        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Parts 2, 15, 25, 27, and 101
        [WT Docket No. 20-443; GN Docket No. 17-183; DA 21-370; FR ID 20758]
        Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, extension of comment and reply comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) extends the comment and reply comment period of the Notice of the Proposed Rulemaking of the proceeding that was released on January 15, 2021.

          DATES:
          The deadline for filing comments is extended to May 7, 2021, and the deadline for filing reply comments is extended to June 7, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 20-443 and GN Docket No. 17-183, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.

          • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

          Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
          • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
          • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
          • Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
          • During the time the Commission's building is closed to the general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.

            People With Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Madelaine Maior of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-1466 or Madelaine.Maior@fcc.gov; or Simon Banyai of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-1443 or Simon.Banyai@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's Order in WT Docket No. 20-443; DA 21-370, adopted and released March 29, 2021. The full text of this document,1
           visit FCC's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-13A1.pdf or via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

            1 Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, Order, DA 21-370.

        I. Background
        1. On January 15, 2021, the Commission released a NPRM seeking input on the feasibility of allowing flexible-use services in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band (12 GHz band) while protecting incumbents from harmful interference.2
           The NPRM set deadlines for filing comments and reply comments of April 7, 2021, and May 7, 2021, respectively.

            2 See Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, et al., WT Docket No. 20-443, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 21-13, 2021 WL 228049 (Jan. 15, 2021) (NPRM). The comment and reply comment deadlines were set at 30 and 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, which occurred on March 8, 2021. See Federal Communications Commission, Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, 86 FR 13266 (Mar. 8, 2021).

        2. On March 19, 2021, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), INCOMPAS, Open Technology Institute at New America, and Public Knowledge (“Movants”) filed a motion for a 30-day extension of the these filing deadlines, such that comments would be due May 7, 2021, and reply comments would be due June 7, 2021.3
           The Movants state that the NPRM solicits comment on important factual, legal, technical and policy issues that require thorough analyses from engineers, lawyers, and consultants and will take time to substantively address.4

           Movants further assert that no party will be prejudiced by granting the Motion and that authorizing additional time potentially will allow all interested parties to (1) more fully develop their responses to the Commission's NPRM, leading to a better record; and (2) more fully explore the applicability to the 12 GHz band of sharing solutions developed for use in other frequency bands.5
           The Movants aver that good cause exists for granting the Motion and that doing so would be consistent with past precedent.6
           Parties filing responses to this Motion (Respondents) either support or do not object to a 30-day extension and no opposition has been filed.7

            3 See Motion of CCIA et al. for Extension of Time, WT Docket No. 20-443, et al., at 1 (filed Mar. 19, 2021), https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/103190996020555/Joint%20Motion%20for%20Extension%20-%2012%20GHz%20(3.19.21).pdf (Motion).

            4 Id. at 2-3 (Movants state that that this is especially so for organizations that represent an array of interests that also have been working diligently on the implementation of COVID-19-relief programs that are critical for the nation).

            5 Id.

            6 Id. & n.7 (citing Implementation of State and Local Governments' Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification Requests Under § 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012; Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Order Granting Extension of Time, 34 FCC Rcd 8660, 8660, para. 3 (2019)); see also id. at 2-3 & n.8 (citing Commission Staff Requests That Interested Parties Supplement the Record on Draft Interference Rules for Wireless Communications Service and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service, Order Extending Comment Period, 25 FCC Rcd 3642, 3643-44, para. 5 (2010)).

            7 See Ruth Pritchard-Kelly, Senior Advisor, ONEWEB, et al., (“12 GHz Alliance”) to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (Mar. 23, 2021); David Goldman, Director of Satellite Policy, Space Exploration Technologies Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (Mar. 22, 2021). The 12 GHz Alliance does not object to the Motion but requests suspension of comment and reply comment deadlines until RS Access, LLC, provides certain technical analyses referenced in a filing by RS Access. See, e.g., Letter from Trey Hanbury, Counsel to RS Access, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, Attachment at 1 (filed Feb. 8, 2021) (stating that its “preliminary engineering analysis indicates that spectrum sharing with SpaceX and other NGSO FSS licensees is feasible”); Letter from Trey Hanbury, Counsel to RS Access, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, at 3 (filed Feb. 26, 2021); Letter from Trey Hanbury, Counsel to RS Access, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, at 2 (filed Feb. 19, 2021); Letter from Trey Hanbury, Counsel to RS Access, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, at 2 (filed Mar. 15, 2021). The Commission declines to take this action, which may be rendered moot by its grant of the instant Motion.

        3. The Commission grants the Motion for Extension of Time. As set forth in § 1.46 of the Commission's rules,8

           the Commission does not routinely grant extensions of time for filing comments in rulemaking proceedings. In this case, however, The Commission finds good cause for granting an extension of the comment and reply comment periods for reasons identified by the Movants and the Respondents. Specifically, the Commission concludes that extension of the comment and reply deadlines to May 7, 2021, and June 7, 2021, respectively, is warranted to provide commenters with additional time to prepare comments and reply comments that fully respond to the complex economic, engineering, and policy issues raised in the NPRM.

            8 47 CFR 1.46.

        II. Ordering Clauses
        4. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to § 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and 0.131, 0.331, and 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.131, 0.331, and 1.46, the Motion for Extension of Time filed by CCIA, INCOMPAS, Open Technology Institute at New America, Public Knowledge is granted.

        5. It is further ordered that the deadlines to file comments and reply comments in this proceeding are granted to May 7, 2021, and June 7, 2021, respectively.

        List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 2, 15, 25, 27 and 101
        Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Amy Brett,
          Acting Chief of Staff, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2021-07816 Filed 4-15-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0078]
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assemblies

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

          ACTION:
          Denial of Petition for Rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by Mr. Michael R. Schramm, to amend the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on seat belt assemblies, to include a requirement that seat belts be releasable without unbuckling. We are denying the petition because the petitioner did not demonstrate a safety need for such a requirement or show how such a requirement could be implemented without increasing inadvertent release of seat belts during normal vehicle operation and certain crash scenarios, resulting in increased risk to vehicle occupants.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            For Non-Legal Issues: Ms. Carla Rush, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-4583, Facsimile: (202) 493-2739.

