

        Although the SSC acknowledged that the SWFSC appropriately conducted the stock assessment in accord with the Council's Terms of Reference for catch-only projections, the SSC concluded that the assessment was not appropriate for use in management this year. The SSC's primary concern was the discrepancy between the 2020 estimated fleet catch used in the 2020 benchmark assessment and the actual observed 2020 fleet catch used in the 2021 catch-only assessment. Specifically, the actual observed MexCal fleet catch (i.e., catch from Mexico, Southern California, and Central California) used for the 2021 catch-only projection was significantly higher than the preliminary estimate of the MexCal fleet catch for the same time period used in the 2020 benchmark assessment (33,070 mt vs 11,819 mt), resulting in a catch level for 2020 that was higher than the estimated biomass for 2020. This high level of catch caused the stock assessment model to make unrealistic assumptions about the stock (e.g., levels of recruitment and fishing mortality rate) that are not expected for a catch-only assessment, as they varied too much from the 2020 benchmark assessment. For example, to reflect such a high catch amount, the model assumed a recruitment level that was nearly triple the previous assessment model estimate of recruitment.

        Because of this discrepancy, the SSC recommended using the 2020 benchmark assessment to provide a biomass estimate for harvest specifications during the 2021-2022 fishing year, including the 2020-2021 biomass estimate of 28,276 mt, and the OFL of 5,525 mt. The SSC acknowledged that defaulting to the 2020-2021 stock assessment does not resolve the inconsistencies between the 2020 benchmark assessment and the 2021 catch-only assessment; therefore, the SSC recommended designating the 2020 benchmark assessment as a Category 3 stock assessment, which infers a high amount of uncertainty (i.e., a data-poor assessment) and functionally increases the buffer between the OFL and the ABC to account for the greater uncertainty and ensure overfishing is prevented.
        Based on the SSC's recommendation, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing for the 2021-2022 fishing year, an OFL of 5,525 mt, an ABC of 3,329 mt, an annual catch limit (ACL) of 3,329 mt, and a prohibition on commercial Pacific sardine catch, unless it is harvested as part of the live bait, tribal, or minor directed fisheries, as incidental catch in other fisheries, or as part of exempted fishing permit (EFP) activities. The Council also recommended an annual catch target (ACT) of 3,000 mt for the 2021-2022 fishing year. For comparison, the ABC/ACL and ACT adopted last year were 4,288 mt and 4,000 mt, respectively. Therefore, although the recommended OFL for this year is the same as last year, the ABC/ACL level has been reduced to account for greater uncertainty in the OFL and an increased level of precaution.
        In conjunction with setting an ACT, the Council also recommended inseason and other management measures to ensure harvest opportunity under the ACT throughout the year (see Recommended Management Measures below).
        Recommended Management Measures
        The proposed annual harvest limits and management measures were developed in the context of the fact that NMFS declared the Pacific sardine stock overfished in July 2019. Since the biomass remains below the 50,000 mt MSST, the FMP requires that incidental catch of Pacific sardine in other CPS fisheries be limited to an incidental allowance of no more than 20 percent by weight (instead of a maximum of 40 percent allowed when below the CUTOFF but above the MSST).
        The following are the proposed management measures and inseason accountability measures for the Pacific sardine 2021-2022 fishing year:
        (1) If landings in the live bait fishery reach 1,800 mt, of Pacific sardine, then a 1-mt per-trip limit of sardine would apply to the live bait fishery.

        (2) An incidental per-landing limit of 20-percent (by weight) Pacific sardine applies to other CPS primary directed fisheries (e.g., Pacific mackerel).

        (3) If the ACT of 3,000 mt is attained, then a 1-mt per-trip limit of Pacific sardine would apply to all CPS fisheries (i.e., 1) and 2) would no longer apply).
        (4) An incidental per-landing allowance of 2 mt of Pacific sardine would apply to non-CPS fisheries until the ACL is reached.
        All sources of catch including any EFP set-asides, the live bait fishery, and other minimal sources of harvest, such as incidental catch in CPS and non-CPS fisheries, and minor directed fishing, will be accounted for against the ACT and ACL.

