        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

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

          ACTION:
          Denial of petition for rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document denies the petition submitted by Sierra Products, Inc. (Sierra), to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, “Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment,” to allow center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSLs) to be combined with identification lamps, and to require that identification lamps be lowered to eye height on heavy trucks.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Chris Flanigan, Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Flanigan's telephone number is: (202) 366-4918. His facsimile number is (202) 366-4329.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        By a letter dated September 19, 2001, Sierra petitioned the agency to amend FMVSS No. 108 to allow vehicles with a width of 2032 millimeters (mm) or greater to have their CHMSLs physically and optically combined with their three identification lamps and that this combination of lamps be required to be lowered to eye height. Sierra found that an industry standard was being changed to allow the combination of these lamps.

          Background: FMVSS No. 108 requires CHMSLs to be on all motor vehicles, except trailers and motorcycles, that are less than 2032 mm wide. It does not require CHMSLs on any other vehicle. CHMSLs on vehicles not required to have these lamps are considered by the agency to be auxiliary lamps that are not specifically regulated. Manufacturers may voluntarily install CHMSLs on vehicles on which CHMSLs are not required provided that the voluntary CHMSL does not impair the effectiveness of required lamps.
        FMVSS No. 108 requires that identification lamps (a cluster of three lamps) be mounted on the centerline and as high as practicable on vehicles whose overall width is 2032 mm or more. The purpose of identification lamps is to uniquely identify large vehicles and do so with the longest possible sight preview of the lamps.
        The industry standard Sierra referred to in its petition is Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1432, “High-Mounted Stop Lamps for Use on Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width (March 2000).” This standard specifies requirements for CHMSLs on heavy trucks. This standard was amended to allow combination of the CHMSL and three identification lamps. This change to J1432 first appeared in the 2001 version of the “SAE Ground Vehicle Lighting Standards Manual.” To maintain the conspicuity of each signal, J1432 specifies that the CHMSL must emit at least three to five times (depending on lamp position) the amount of light that the identification lamps emit.

          Petitioner's Rationale: Sierra believes that, because SAE J1432 has been amended to allow the combination of CHMSLs and identification lamps on heavy trucks, FMVSS No. 108 should be changed as well. It states that if the agency were to amend the standard to allow the combination of the signal lamp configurations and also to require this combination to be moved downward to “eye level,” the CHMSLs would be located in a more effective position. It also believes that this would provide an economic incentive for manufacturers of heavy trucks to include CHMSLs on these vehicles.

        Regarding the agency's current requirement that identification lamps be mounted “as high as practicable,” Sierra believes it is outdated. It states that the original reasons for this requirement were for “visually checking a vehicle's height in order to avoid hitting a bridge or overhang” and “for following traffic to spot slow moving trucks cresting steep hills.” Sierra states that, today, neither of these reasons makes sense. It believes that heavy trucks routinely travel as fast as regular traffic and they no longer need identification lamps to visually clear bridges and overhangs. Also, it states that “steep hill crests have been leveled.” No information was supplied by Sierra to support these assertions.

          Agency Analysis: The agency believes there are no recommendations in Sierra's petition that would improve motor vehicle safety. Sierra has made a number of assumptions that are not based in fact. The petition references a change made to SAE J1432 that allows combination of the CHMSL and identification lamps on vehicles with a width that is 2032 mm or greater. Sierra further stated that it is aware that the agency has been adamant about not allowing any other lamps to be mounted in the same housing with a CHMSL, and that it was not aware that NHTSA had removed this prohibition. Sierra is confused as to when and how this combination (in the SAE standard) had come to be allowed.
        As stated above, the CHMSLs of which Sierra speaks are auxiliary lamps under FMVSS No. 108, and as such, are not specifically regulated for vehicles that are 2032 mm or wider. The only specific criterion applicable to such supplemental stop lamps is that they not impair the effectiveness of any required lamps. Conceptually, auxiliary stop lamps should not impair the effectiveness of the required identification lamps if they perform identically to required stop lamps. One means for assuring this is for the lamps to meet SAE J1432 or the requirements in FMVSS No. 108 that apply to stop lamps. The SAE document, among other things, states that “[t]he purpose of the high-mounted stop lamp or lamps is to provide a signal over intervening vehicles to the driver of following vehicles.” As such, it has the same purpose as the identification lamps in that they, too, are required to be located to provide a preview over intervening vehicles.
        Sierra is confused about the CHMSLs required by FMVSS No. 108 and the stop lamps that are described in SAE J1432. While the FMVSS No. 108 CHMSLs, which are required on some vehicles, are prohibited from being combined with any lamp (whether required or auxiliary, except for cargo lamps), the SAE J1432 CHMSLs are not regulated in any manner. Thus, contrary to Sierra's statement, there has never been such a rescission for the CHMSL regulated by FMVSS No. 108. More importantly, there has never been a prohibition on combining supplementary stop lamps with identification lamps.
        In fact, this interpretation has been expressly stated in at least three letters issued by the agency to persons asking about such auxiliary stop lamps. The most recent was a June 1999 letter to an anonymous author which stated that:

          You have also asked whether this product [a light bar containing three identification lamps] can also incorporate “a set of brake lights to act as a ‘third eye' brake light, similar to those required for automobiles.” In other words, the identification lamp bar would act as a supplementary stop lamp when the brakes are applied.

          Standard No. 108 permits supplementary lamps as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard (S5.1.3). The function of the identification lamps is to indicate the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway. This effectiveness of this function would not be impaired by an increase in intensity of the lamps when the brake pedal is applied. Therefore, your product can incorporate a supplementary stop lamp function.

        Sierra argued further that, if acceptable, it would make “economic and safety sense” to allow this signal combination to be used on vehicles with a width of 2032 mm or greater and to be lowered to “eye height.” Sierra's economic argument is that installing a CHMSL separately from the identification lamps costs more. Now that the agency has allowed the combination of supplementary stop lamps and identification lamps, Sierra asserts that the CHMSL must be in the wrong location, thus forcing the installation of a separate lamp anyway. To eliminate the need for an extra lamp, Sierra wants the combination of lamps to be lowered.
        In the second part of the petition, Sierra requests that the identification lamps, as well as all signal and marker lamps mounted on the rear, be required to be mounted at eye level. Sierra indicated that “numerous Public and Federally Financed Tests performed prove that the ‘Centered, Eye Level’ Location is where following Drivers focus most of their Conscience and/or Subconscious Attention, and therefore is the most ‘Conspicuous’ and the most effective place to locate all rear Signal Vehicle Lights, except ‘Clearance’ Lights * * * which should represent ‘Extreme Width’ * * * while also located at Eye Level.” However, Sierra provided no specific test data to support its assertions that the aforementioned research is applicable to its suggested amendment.
        While putting all lamps at eye level may seem plausible, there is no evidence that this is the most effective location. Sierra did not specify what the height should be. Eye height is different for drivers of sports cars, passenger cars, light duty trucks, large trucks, and buses. Also, a significant reason for higher mounting heights for lamps that provide signals of driver intent (stop and turn lamps) is to inform following drivers, not just the most immediately rearward one, of the vehicle's intent to stop. The agency is not prepared to initiate rulemaking to require CHMSLs on heavy trucks. If identification lamps were lowered, the purpose of uniquely identifying large vehicles with the longest possible sight preview of the lamps would be compromised. As the mounting height of identification lamps is lowered, the time that nearby drivers will have to identify the vehicle, as a heavy truck will lessen. This is contrary to the intent of the requirement.
        On the other hand, the mounting height of identification lamps has been long established to be “as high as practicable.” This is to make nearby drivers aware of the vehicle's size. If these lamps were lowered to eye level, approaching drivers may not be able to distinguish large commercial vehicles from passenger vehicles.
        Sierra has provided no convincing rationale that Standard No. 108 should be amended in the manner in which it petitioned and, in accordance with 49 CFR part 552, after review of the petition, the agency has concluded that it should not be granted. Accordingly, it denies Sierra's petition.

          (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h); delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

          Issued on: January 30, 2003.
          Stephen R. Kratzke,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 03-2700 Filed 2-4-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 080304370-9128-01]
        RIN 0648-AW52
        Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Compensation to Commercial Bottomfish and Lobster Fishermen due to Fishery Closures in the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for public comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), through NMFS, to provide monetary compensation to eligible Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) commercial lobster permit holders who were, and commercial bottomfish permit holders who will be, displaced by fishery closures resulting from establishment of the Papah naumoku kea Marine National Monument (Monument) in the NWHI. This proposed rule describes and seeks public comment on a permit compensation proposal, which identifies eligible permit holders and describes the permit valuation methodology. Holders of NWHI commercial Federal bottomfish and lobster permits who voluntarily accept monetary compensation would be required to surrender their permits and leave the fisheries.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by May 4, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by 0648-AW52, by either of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov; or
          • Mail: William L. Robinson, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700.