            For Legal Issues: Mr. Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-2992, Facsimile: (202) 366-3820.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, includes a provision, S4.1(e) Release, that requires a seat belt assembly to provide a buckle that is readily accessible to the occupant to permit the easy and rapid removal of that occupant from the assembly. Furthermore, S4.3(d) Buckle release, requires the following:
        (1) The buckle of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall release when a force of not more than 133 N is applied.
        (2) A buckle designed for pushbutton application of buckle release force shall have a minimum area of 452 mm2 with a minimum linear dimension of 10 mm for applying the release force, or a buckle designed for lever application of buckle release force shall permit the insertion of a cylinder 10 mm in diameter and 38 mm in length to at least the midpoint of the cylinder along the cylinder's entire length in the actuation portion of the buckle release. A buckle having other design for release shall have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release.
        (3) The buckle of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall not release under a compressive force of 1,779 N applied as prescribed in paragraph S5.2(d)(3).1
           The buckle shall be operable and shall meet the applicable requirement of paragraph S4.4 2
           after the compressive force has been removed.

            1 S5.2(d)(3) applies the force on a test line that is coincident with the center line of the belt extended through the buckle or on any line that extends over the center of the release mechanism and intersects the extended centerline of the belt at an angle of 60 degrees. The load shall be applied using a curved cylindrical bar placed with its longitudinal center line along the test line and its center directly above the point or the buckle to which the load will be applied.

            2 S4.4 contains the requirements for assembly performance, including strength tests, elongation requirements, breaking strength, and fracture resistance.

        II. Petition
        On December 8, 2009, Michael R. Schramm (henceforth referred to as the petitioner) petitioned NHTSA to amend FMVSS No. 209, to require seat belts to be releasable without unbuckling in response to a 5 pound (lb.) minimum seat belt assembly tension load when a vehicle is not moving faster than a threshold speed of 5 miles per hour (mph). Specifically, the petitioner recommended the incorporation of the following language in FMVSS No. 209, “Said seat belt assembly shall release (without “unlatching” said buckle release mechanism) in response to a 5 lb. minimum load when and only when the vehicle in which said seat belt is installed is not moving at a speed of greater than 5 mph.” The petitioner also included a copy of a November 23, 2009 nonprovisional patent application for an “Adaptive Seatbelt Apparatus” for which the petitioner was listed as the inventor. The petitioner provided a cost estimate of $3.50 per seating position for such a feature.
        The petitioner cited several arguments in support of requiring seat belts to be releasable without unbuckling, including reducing the likelihood of death and injury of entrapped vehicle occupants. The petitioner cited the possibility of occupants being unable to extricate themselves from a vehicle due to a broken arm or hand. The petitioner also identified a case where a child almost got strangled by a seat belt. The petitioner further suggested there is a demand for such a feature as evidenced by the availability of seat belt cutting devices. He also suggested that seat belt use would increase, claiming a current lack of seat belt use by police officers who have the fear of being unable to immediately egress an engaged seat belt in emergency situations.
        III. The Automotive Occupant Restraints Council's Comments

        On March 1, 2010, the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC) submitted a letter to NHTSA declining support of Mr. Schramm's petition. The AORC provided the following reasons for declining to support the petition: (1) A stationary vehicle that is struck would likely experience a seat belt release as soon as the belt is loaded; (2) merely moving around in the vehicle, while the vehicle is stationary, could cause the seat belt to release without intent/awareness of the occupant, which, even if the occupant were aware of the situation, would likely be annoying; (3) it is not clear how the proposed tension load was determined as proper; (4) a child restrained in a seat could unlatch the seat belt during low speed maneuvers by pulling on it; and (5) in a slow rollover with no or low vehicle speed, a buckle could release as the vehicle lands on its roof. In summary, the AORC stated that these hazards far outweigh any potential benefit for the extremely rare cases cited by the petitioner.

        IV. Analysis of Petition

        FMVSS No. 209 already requires the release mechanism to provide a rapid and easy removal from the seat belt assembly. The petitioner raised concern about extremely rare instances where crash deformation could cause the release mechanism to be damaged or become inaccessible. When such severe crashes occur, emergency medical services personnel use specialized equipment to extricate occupants. Also, should vehicle occupants be concerned about such a situation, there are aftermarket products, such as seat belt webbing cutters, that can be used. The petitioner also cited the possibility of vehicle occupants being unable to extricate themselves from their seat belt due to injuries (i.e., broken arm/hand) as a reason for requiring seat belts to be releasable without unbuckling. However, if the occupant was impaired in such a way that they were unable to unbuckle their seat belt and relied on the seat belt to release without unbuckling, such injuries may also limit their ability to exit through the vehicle door or window. The issue raised by the petition is whether there is a safety need to justify rulemaking to consider revising the existing standard in the manner recommended by the petitioner. The following section discusses technical concerns identified by the agency.
        A. Technical Concerns

        The petitioner's main argument for seat belts that release without unbuckling is that they would reduce the likelihood of death and injury of entrapped vehicle occupants. However, it is unclear how the petitioner's request would be implemented to function without inadvertently releasing the seat belt during certain, more common, crash scenarios, e.g., a vehicle struck while slowly traveling through an intersection or a vehicle struck while stopped. The petitioner argued that it could be possible to require seat belts to not release as petitioned if the vehicle is traveling below the specified speed threshold and it detects an imminent oncoming crash. However, to accomplish this, vehicles would further require integration of electrical signals from existing front and side crash sensor information into the mechanical system that controls the petitioned buckle release technology, and presumably also require additional crash sensors for rollover and rear-end crash events for vehicles without such sensors. Crash imminent sensors, or sensors that detect an impending crash, may also be needed.
        It is also unclear how such a seat belt feature would perform during a slow rollover. NHTSA is concerned that releasing the seat belt in a slow rollover could increase the risk of occupant ejection and lead to rollover fatalities and serious injuries. Given that the petitioner did not go into the specifics 3
           of how the integration of electrical signals from vehicle crash sensors would work with the requested mechanical seat belt feature, we have concerns that the system would not act in time to keep the occupants restrained before the tension load threshold was reached.