        The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator would publish a notification in the Federal Register to announce when catch reaches the incidental limits, as well as any changes to allowable incidental catch percentages. Additionally, to ensure that the regulated community is informed of any closure, NMFS would make announcements through other means available, including emails to fishermen, processors, and state fishery management agencies.
        In previous fishing years, the Quinault Indian Nation has requested, and NMFS has approved, a set-aside for the exclusive right to harvest Pacific sardine in the Quinault Usual and Accustomed Fishing Area off the coast of Washington State, pursuant to the 1856 Treaty of Olympia (Treaty with the Quinault). For the 2021-2022 fishing year, the Quinault Indian Nation has not requested a tribal set-aside, and therefore none is proposed.
        At the April 2021 meeting, the Council approved three EFP proposals requesting an exemption from the prohibition to directly harvest sardine during their discussion of sardine management measures. Those EFPs include a total amount of up to 830 mt of the ACL.
        This action must be effective by July 1, 2021; otherwise the fishery will open without any catch limits or restrictions in place. In order to ensure that these harvest specifications are effective in time for the start of the July 1 fishing year, NMFS will solicit public comments on this proposed rule for 15 days rather than the standard 30 days. A 15-day comment period has been the practice since the 2015-2016 fishing year, when the primary directed fishery for sardine was first closed. NMFS received the recommendations from the Council that form the basis for this rule only last month. The subject of this proposed rule—the establishment of the reference points—is considered a routine action, because they are calculated annually based on the framework control rules in the FMP. Additionally the Council provided an opportunity for public comment at its April 2021 meeting, as it does every year before adopting the recommended harvest specifications and management measures for the proceeding fishing year.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
        Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule was developed after meaningful consultation and collaboration with the tribal representative on the Council who has agreed with the provisions that apply to tribal vessels.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, for the following reasons:

        For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.

        The purpose of this proposed rule is to conserve the Pacific sardine stock by preventing overfishing, while still allowing harvest opportunity among differing fishery sectors. This will be accomplished by implementing the 2021-2022 annual specifications for Pacific sardine in the U.S. EEZ off the West coast. The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are the vessels that would be expected to harvest Pacific sardine as part of the West Coast CPS small purse seine fleet if the fishery were open, as well as fishermen targeting other CPS, sardine for live bait, or sardine in the minor directed fishery. In 2014, the last year that a directed fishery for Pacific sardine was allowed, there were approximately 81 vessels permitted to operate in the directed sardine fishery component of the CPS fishery off the U.S. West Coast; 58 vessels in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California (south of 39° N. lat.); and a combined 23 vessels in Oregon and Washington's state Pacific sardine fisheries. We do not collect or have access to information about affiliation between vessels or affiliation between vessels and processing entities in this fishery, or receipts in Alaska, Hawaii, or international fisheries, so it is possible that some impacted entities may exceed $11 million in ex-vessel revenue or another size-standard threshold. Based on available data, the average annual west coast revenue per vessel for all west coast vessels, including those described above potentially affected by this rule, was well below the threshold level of $11 million as of 2020; therefore, all of these vessels are considered small businesses under the RFA. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed rule is considered to equally affect all of these small entities in the same manner. Therefore, this rule would not create disproportionate costs between small and large vessels/businesses.

        The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to annually set an OFL, ABC, ACL, and HG or ACT for the Pacific sardine fishery based on the specified harvest control rules in the FMP applied to the current stock biomass estimate for that year. The derived annual HG is the level typically used to manage the primary directed sardine fishery and is the harvest level NMFS typically uses for profitability analysis each year. As stated above, the CPS FMP dictates that when the estimated biomass drops below a certain level (150,000 mt), the HG is zero. Since there is again no directed fishing for the 2021-2022 fishing year, this proposed rule will not change the potential profitability for directly regulated entities compared to the previous six fishing years. Additionally, while the proposed 2021-2022 ACL is slightly lower compared to previous years, it is still expected to account for the various fishery sector needs (i.e., live bait, incidental catch in other CPS fisheries, and minor directed fisheries).
        The revenue derived from harvesting Pacific sardine is typically only one of the sources of fishing revenue for the commercial vessels that participate in this fishery. As a result, the economic impact to the fleet from the proposed action cannot be viewed in isolation. From year to year, depending on market conditions and availability of fish, most CPS/sardine vessels supplement their income by harvesting other species. Many vessels in California also harvest anchovy, mackerel, and in particular, squid, making Pacific sardine only one component of a multi-species CPS fishery. Additionally, some sardine vessels that operate off of Oregon and Washington also fish for salmon in Alaska or squid in California during times of the year when sardine are not available. The purpose of the incidental catch limits proposed in this action are to ensure the vessels impacted by a prohibition on directly harvesting sardine can still access these other profitable fisheries while minimizing Pacific sardine harvest.
        CPS vessels typically rely on multiple species for profitability because abundance of Pacific sardine, like the other CPS stocks, is highly associated with ocean conditions and seasonality. Variability in ocean conditions and season results in variability in the timing and location of CPS harvest throughout the year. Because each species responds to ocean conditions in its own way, not all CPS stocks are likely to be abundant at the same time. Therefore, as abundance levels and markets fluctuate, the CPS fishery as a whole has relied on a group of species for its annual revenues.
        Therefore the proposed action, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.
        This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paper Reduction Act. There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action.