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (for example, name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments for publication and response, as appropriate (if you wish to remain anonymous, enter “NA” in the required name and organization fields). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          A regulatory impact review (RIR) that describes in more detail the permit valuation methodology, and an environmental assessment (EA) that analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed rule on the environment, are available from William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES) and www.regulations.gov. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) is found in the section below.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Toby Wood, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2234.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access

        This proposed rule is also accessible on the World Wide Web at www.gpoaccess.gov/fr.
        Background
        On December 26, 2007, the President signed Public Law 110-161, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008. The Act authorizes the Secretary to provide a mechanism for compensating bottomfish and lobster fishermen who were impacted as a result of the creation of the Monument on June 15, 2006 (Proclamation 8031, 71 FR 3644, June 26, 2006, as amended by Proclamation 8112, 72 FR 10031, March 6, 2007). Final regulations governing the Monument require that any commercial lobster fishing permit be subject to a zero annual harvest limit. Those regulations permanently closed the NWHI lobster fishery. The NWHI commercial bottomfish fishery is allowed to operate until June 15, 2011, when it will be closed permanently (see 71 FR 51134, August 29, 2006, and 50 CFR 404.10). Funding is authorized to develop and implement a program to compensate eligible persons who held valid commercial Federal NWHI bottomfish and lobster permits at the time the Monument was created. The Act appropriates $6,697,500 and directs the Secretary to promulgate rulemaking for a voluntary capacity reduction program that does the following:
        (1) Identifies eligible NWHI bottomfish and lobster fishery permit holders affected by the establishment of the Monument;
        (2) Provides a mechanism to compensate eligible permit holders for no more than the economic value of their permits; and
        (3) In addition to the permit compensation provided under subparagraph (2) above, provides an optional funding mechanism whereby eligible participants may choose to receive additional compensation based on the value of their fishing vessel and gear, provided such vessels and gear will no longer be used for fishing.
        This proposed rule would identify eligible permit holders and establish a process for voluntary permit compensation. A voluntary vessel buyout program is contingent on the availability of funds following the permit compensation, and NMFS does not propose to carry out this optional mechanism until after the initial permit compensation is complete. If funds are available, NMFS would publish a separate proposed rule that describes and seeks public comment on a vessel and gear buyout program.
        Eligible Participants
        The Act defines “eligible participants” as individuals holding commercial Federal fishing permits for either lobster or bottomfish in the designated waters within the Monument, at the time the Monument was established on June 15, 2006. NMFS has preliminarily identified eligible participants as holders of eight valid commercial Federal permits for bottomfish, and holders of 15 valid commercial Federal permits for lobster. NMFS is not authorized to provide compensation to any persons not meeting the definition of “eligible participants” under the program described in this proposed rule. As a condition of participation in the proposed program, eligible permit holders who voluntarily accept and receive permit compensation must immediately surrender their NWHI fishing permit to NMFS and agree to relinquish any claim associated with each permit.
        Proposed NWHI Permit Compensation Methodology

        NMFS proposes to determine the economic value of NWHI lobster and bottomfish Federal commercial fishing permits by using a proxy for the Net Present Value (NPV) of the permit that uses imputed (estimated) values in the absence of a documented market for the permits. NPV is commonly used in cash flow analyses to identify, evaluate, and compare the value of a particular investment. The components of the NPV calculation include (1) an initial base value, often revenue, for one or more years of fishing, (2) a discount rate to adjust the base value for the value of future earnings, and (3) the time period over which the base value will be discounted. For both lobster and bottomfish permits, NMFS proposes to use a discount rate of 2.7 percent (the real interest rate for a Treasury bond as prescribed by Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, Appendix C, revised January 2008 (www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a094/a94_appx-c.html) over a period of 30 years. This 30-yr period is based on the approximate life of a typical fishing vessel and the de facto reality that discounting outside a 30-yr time horizon returns low values. It is also the typical period of tax table depreciation, and is a standard time horizon for capital asset budgeting.
        The NPV formula accounts for the flow of the valuation variable over an agreed time period:

          EP07ap09.005

        where i is the year index, N is the length of the evaluation period, income to permit holder is the proxy for net revenue, and λ is the discount rate over the evaluation period. Because the discount rate is positive, the discounted NPV will necessarily be less than the total of individual payments were NMFS to propose making annual partial payments over the 30-year period.