            3 The petitioner's patent simply stated that the vehicle would have the means to detect vehicle speed, oncoming vehicle speed, occupant presence, occupant weight, etc., and that it would communicate such information as needed to appropriately actuate the invention, but it did not give specifics on how it would communicate with the apparatus. It further assumed that all vehicles would have all the cited detection capabilities.

        Such a feature would also be a potential risk during normal vehicle operation, e.g., children who cannot sit still or reach for items when the vehicle is traveling below the 5 mph threshold would likely be required to continuously re-buckle their seat belts during trips, which poses a potential disturbance to the driver and a safety risk to the child. Of greater concern would be that the parent would not be aware that the child has inadvertently released their buckle. In addition, for adult occupants the inadvertent seat belt release would present a considerable annoyance.
        The petitioner further suggested that by requiring such a feature, seat belt use would increase, especially among law enforcement and emergency response personnel that fear vehicle entrapment or being unable to immediately egress an engaged seat belt. While the petitioner provided a newspaper article that discussed police officers' concerns about time delays in tense situations if they have to undo their seat belt,4
           the petitioner did not demonstrate that police officer seat belt use would increase if the requested rule were adopted. Similarly, the petitioner also included only anecdotal information regarding children being injured or strangled by seat belts, which would not necessarily be addressed by the requested rule.

            4 Fruhwirth, Jesse, Standard Examiner Davis Bureau, November 23, 2008, Page 1A.

        Finally, no information was provided to show how the petitioner determined that 5 lbs. was a proper tension load. The petitioner merely suggested that NHTSA can determine a more appropriate load, or alternatively, it could be designed with a release load that adjusts according to the occupant's size or weight. However, the agency currently has no data or research findings that would allow for the determination of an appropriate load value. For the technical reasons previously discussed, the agency has no plans to devote resources towards this at this time.
        B. Preliminary Analysis of Real World Crash Data
        Although the petitioner did not provide data showing a real world safety problem, the agency examined its crash data as part of considering the petition using the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) and Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data.5

            5 Refer to the technical analysis in the docket for this notice for further details.

        Using 1997-2008 NASS data, the agency identified cases that: (1) Involved at least one death to a belted occupant who was not completely ejected and for which the case summary included text that suggested submersion, immersion, drowning, or asphyxiation; and (2) involved at least one death to a belted occupant who was not completely ejected and suffered a burn injury. Based on our review of these 65 cases (29 submersion cases and 36 burn cases), the agency could not conclude that any of the occupants would have benefitted from a rule requiring releasable without unbuckling seat belts. While 22 cases, a weighted estimate of 84 occupants (over the twelve-year period) were classified as having an “unknown potential benefit” from such a rule, many of those were unlikely to have benefitted because: Drugs and alcohol were involved, other damage to the vehicle may have impacted extrication (doors jammed shut), or the occupant may have been unconscious due to blunt force trauma and unable to extricate themselves.
        The 2006-2008 FARS files were also searched for unejected belted occupants for whom “safety belts” was listed as a vehicle contributing factor, and three cases were identified. Upon review of the three FARS case Police Accident Reports, none of the fatalities was a result of not being able to unbuckle the seat belt.

        We also considered the potential unintended consequences that could result from the petitioned change to FMVSS No. 209. As discussed in the previous section, there are several scenarios where releasable without unbuckling seat belts would not be desirable and may result in increased risk to the vehicle occupants. For example, child passenger safety is an area of great importance to the agency. Children restrained using seat belts that can be inadvertently released presents a major safety concern, because children tend to move around more in their seats and could easily be unaware that the seat belt could release if loaded when the vehicle is stopped or travelling slowly. Similar risks could be present for children in child restraints. As a result of the inadvertent release of the seat belt by a child, the act of having to get the child restrained again during a trip would be a distraction for the driver and a large safety risk for the child. The child would be exposed to an even greater risk if no one is aware that the child is unrestrained and the child does not reattach their seat belt.
        In the previous section we also discussed how occupants of a vehicle that is stationary 6
           or travelling below the buckle release speed threshold that is involved in a collision would experience an inadvertent buckle release upon loading of the belt, and how rollovers are also a crash scenario where belts that are releasable without unbuckling would be undesirable from a safety perspective. These technical concerns and potential safety risks are insufficiently addressed by the petition. Further, the petitioner has not shown that his solution will not create additional problems, beyond those mentioned herein.

            6 A National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (DOT HS 811 059) conducted between July 3, 2005 and December 31, 2007 found that an estimated 16 percent (350,000) of the vehicles were stopped in the traffic lane prior to the crash event (pg. 22, Table 7).

        C. Analysis of Countermeasure Costs
        The petitioner cited a cost of $3.50 countermeasure cost per seating position to comply with the petitioner's recommendation. However, we are dubious of this minimal cost estimate, since the petition did not account for the software and hardware integration necessary to monitor the vehicle speed and determine whether it is below the threshold for release. For seat belts to remain buckled if the vehicle is traveling below the threshold for release and an oncoming crash is detected, the device would require software and integration of crash imminent detection for existing front and side crash sensors and further installation cost and integration of rollover and rear-end crash sensors. Such costs were not accounted for in the petition.
        V. Conclusion
        FMVSS No. 209 already requires the release mechanism to provide a rapid and easy removal from the seat belt assembly. While the petitioner cites concerns about death and injury of entrapped vehicle occupants who are unable to unbuckle their seat belts, he does not demonstrate that this is an actual real-world safety problem of any significance. In rare instances where an extreme crash could cause the release mechanism to be damaged or become inaccessible, emergency medical services personnel also have their own specialized extrication equipment. Should vehicle occupants have a concern about such a situation, they can purchase aftermarket webbing cutters. The agency reviewed its data on fatal crashes and could not definitively conclude that any of the occupants would have benefitted from a rule requiring seat belts that are releasable without unbuckling. We also conclude that the potential for unintended consequences of inadvertent release of the seat belt during normal vehicle operation and certain crash scenarios, justify denying the petition.
        Therefore, NHTSA is denying the petition to amend FMVSS No. 209 to include a new requirement that seat belts be releasable without unbuckling. In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's review of the petition.