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

          Dated: May 21, 2021.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2021-11161 Filed 5-25-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2002-13957]
        RIN 2127-AI97
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of withdrawal of rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:

          On February 12, 2003 NHTSA published a request for comments in the Federal Register (68 FR 7101) regarding Adaptive Frontal-lighting Systems (AFS). The agency noted the automotive industry was introducing Adaptive Frontal-lighting Systems that could actively change the intensity and direction of headlamp illumination in response to changes in vehicle speed or roadway geometry, such as providing more light to the left in a left-hand curve. The agency expressed concern that such headlighting systems may cause additional glare to oncoming drivers, change the easily recognizable and consistent appearance of oncoming vehicles, and have failure modes that may cause glare for long periods of time. The agency stated it was also interested in learning whether these adaptive systems can provide any demonstrated reduction in crash risk during nighttime driving. For reasons discussed in this document, the agency is withdrawing this rulemaking.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For non-legal issues: Mr. David M. Hines, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, Telephone number (202) 493-0245, FAX number (202) 366-7002. For legal issues: Mr. Eric Stas, Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone number (202) 366-2992, FAX number (202) 366-3820. You may send mail to either of these officials at NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        The development of AFS has been ongoing for approximately a decade, although much earlier versions of such situation-adaptive headlighting were previously incorporated in vehicles sold to the public including the Tucker automobile in the United States and Citroen automobiles in Europe. The goal of current AFS is to actively control headlamp beam pattern performance to meet the dynamic illumination needs of changing roadway geometries and visibility conditions. One initial application, commonly referred to as “bending light,” automatically re-aims the lower beam headlamps to the left or right depending on the steering angle of the vehicle, with the intent to better illuminate curves in the roadway.

        Motor vehicles equipped with AFS are currently being advertised and sold in the United States. This is not prohibited at the Federal level because Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, does not specifically address the initial or subsequent aim of a headlamp in a headlighting system. The Standard addresses only aimability requirements. Further details regarding this issue are discussed in the letter from the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Mr. Mark Cronmiller, VDO North America, dated July 21, 1999 (available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/files/20061.ztv.html).
        The agency notes that S5.3.2 of Standard No. 108 also requires that lamps and reflective devices must be installed such that their photometric requirements are met on motor vehicles and that no other part of the vehicle shall prevent that. As such, the additional hardware added to achieve AFS must not prevent headlamps, or any other required lamps, from meeting the required performance in any manner whether AFS is operating or not. Additionally, for the bending light mechanization where some of the light in the nominal beam pattern is actively redirected, the photometric requirements of the headlamp must be met regardless of active changes in the light distribution within the beam.

        Comments to our published request regarding AFS were received from individuals, groups, and corporations; these responses generally addressed many of the questions the agency asked. These comments may be viewed at: http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm (docket number 13957). Several of the comments either provided insight on or referenced studies regarding AFS. The agency also contracted with the Lighting Research Center (LRC), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, to study the available literature and to assess aspects of AFS technology. Results of that research will be posted on our Web site: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov as they become available.
        II. Reason for Withdrawal
        After careful consideration, NHTSA has decided to withdraw this rulemaking. The agency believes further research on AFS is needed and is currently conducting research on AFS-related topics. If this research indicates a need for future rulemaking, the agency will act accordingly.
        The agency arrived at this decision after reviewing the comments received and giving consideration to the findings of the LRC survey. LRC found that although a significant number of studies on AFS had been done, due to inconsistency in the metrics used and lack of information on experimental procedures and scenarios, further research is needed to quantify the effectiveness of AFS as it relates to vision improvement, as well as its contributions to glare. LRC stated that because existing reports on AFS did not supply sufficient information and did not use common performance metrics related to traffic safety, it is difficult to reproduce or validate the studies and their results. Nevertheless, the agency still considers AFS to be a potentially important technology and will continue its efforts to understand the relevant safety issues associated with its use.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50, and 501.8.

          Issued on: July 11, 2005.
          Stephen R. Kratzke,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 05-13959 Filed 7-14-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
        [WI101-7332b; FRL-7206-6]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Wisconsin Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Wisconsin

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          We are proposing to approve the State of Wisconsin's request to redesignate the villages of Rothschild and Weston and the Township of Rib Mountain, all located in central Marathon County, Wisconsin, from primary and secondary sulfur dioxide (SO2) nonattainment areas to attainment of the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In conjunction with these actions, EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the Rothschild-Rib Mountain-Weston nonattainment areas, which was submitted to ensure that attainment of the NAAQS will be maintained. Further, we are also proposing to incorporate into the Wisconsin SO2 State Implementation Plan consent orders for Weyerhaeuser Company and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation's Weston Plant. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) submitted the redesignation request and maintenance plan on November 17, 2000, and submitted the consent orders on October 17, 2001. The proposed actions are approvable because they satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act. In the final rules section of this Federal Register, we are approving these actions as a direct final rule without prior proposal, because we view this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comments in response to the direct final rule, we contemplate no further activity in relation to this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comments on the direct final rule, we will withdraw the direct final rule, and we will address all public comments received in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before June 28, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Christos Panos, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8328.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For additional information, see the Direct Final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register. Copies of the request and the EPA's analysis are available for inspection at the above address. (Please telephone Christos Panos at (312) 353-8328 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

          Dated: April 4, 2002.
          David A. Ullrich,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

      [FR Doc. 02-13113 Filed 5-28-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P