        The proxy for NPV of net revenue is a multiple of annual gross revenue based on a variety of separate investigations of these relationships (which are not precise, but in which gross revenue has the benefit of being more transparent, within the constraints of Federal confidentiality statutes, and straightforward to calculate).
        While NMFS proposes to use standard NPV methodology to determine the economic value of commercial fishing permits in both the lobster and bottomfish fisheries, NMFS proposes two distinctly different time periods for the determination of the base value. NMFS proposes that this time period be the three consecutive years in which each fishery operated immediately prior to the designation of the Monument. These time periods are different for each fishery in recognition of different operational and historical circumstances of each fishery.
        Bottomfish
        NWHI bottomfish permits were/are not transferable, so there was no established market on which to determine their value. Thus, NMFS proposes to determine the economic value of each of the eight Federal bottomfish permits individually using the base value time period of 2003-05. That is, the NPV of each permit, individually, would reflect the average ex-vessel net revenue, calculated as the ex-vessel gross revenue proxy times a multiplier of approximately 2.5 that considers the discount rate, determined by NMFS examination of documented records for the 2003-05 time period. Thus, the economic value of each permit, and the NMFS compensation offer, will be different for each of the eight permit holders, based on the 2003-05 fishing record associated with each permit (i.e., the average individual ex-vessel gross revenue for 2003-05 multiplied by approximately 2.5). All imputed values will be updated to current dollar figures based on Consumer Price Indices.
        Lobster
        NWHI lobster permits were/are transferable, so it is theoretically possible to consider market exchange values were they available to NMFS. However, this would likely be problematic for several reasons. The NWHI lobster permit market is small, unmonitored, and has been largely inactive over the past eight years. In the later years of operation, the lobster fishery was undergoing operational changes including the formation of a cooperative to manage fishing capacity and costs, and to share revenue among permit holders. Also, some vessels were experimenting with higher value-added production methods to allow the export of live lobsters to Asian markets. All of these factors make it difficult to determine the economic value of each individual lobster permit.
        Thus, NMFS proposes to determine the economic value of each of the 15 Federal lobster permits collectively using the base value time period of 1997-99. That is, the NPV of each permit would use a similar ex-vessel gross revenue proxy to reflect the average ex-vessel net revenue for the fleet as a whole for the 1997-99 time period, times a multiplier of approximately 2.5 that considers the discount rate. Thus, the economic value of each permit, and the NMFS compensation offer, will be identical for all 15 permit holders. All imputed values will be updated to current dollar figures based on Consumer Price Indices.
        Implementation
        NMFS proposes to notify eligible permit holders in writing of their individual permit compensation offer, as determined by the compensation mechanism described herein. It is important to note that if the total economic value of all permits combined is greater than the authorized amount minus administrative costs associated with implementing the compensation program, then the amount of monetary compensation disbursed to all participants would be prorated. Within 30 days of receipt of notification, each permit holder would need to review the permit compensation offer, and would be required to notify NMFS in writing of either their voluntary acceptance or non-acceptance of the compensation offer. Failure to inform NMFS of a decision (i.e., acceptance or non-acceptance decision) by the prescribed deadline date would be deemed a non-acceptance by the permit holder. This determination by NMFS of non-acceptance for compensation shall be deemed final and is not subject to agency appeal.
        At the conclusion of the 30-day response period, NMFS or its authorized contractor would review all responses from permit holders, identify those who have accepted NMFS' offer of permit compensation, and disburse compensation funds to the permit holders who have accepted. A permit holder's acceptance of compensation funds would immediately invalidate the holder's Federal permit in the NWHI bottomfish and/or lobster fishery, as appropriate, and such permit would be immediately surrendered to NMFS. NMFS would notify the permit holder, at the time that compensation funds are disbursed, that his or her permit is no longer valid, and the vessel would no longer be eligible to participate in the fishery for which compensation has been received. Vessel owners who have not accepted NMFS' offer of permit compensation are authorized to continue fishing in accordance with the terms and conditions of their respective permits, and to the extent otherwise permitted by law. Permit holders should note that commercial fishing for lobster in waters of the Monument is now prohibited, and that fishing for commercial bottomfish and associated pelagic species will be prohibited in waters of the Monument after June 15, 2011. NMFS solicits comments on the proposed compensation methodology and process.
        Transferability of Compensation
        Given that the NWHI lobster fishery was closed permanently as a result of the designation of the Monument, any permit compensation would be provided to the holder of the permit that was valid on the date of the Monument's designation, i.e., June 15, 2006. Although the NWHI bottomfish fishery remains open until June 15, 2011, the permits are not transferrable, so the bottomfish permit compensation would be available only to the holder of the permit at the time the compensation funds are disbursed. Since bottomfish permits are not transferable, any claim to permit compensation is both non-transferable and non-assignable. Accordingly, only the NWHI bottomfish permit holder of record shall be deemed an eligible participant for purposes of receiving permit compensation under this program.
        Future Vessel and Gear Buyout Compensation
        Contingent on the availability of appropriated funds after all permit compensation payouts have been made, NMFS proposes to offer compensation to buy back vessels and gear from eligible participants, based on the fair market value of the vessels and gear. For purposes of this proposed program, “eligible participants” shall have the same meaning as described in the permit compensation program above. Because of the limited funds appropriated by Congress for this purpose, there is no guarantee that NMFS actually will offer compensation for any, or all, vessels and gear that otherwise may qualify for this program.