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

          Issued on: August 19, 2011.
          Christopher J. Bonanti,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 2011-21949 Filed 8-26-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No.060823223-6223-01; I.D. 072706B]
        RIN 0648-AT63
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Tilefish Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of withdrawal of proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS withdraws the proposed rule published on September 6, 2006, which proposed an increase in the annual tilefish total allowable landings (TAL) for the remainder of the 10-year stock rebuilding period. Thus, the previously established annual tilefish TAL of 1.995 million lb (905 mt) remains in effect.

          DATES:
          The withdrawal of the proposed rule to increase the total allowable landings for the tilefish fishery (71 FR 52519, September 6, 2006) is effective October 27, 2006.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Brian R. Hooker, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9220.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Regulations implementing the fishery management plan (FMP) for the tilefish fishery prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and N. The FMP (section 1.2.1.2) states that, after a “benchmark” stock assessment, conducted at a Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) sponsored stock assessment workshop (SAW), and subsequent review by the stock assessment review committee (SARC), from which the biological reference points could change, a change in the TAL may be warranted. The 41st SAW met in June 2005, assessed the tilefish stock, and concluded that the tilefish stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. Fishing mortality in 2004 was estimated to be 87% of Fmsy, and total biomass in 2005 was estimated to be 72% of Bmsy, a level above that projected for 2005 in the 1998 assessment (59% of Bmsy). However, the SAW also concluded that, given the high variance associated with the terminal year estimates of 2004 F/Fmsy and 2005 B/Bmsy ratios, biomass projections could not be conducted, as these were considered too uncertain to form the basis for evaluating likely biomass recovery schedules relative to Bmsy under various TAL strategies.

        As a result of the findings from the 41st SAW, the Council convened the Tilefish Monitoring Committee in April 2006 to consider the results of the stock assessment and to make recommendations to the Council's Tilefish Committee. Based on the Tilefish Monitoring Committee's recommendation that a slight increase in the TAL could be justified, the Council recommended to NMFS that the TAL be increased from 905 mt to 987 mt live (whole) weight ( a 9-percent increase), beginning with the fishing year that starts November 1, 2006. The Council also argued that an increase in the tilefish TAL is justified because the fishery has been operating at or near the proposed TAL level for several years as a result of an accounting error by which the quota was erroneously monitored by landed (gutted) weight instead of live (whole) weight, with no observed adverse consequences to the stock. A proposed rule soliciting public comment was published in the Federal Register on September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52519). The comment period ended on September 21, 2006.
        Basis for Withdrawal
        Although the Tilefish Monitoring Committee suggested that a small increase in the tilefish TAL would not jeopardize the recovery of the stock, the NEFSC raised several concerns about the lack of data used to reach these conclusions. Specifically, the strong 1999 year class is a primary determinant of the population's estimated intrinsic rate of increase. If this year class does not persist as expected, the stock assessment model could show a much lower estimate of the population's productivity at the next stock assessment workshop. In the 41st SAW stock assessment report there were eight specific sources of uncertainty noted, with two major sources of uncertainty, that could impact the estimate of tilefish population estimates. The two major sources of uncertainty involved the catch per unit of effort measurement, which was not able to take into account changes in fishing practices or spatial distribution of tilefish, and the estimate of population biomass and size structure, since these estimates were derived from sparse length frequency data and fishery dependent data sources. These sources of uncertainty are due primarily to the fact that tilefish are rarely captured in the NEFSC bottom trawl surveys, resulting in full reliance on fishery dependent bottom longline data, for which only trip-level data are captured.
        Based on this uncertainty in the 2005 stock assessment, and the fact that the next stock assessment for tilefish is not scheduled to be completed until at least late 2007, affording little time to make any necessary adjustments to the TAL if population productivity estimates prove to be lower than that given in the 2005 stock assessment, and given the 10-year rebuilding period ends in 2011, an increase in the tilefish TAL is not justified at this time. Thus, the TAL for 2007 will remain unchanged from the current level.
        Comments and Responses
        During the comment period on the proposed rule seven comments were received. Two comments were opposed to an increase in the TAL, and five comments supported the proposed increase in the TAL. Commenters included individual fishermen, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Montauk Tilefish Association, the New Bedford Seafood Consulting, and the general public.

          Comment 1: Two comments were received opposing the increase in the tilefish TAL. One commenter did not offer a reason or justification for the opposition, just asking that the quota not be changed. A second comment opposed the increase in the tilefish TAL due to a lack of trust in fisheries data.

          Response: Due to high scientific uncertainty in the 2005 tilefish stock assessment and the timing of the next stock assessment in relation to the end of the tilefish stock rebuilding period, NMFS is withdrawing the proposed rule. NMFS is concerned that there would be significant time to meet the FMP's rebuilding goal should the results of the most recent assessment be overly optimistic. Therefore the TAL will remain unchanged.

          Comment 2: Five comments were received in favor of the increase in the tilefish TAL. In general all five comments supported the increase based upon the Council's rationale that the tilefish fishery has been operating at or near the proposed TAL due to an accounting error, without any observed adverse consequences to the stock. Two commenters expressed the view that the proposed 9-percent increase in the TAL was a correction of miscommunication made during the early implementation of the FMP that eventually resulted in the TAL being effectively reduced by 9-percent in May 2005 when the accounting error was corrected (the 9-percent reduction in the TAL was the result of the mathematical conversion of the landed weight to whole weight for the purposes of monitoring the quota).

          Response: Although NMFS acknowledges that there was miscommunication in the early implementation of the FMP regarding the correct weight by which to monitor the quota, NMFS has the responsibility to correct the error to reflect what is specified in the FMP. It is clear, after discussions with both the Council and the NEFSC, that the annual TAL specified in the FMP is based on live (whole) fish weight. The proposed rule to increase the TAL, and effectively regain quota levels equivalent to that prior to May 2005, is not justified due to the high degree of scientific uncertainty in the 2005 tilefish stock assessment and the fact that the stock is not yet rebuilt.
        As a result of the withdrawal of the aforementioned proposed rule, the tilefish TAL for FY 2007 and subsequent years of the rebuilding program will remain at 1.995 million lb (905 mt), unless superceded by additional rulemaking consistent with the provisions of the FMP. The FMP dictates that the TAL be divided between the three limited access tilefish permit categories after the TAL is reduced by 5 percent to account for incidental tilefish landings (open-access Incidental permit category) as follows: Sixty-six percent (1,250,865 lb (466,875 kg)) to Full-time Tier 1; 15 percent (284,288 lb (106,108 kg)) to Full-time Tier 2; and 19 percent (360,098 lb (163,338 kg)) to Part-time vessels.

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

          Dated: October 23, 2006.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E6-18187 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AI80
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Northern Aplomado Falcons in Southern New Mexico and Arizona

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period, notice of public hearings, and notice of availability of draft monitoring plan.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period for the proposed rule to establish, under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), an experimental population of northern aplomado falcons (Falco femoralis septentrionalis) into their historic habitat in southern New Mexico and Arizona. We are providing this notice to allow all interested parties to comment on the proposed reintroduction and the draft environmental assessment (notice of which published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2005). We are also announcing the availability of a draft monitoring plan for the reintroduction of the northern aplomado falcon for public comment. We will hold two public hearings (see DATES and ADDRESSES sections).
          Through this notice and the public hearings, we are seeking comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the proposed experimental population and draft monitoring plan.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted directly to the Service (see ADDRESSES section) on or before November 15, 2005, or at any of the public hearings to be held in October 2005. Any comments received after the closing date may not be considered in the final determination on the proposal.
          We will hold two public hearings at the following dates and times:
          1. October 11, 2005: Las Cruces, NM. Informal question and answer session: 6 p.m. Public hearing: 7 p.m.-8:45 p.m.
          2. October 13, 2005: Albuquerque, NM. Informal question and answer session: 6 p.m. Public hearing: 7 p.m.-8:45 p.m.

          ADDRESSES:

        Meetings
        The public hearings will be held at the following locations:
        1. Las Cruces, NM: Auditorium, Corbett Center Student Union, Jordan Street and University Avenue, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003-8001. (505) 646-4804. Parking is located in Lot 27 off of Triviz and University Avenue.
        2. Albuquerque, NM: Silver & Turquoise Room, Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, 2401 12th Street NW (1 block North of I-40), Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104. (505) 843-7270 or 1-800-766-4405.

        Written information, comments, or questions related to preparation of the draft environmental assessment and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process should be submitted to Susan MacMullin, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113. Written comments may also be sent by facsimile to (505) 346-2542 or by e-mail to R2FWE_AL@fws.gov. For directions on how to submit electronic filing of comments, see the “Public Comments Solicited” section.

        You may obtain copies of the proposed rule, draft environmental assessment, and draft monitoring plan from the above address, or by calling 505-346-2525. They are also available from our Web site at http://ifw2es.fws.gov/NewMexico/. All comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Questions regarding the development of the proposed rule designating an experimental population, the draft environmental assessment, or the draft monitoring plan may be directed to Susan MacMullin, Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, telephone 505-346-2525 (see ADDRESSES). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        We previously proposed to reintroduce northern aplomado falcons into their historic habitat in southern New Mexico with the purpose of establishing a viable resident population (February 9, 2005, 70 FR 6819). If the proposed rule is finalized, we may release up to 150 captive-raised northern aplomado falcons annually in the summer and/or fall for 10 or more years, until a self-sustaining population is established. We propose to designate this reintroduced population as a nonessential experimental population, according to section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The geographic boundary of the proposed nonessential experimental population includes all of New Mexico and Arizona. A draft environmental assessment was prepared for this proposed action and has been made available for comment (February 9, 2005, 70 FR 6819).

        Pursuant to 50 CFR 424.16(c)(2), we may extend or reopen a comment period upon finding that there is good cause to do so. Our public hearing for this proposed rule was originally scheduled for Las Cruces, New Mexico, on March 15, 2005. However, this hearing had to be postponed because of widespread road closures on that date in northern and central New Mexico due to hazardous snow and ice conditions. In addition, we have now developed the draft monitoring plan for the proposed reintroduction of the northern aplomado falcon that was referred to in the proposed rule and draft environmental assessment (70 FR 6819). We announce the availability of this document and solicit data and comments from the public (please see ADDRESSES section). We also announce new public hearing dates concurrently with the availability of the draft monitoring plan. We deem these considerations as sufficient cause to reopen the comment period that closed on April 11, 2005 (70 FR 6819). For additional information on how to send comments, see “Public Comments Solicited” section.
        Our proposal to reintroduce northern aplomado falcons in New Mexico and Arizona under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act requires the Service to periodically review and evaluate the reintroduction program. The monitoring plan will assist the Service in its evaluation of the release program described in the proposed rule and draft environmental assessment and will provide guidelines for northern aplomado falcon monitoring efforts in New Mexico and Arizona. Monitoring requirements and studies are described in two tiers. Tier 1 describes short-term monitoring, which includes basic monitoring requirements for newly released falcons and for nesting falcons beginning 3 years after their reintroduction. Tier 1 monitoring will primarily be the responsibility of The Peregrine Fund, who will submit annual reports to the Service on northern aplomado falcon release monitoring results in New Mexico and Arizona. In addition, the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Army Fort Bliss will be responsible for remote-sensing habitat monitoring relevant to the reintroduction program in New Mexico and Arizona. Tier 2 investigations include nonmandatory monitoring efforts subject to available funding. Annual stakeholder meetings will be conducted to review project data to determine if refinements to the program are needed. We will use the best scientific and commercial data available, including, but not limited to, results from this monitoring plan and stakeholder meetings to prepare 5-year evaluations of the New Mexico and Arizona falcon restoration program.
        Public Hearings
        The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposed rule, if requested. We have been requested to conduct two public hearings in New Mexico. We will hold a public hearing in Las Cruces, New Mexico, on October 11, 2005, and one in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on October 13, 2005. Announcements for the public hearings will also be made in local newspapers.