        NMFS proposes to use a standard approach in vessel buyout, i.e., reverse auction, where each eligible permit holder would specify a buyout price for retiring their vessel(s) from commercial fishing. NMFS would rank and accept bids, and disburse funds, beginning with the lowest bid and continuing through the bids sequentially until remaining funds were exhausted. Public comments are sought on this approach and possible alternatives, including methods for valuing vessels and associated gear, and other standard approaches, such as a lottery system or blind auction.
        Consistent with the purposes of this buyout, NMFS would require, as a condition of compensation, proof that the vessel and gear have been permanently removed from use in all U.S. commercial fisheries, as defined in 46 U.S. Code § 12101(a). Proof of permanent removal from fisheries may be satisfied by taking any of the following actions:
        (1) Providing evidence of scrapping the vessel, which would require disassembly and/or scuttling the vessel in an ecologically safe manner. This method suggests additional costs which would need to be considered in the buyout process; or
        (2) Surrendering the vessel's fishery endorsement and transferring the vessel to non-fishing uses. For example, vessels could be transferred to a U.S. public entity, a U.S. nonprofit organization, or a foreign national government for use in research (including fisheries research), education, training, humanitarian work, safety or law enforcement, etc., depending on the group's objectives.
        NMFS proposes that vessel owners bear all costs associated with the scrapping or transfer of vessels that are bought out under this program. Funds received from the buyout compensation can be used for this purpose.
        Classification
        The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities as follows. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are found at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. The analysis follows:

          This proposed rule will impact the vessel owners who held 15 NWHI lobster permits and eight NWHI bottomfish permits at the time the Monument was designated. These permit holders were determined initially by NMFS to be eligible for compensation under The Act. The Small Business Administration's accepted definition of a small fish harvester as a vessel that produces no more than $4.0 million in gross revenue annually. Using this definition, all permit holders who are eligible for compensation are defined as small entities. There are no disproportionate economic impacts from this action based on vessel size or home port. There are no recordkeeping, reporting, or other compliance requirements associated with this proposed rule. There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. There would be no adverse economic impact to any of the eligible NWHI bottomfish and lobster permit holders resulting from this rule.
          For bottomfish permit holders, the amount of monetary compensation would be derived from an NPV calculation using average ex-vessel net revenue projected over 30 years, and would be imputed as the ex-vessel gross revenue for 2003-05 times a multiplier of approximately 2.5, which is based on the 30-yr discount rate.
          The lobster permit holders would receive compensation in the form of equal payments derived from NPV of the fleet-wide average ex-vessel net revenue for 1997-99, and imputed using a similar ex-vessel gross revenue determination times the multiplier of approximately 2.5, based on the 30-yr discount rate. The 1997-99 period represents the last years that lobster fishing in the NWHI operated under NMFS harvest guidelines. The NPV for the lobster fishery would use the same discount rate and time period as the value imputed for bottomfish permit holders. The real interest rate for 30-year treasury notes and bonds as prescribed by Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, Appendix A, is 2.7 percent.
          While the intention is to base the imputed value on net revenue calculations, this is difficult given the unavailability of individual cost data. Therefore, NMFS will use a proxy for net revenue based on total, or gross, revenue. Since profit margins within each fishery are assumed to be similar, this would not affect relative amounts of compensation. In addition, with a relatively low real discount rate (2.7 percent) and long time frame (30 years), the differences between net and total revenues will be mitigated.