        Public hearings are designed to gather relevant information that the public may have that we should consider in our rulemaking. During the hearings, we will present information about the proposed action. We invite the public to submit information and comments at the hearings or in writing during the open public comment period. We encourage persons wishing to comment at the hearing to provide a written copy of their statement at the start of the hearing. This notice and the public hearings will allow all interested parties to submit comments on the proposed nonessential experimental population rule for the northern aplomado falcon. We are seeking comments from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the proposal. Persons may send written comments to the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section) at any time during the open comment period. We will give equal consideration to oral and written comments. For more information about commenting, see the “Public Comments Solicited” section.
        Public Comments Solicited

        We intend for our draft environmental assessment (EA) to consider reasonable alternatives for the establishment of an experimental population of the aplomado falcon. We also wish to ensure than any proposed rulemaking to establish an experimental population and the accompanying monitoring plan effectively evaluate all potential issues and impacts associated with this action. Therefore, we seek comment from Federal, State, local, or Tribal government agencies; the scientific or business community; landowners; or any other interested party. Comments should be as specific as possible.
        In order to issue a final rule to implement this proposed action and to determine whether to prepare a finding of no significant impact or an environmental impact statement, we will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we receive. Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs from this proposal. All comments, including names and addresses, will become part of the supporting record.

        If you wish to provide comments and/or information, you may submit your comments and materials by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES). Comments submitted electronically should be in the body of the e-mail message itself or attached as a text file (ASCII), and should not use special characters or encryption. Please also include “Attn: Falcon Proposed 10(j) Rule,” your full name, and your return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling our New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There may also be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this request prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. To the extent consistent with applicable law, we will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at New Mexico Ecological Services Office in Albuquerque, New Mexico (see ADDRESSES).
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) require that Federal agencies obtain approval from OMB before collecting information from the public. A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB approval is required if information will be collected from 10 or more persons (5 CFR 1320.3). “Ten or more persons” refers to the persons to whom a collection of information is addressed by the agency within any 12-month period, and to any independent entities to which the initial addressee may reasonably be expected to transmit the collection of information during that period, including independent State, territorial, Tribal or local entities and separately incorporated subsidiaries or affiliates. For the purposes of this definition, “persons” does not include employees of the respondent acting within the scope of their employment, contractors engaged by a respondent for the purpose of complying with the collection of information, or current employees of the Federal government when acting within the scope of their employment, but it does include former Federal employees. The draft monitoring plan for reestablishment of the falcon contains a requirement for information collection; however, it does not affect 10 or more persons. Therefore, OMB approval and a control number are not needed for the data collection forms appended to the monitoring plan. In the future, if it becomes necessary to collect this information from 10 or more respondents per year, we will first obtain approval from OMB.
        Authority

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

          Dated: September 1, 2005.
          Craig Manson,
          Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 05-18386 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 981022265-8265-01; I.D. 101698L]
        RIN 0648-AL93
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Fishing in the EEZ Seaward of Navassa Island

          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 prohibit fishing and anchoring of fishing vessels in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) within 15 nautical miles (nm) seaward from the baseline of Navassa Island.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than 4:30 p.m., eastern daylight savings time, on November 3, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments regarding this proposed rule must be sent to, and copies of a draft environmental assessment supporting this action, may be obtained from Michael Barnette, 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.  Comments on any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this rule should be addressed to Rod Dalton, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Barnette, telephone:  727-570-5305, fax:  727-570-5583, e-mail:  Michael.Barnette@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The U.S. Territory of Navassa Island is located in the Caribbean Sea approximately 60 nm northeast of Jamaica and 34 nm west of Haiti.  The uninhabited island covers an area of approximately 2 square miles (518 hectares).
        NMFS has received several inquiries regarding whether fishing activities are permitted in the EEZ seaward of Navassa Island.  In addition, a recent scientific expedition to Navassa Island publicized the unique and unprotected marine resources of the area.  Important marine resources of this area include reef fish and invertebrates, especially coral, live rock, sponges, queen conch, and spiny lobsters.  NMFS believes these resources are in a relatively pristine condition due to the isolation of this area and its distance from the commercial fishing grounds of the major fishing nations.

        Fishing in the EEZ seaward of Navassa Island is subject to regulation under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and the Atlantic Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.).  The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) has authority only over the fisheries in the EEZ of the Caribbean Sea and Atlantic Ocean seaward of the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.  An amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act would be necessary to extend the Council’s authority to the EEZ seaward of Navassa Island.  However, the Secretary of Commerce has the authority under section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions and purposes of that act, including conserving and managing the fishery resources in the EEZ not within the authority of a regional fishery management council such as in the EEZ seaward of Navassa Island.
        As a precautionary approach to fisheries management, NMFS is proposing this rule to protect the fishery resources in the EEZ seaward of Navassa Island from unregulated harvests until the Magnuson-Stevens Act can be amended to give the Council authority over the fishery resources of the EEZ seaward of Navassa Island, and until conservation and management measures, as recommended by the Council and approved and implemented by NMFS, are in effect.  This rule would prohibit all fishing, including fishing for Atlantic highly migratory species, and anchoring of fishing vessels in the EEZ within 15 nm seaward from the baseline of Navassa Island.  These measures would apply to vessels of the United States and to all foreign vessels except vessels of the Republic of Haiti.

        This proposed rule is intended to protect coral reef resources from directed fishing or bycatch mortality and to prevent possible damage from unregulated fishing gear or from harmful fishing practices, such as the use of explosives or poisons.  Establishment of a no-fishing zone would simplify and facilitate enforcement in this remote area.  The anchoring prohibition would protect coral habitats from physical damage and facilitate enforcement of the fishing ban.  NMFS requests information regarding the fishery resources and existing or expected fishing activities in the EEZ within 15 nm of Navassa Island.  Because of the scarcity of data regarding fishing activities in the area, NMFS is requesting public comment, especially from the longline fishing community,  on the number, if any, of longline vessels that routinely fish within 15 nm of Navassa Island.  If any such vessels have historically fished in the area, then additional information on the importance of the area in terms of overall catches is requested.

        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) recently established the Navassa Island National Wildlife Refuge.  For information regarding the refuge, see the Service’s notice in the Federal Register (64 FR 73062; December 29, 1999).
        Classification
        This proposed rule is necessary in order to protect the coral reef and other fishery resources surrounding Navassa Island from harmful fishing practices until the Magnuson-Stevens Act can be amended to establish the Council’s authority over the fishery resources of the EEZ seaward of Navassa Island, and conservation and management measures can be implemented through the Council process.  NMFS is concerned that fishing activities in the EEZ seaward of Navassa Island will increase as a result of recent publicity and inquiries about the area.

        NMFS prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) for this proposed rule and the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has preliminarily concluded that there will be no significant impact on the human environment as a result of this proposed rule.  A copy of the draft EA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        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 U.S. Territory of Navassa Island is located in the Caribbean Sea approximately 60 nm northeast of Jamaica and 34 nm west of Haiti.  The uninhabited island covers an area of approximately 2 square miles (518 hectares).  NMFS believes the resources in the nearshore waters surrounding Navassa Island are in a relatively pristine condition due to the isolation of this area and its distance from the commercial fishing grounds of major fishing nations.  As a precautionary approach to fisheries management, NMFS is proposing this rule to protect the fishery resources around Navassa Island from unregulated harvests and habitat damage.  Accordingly, this rule would prohibit all fishing and anchoring of fishing vessels in the EEZ within 15 nm seaward from the baseline of Navassa Island.  This rule and its measures would apply to vessels of the United States and to all foreign vessels except vessels of the Republic of Haiti.
          Because of its remote location, there is a scarcity of data about current and historical fishing around Navassa Island.  Anecdotal evidence based on infrequent visits to the island by scientists from non-governmental organizations (e.g., Center for Marine Conservation) and verbal information from Navassa Island National Wildlife Refuge staff indicates that the current level of fishing near the island is negligible, if any.  Information from NMFS Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Division indicates that some longline fishermen may fish in the near vicinity of Navassa Island.  However, NMFS' data on HMS fishing locations is not precise enough to establish the presence or absence of fishing within 15 nm of Navassa Island.
          NMFS believes that the main effect of this rule would be to preserve the status quo.  Given what little data are available, and the preliminary conclusion that fishing activity in the marine waters near the island is negligible, if any, NMFS has concluded that the proposed rule will not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        Accordingly, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared for this proposed rule.

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

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

          Dated:  September 27, 2000.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 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 § 622.1, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:

            § 622.1
            Purpose and scope.

        (c) This part also governs fishing in the EEZ seaward of Navassa Island, which is not under the authority of a Regional Fishery Management Council.

          3.  In § 622.3, paragraph (f) is added to read as follows:

            § 622.3
            Relation to other laws and regulations.

          (f) In Navassa Island National Wildlife Refuge, the regulations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also apply.

        4.  In § 622.7, paragraph (l) is revised to read as follows:

          § 622.7
          Prohibitions.

        (l) Fish in violation of the prohibitions, restrictions, and requirements applicable to seasonal and/or area closures, including but not limited to:  Prohibition of all fishing, gear restrictions, restrictions on take or retention of fish, fish release requirements, and restrictions on use of an anchor or grapple, as specified in §§ 622.33, 622.34, 622.35, 622.49, or as may be specified under § 622.46(b) or (c).

          5.  Section 622.49 is added to subpart C to read as follows:

            § 622.49
            Activities prohibited in the EEZ surrounding Navassa Island.
            In the EEZ within 15 nm seaward from the baseline of Navassa Island, fishing for any species of fish is prohibited, and a fishing vessel may not anchor, use an anchor and chain, or use a grapple and chain.  These prohibitions do not apply to vessels or citizens of the Republic of Haiti.

      [FR Doc. 00-25479 Filed 10-3-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        48 CFR Parts 225 and 252
        [DFARS Case 2004-D001]
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Reporting Contract Performance Outside the United States

          AGENCY:
          Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule with request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to clarify requirements for reporting of contract performance outside the United States. This proposed rule is a result of a transformation initiative undertaken by DoD to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before August 9, 2004, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2004-D001, using any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Defense Acquisition Regulations Web site: http://emissary.acq.osd.mil/dar/dfars.nsf/pubcomm. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include DFARS Case 2004-D001 in the subject line of the message.
          • Fax: (703) 602-0350.
          • Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: Ms. Amy Williams, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062.
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-3402.
          All comments received will be posted to http://emissary.acq.osd.mil/dar/dfars.nsf.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Amy Williams, (703) 602-0328.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background

        DFARS Transformation is a major DoD initiative to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS. The objective is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the acquisition process, while allowing the acquisition workforce the flexibility to innovate. The transformed DFARS will contain only requirements of law, DoD-wide policies, delegations of FAR authorities, deviations from FAR requirements, and policies/procedures that have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD or a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. Additional information on the DFARS Transformation initiative is available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dp/dars/transf.htm.

        This proposed rule is a result of the DFARS Transformation initiative. The proposed changes clarify requirements for reporting of contract performance outside the United States; and establish two separate contract clauses to eliminate confusion between two reporting requirements presently contained in one clause.
        DFARS Subpart 225.72, Reporting Contract Performance Outside the United States, implements: (1) DoD policy for contractor reporting of performance outside the United States under contracts exceeding $500,000; and (2) requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2410g for offerors and contractors to notify DoD of any intention to perform a DoD contract outside the United States and Canada, when the contract exceeds $10 million and could be performed inside the United States or Canada.
        This proposed rule revises DFARS Subpart 225.72, and the corresponding solicitation provision and contract clauses, to clarify the two separate reporting requirements. In addition, the proposed rule removes text from DFARS 225.7202 related to contracting officer distribution of reports. This text will be relocated to the new DFARS companion resource, Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI). A proposed rule describing the purpose and structure of PGI was published at 69 FR 8145 on February 23, 2004.
        This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
        B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule clarifies existing reporting requirements, with no substantive change to those requirements. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2004-D001.
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act

        The proposed rule does not contain any new information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The existing information collection requirements in DFARS Subpart 225.72 have been approved by OMB under Control Number 0704-0229.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 225 and 252
          Government procurement.