          NMFS will estimate the permit values using official NMFS and State of Hawaii commercial fishing records for the respective time periods. For a more thorough description of the methodology used to determine the economic values of these permits, see Appendix A to the RIR (see ADDRESSES). Any residual funds following the permit compensation program would be available for the vessel and gear buyout program using a standard vessel buyout approach, such as a reverse auction, lottery system, or blind auction.

          Authority:
          Pub. L. 110-161.

          Dated: April 2, 2009.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E9-7860 Filed 4-6-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF STATE
        48 CFR Part 601
        [Public Notice 5684]
        RIN 1400-AB98
        Department of State Acquisition Regulation

          AGENCY:
          State Department.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule makes one change to the DOSAR. It revises the DOSAR to expand contracting authority to non-U.S. citizen locally employed staff, i.e., Foreign Nationals and Third Country Nationals. Presently, only U.S. citizens who are Government employees may be appointed as contracting officers.

          DATES:
          The Department will accept comments from the public up to April 2, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: ginesgg@state.gov. You must include the RIN in the subject line of your message.
          • Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): Gladys Gines, Procurement Analyst, Department of State, Office of the Procurement Executive, 2201 C Street, NW., Suite 603, State Annex Number 6, Washington, DC 20522-0602.
          • Fax: 703-875-6155.

          Persons with access to the Internet may also view this notice and provide comments by going to the regulations.gov Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/index.cfm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Gladys Gines, Procurement Analyst, Department of State, Office of the Procurement Executive, 2201 C Street, NW., Suite 603, State Annex Number 6, Washington, DC 20522-0602; e-mail address: ginesgg@state.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Department of State initiated a pilot program in which a non-U.S. citizen locally employed staff (LES) member at an Embassy was given contracting authority at $2,500 (the micro-purchase threshold). The pilot resulted in savings in time to process transactions, allowed the Contracting Officer at the Embassy additional time to concentrate on other procurement and non-procurement issues, and increased morale among LES staff through a sense of greater empowerment. Although the pilot did not identify specific cost or headcount savings, the Department believes that further dissemination of contracting authority at increased levels up to $25,000 presents an opportunity for overseas posts (Embassies and Consulates) to achieve reductions in cost and headcount while improving service, largely by providing management flexibility to reconfigure the work portfolios of overseas contracting officers. Approximately 97% of all overseas procurement transactions are below $25,000.  Effective management controls will minimize the risks associated with providing contracting authority to non-U.S. citizen LES. These controls are similar to those currently used successfully in the purchase card program for similar transactions. They consist of:
        • Review of LES transactions on a monthly basis by a U.S. citizen contracting officer;
        • Determination and approval of adequate local conditions such as rule of law and level of corruption as well as the integrity of LES staff recommended for the contracting authority;
        • Evaluation of LES delegated procurement by the Office of the Procurement Executive;
        • Certification by the Ambassadors on an annual basis that the management controls are sufficient; and
        • Time-limited contracting officer authority to LES to permit periodic revalidation of management controls.

        Because the current DOSAR language states that all contracting officers must be U.S. citizens, a change to the regulation is required. Because the rulemaking process will take some time, the Department will select several additional pilot posts to continue the deployment process during the rulemaking timeframe.

        Regulatory Findings
        Administrative Procedure Act
        In accordance with provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act governing rules promulgated by federal agencies that affect the public (5 U.S.C. 552), the Department is publishing this proposed rule and inviting public comment.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Department of State, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
        This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995.
        Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
        This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
        Executive Order 13132
        This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does 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 601
          Government procurement.

        Accordingly, for reasons set forth in the preamble, title 48, chapter 6 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

          Subchapter A—General

            PART 601—DEPARTMENT OF STATE ACQUISITION REGULATION SYSTEM
            1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 601 continues to read as follows:

              Authority:
              40 U.S.C. 486(c); 22 U.S.C. 2658.
              2. Section 601.603-3 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as set forth below:

              601.603-3
              Appointment.

              (c) Non-Federal employees. Only United States Government employees shall be appointed as contracting officers. For acquisitions at $25,000 and below only, this includes locally employed staff (i.e., Foreign Service Nationals and Third Country nationals). Personal services contractors are not eligible for appointment as DOS contracting officers.

              Dated: January 23, 2007.
              Corey M. Rindner,
              Procurement Executive, Department of State.

      [FR Doc. E7-1534 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4710-24-P