          Michele P. Peterson,
           Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.

        Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR Parts 225 and 252 as follows:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 225 and 252 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.

          PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION
          2. Section 225.7200 is revised to read as follows:

            225.7200
            Scope of subpart.
            This subpart addresses—
            (a) The requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2410g for offerors and contractors to notify DoD of any intention to perform a DoD contract outside the United States and Canada when the contract could be performed inside the United States or Canada; and
            (b) DoD requirements for contractor reporting of the volume, type, and nature of contract performance outside the United States.
            3. Sections 225.7202 and 225.7203 are revised to read as follows:

            § 225.7202
            Contracting officer distribution of reports.
            Follow the procedures at PGI 225.7202 for distribution of reports submitted with offers in accordance with the provision at 252.225-7003, Report of Intended Performance Outside the United States and Canada—Submission with Offer.

            § 225.7203
            Solicitation provision and contract clause.
            Except for acquisitions described in 225.7201—
            (a) Use the provision at 252.225-7003, Report of Intended Performance Outside the United States and Canada—Submission with Offer, in solicitations with a value exceeding $10 million;
            (b) Use the clause at 252.225-7004, Immediate Reporting of Intended Contract Performance Outside the United States and Canada, in solicitations and contracts with a value exceeding $10 million; and
            (c) Use the clause at 252.225-7XXX, Quarterly Reporting of Contract Performance Outside the United States, in solicitations and contracts with a value exceeding $500,000.

          PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
          4. Sections 252.225-7003 and 252.225-7004 are revised to read as follows:

            § 252.225-7003
            Report of Intended Performance Outside the United States and Canada—Submission with Offer.
            As prescribed in 225.7203(a), use the following provision:

              Report of Intended Performance Outside the United States and Canada—Submission With Offer (XXX 2004)
              (a) The offeror shall submit, with its offer, a report of intended performance outside the United States and Canada if—
              (1) The offer exceeds $10 million in value; and
              (2) The offeror is aware that the offeror or a first-tier subcontractor intends to perform any part of the contract outside the United States and Canada that—
              (i) Exceeds $500,000 in value; and
              (ii) Could be performed inside the United States or Canada.
              (b) Information to be reported includes that for—
              (1) Subcontracts;
              (2) Purchases; and
              (3) Intracompany transfers when transfers originate in a foreign location.
              (c) The offeror shall submit the report using—
              (1) DD Form 2139, Report of Contract Performance Outside the United States; or
              (2) A computer-generated report that contains all information required by DD Form 2139.

              (d) The offeror may obtain a copy of DD Form 2139 from the Contracting Officer or via the Internet at http://web1.whs.osd.mil/icdhome/forms.htm.

              (End of provision)

            252.225-7004
            Immediate Reporting of Intended Contract Performance Outside the United States and Canada.
            As prescribed in 225.7203(b), use the following clause:

              Immediate Reporting of Intended Contract Performance Outside the United States and Canada (XXX 2004)
              (a) Reporting requirement. The Contractor shall submit a report in accordance with this clause, if the Contractor or a first-tier subcontractor will perform any part of this contract outside the United States and Canada that—
              (1) Exceeds $500,000 in value; and
              (2) Could be performed inside the United States or Canada.
              (b) Submission of reports. The Contractor—
              (1) Shall submit a report as soon as the information is known;
              (2) To the maximum extent practicable, shall submit a report regarding a first-tier subcontractor at least 30 days before award of the subcontract;
              (3) Need not resubmit information submitted with its offer, unless the information changes;
              (4) Shall submit all reports to the Contracting Officer; and
              (5) Shall submit a copy of each report to: Deputy Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (Program Acquisition and International Contracting), OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(PAIC), Washington, DC 20301-3060.
              (c) Report format. The Contractor—
              (1) Shall submit reports using—
              (i) DD Form 2139, Report of Contract Performance Outside the United States; or
              (ii) A computer-generated report that contains all information required by DD Form 2139; and

              (2) May obtain copies of DD Form 2139 from the Contracting Officer or via the Internet at http://web1.whs.osd.mil/icdhome/forms.htm.

              (End of clause)

            5. Section 252.225-7XXX is added to read as follows:

            252.225-7XXX
            Quarterly Reporting of Contract Performance Outside the United States.
            As prescribed in 225.7203(c), use the following clause:

              Quarterly Reporting of Contract Performance Outside the United States (XXX 2004)
              (a) Reporting requirement. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this clause, within 10 days after the end of each quarter of the Government's fiscal year, the Contractor shall report any subcontract, purchase, or intracompany transfer that—
              (1) Will be or has been performed outside the United States;
              (2) Exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold in Part 2 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation; and
              (3) Has not been identified in a report for a previous quarter.
              (b) Exception. Reporting under this clause is not required if—
              (1) A foreign place of performance is the principal place of performance; and
              (2) The Contractor specified the foreign place of performance in the Place of Performance provision of its offer.
              (c) Submission of reports. The Contractor shall submit the reports required by this clause to: Deputy Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (Program Acquisition and International Contracting), OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(PAIC), Washington, DC 20301-3060.
              (d) Report format. The Contractor—
              (1) Shall submit reports using—
              (i) DD Form 2139, Report of Contract Performance Outside the United States; or
              (ii) A computer-generated report that contains all information required by DD Form 2139; and

              (2) May obtain copies of DD Form 2139 from the Contracting Officer or via the Internet at http://web1.whs.osd.mil/icdhome/forms.htm.

              (e) Subcontracts. The Contractor—
              (1) Shall include the substance of this clause in all first-tier subcontracts exceeding $500,000, except those for commercial items, construction, ores, natural gases, utilities, petroleum products and crudes, timber (logs), or subsistence; and
              (2) Shall provide the number of this contract to its subcontractors required to submit reports under this clause.

              (End of clause)

      [FR Doc. 04-12934 Filed 6-7-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 5001-08-P