Rules and Regulations. Notice of availability

7,426 words·~34 min read·/register/2006/03/31/06-3124

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management 43 CFR Part 4100 [WO-220-1020-24 1A] Grazing Administration—Exclusive of Alaska AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)announces the availability of the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS)to support amendments of the regulations governing grazing administration. The Addendum responds to comments received on the Draft EIS. DATES: The Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Statement is available for review through April 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: Copies of the Addendum are available at BLM State Offices in 10 western states and the BLM Washington DC office. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for a table of BLM State Offices. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: E. Lynn Burkett on

(202)468-4110 for information relating to the Addendum or Ted Hudson at

(202)452-3042 for information relating to the rulemaking process. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may contact these individuals through the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the Addendum are available at the following BLM State Offices: BLM state offices Address Phone Nos. Arizona One North Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004-4427

(602)417-9500 California 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-1834, Sacramento, CA 95825-1886

(916)978-4600 Colorado 2850 Youngfield St., Lakewood, CO 80215-7093

(303)239-3700 Idaho 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, ID, 83709-1657

(208)373-4001 Montana 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, MT, 59107

(406)896-5012 Nevada 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502

(775)861-6590 New Mexico 1474 Rodeo Rd., P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, NM, 87507-0115

(505)438-7501 Oregon 333 S.W. 1st Ave., Portland, OR 97204

(503)808-6024 Utah 440 West 200 South Suite 500, Salt Lake City, UT 84101

(801)539-4010 Wyoming 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, WY 82009

(307)775-6001 Washington, DC 1620 L St., NW., Washington DC 20036

(202)452-7749 If you have Internet access, you can download the Addendum by going to *http://www.blm.gov/grazing* and follow the directions found at that site. During the nine years since implementation of the 1995 grazing reforms, a number of discrete concerns have been raised regarding the administration of grazing management. Among other things, the rulemaking addresses a variety of these discrete, administrative issues related to the current regulatory scheme without altering the fundamental structure of the grazing regulations. The BLM published the proposed rule on December 8, 2003 (68 FR 68452), inviting public comments until February 6, 2004. On January 2, 2004, the BLM issued the Draft EIS for a 60-day public comment period which was extended on January 16, 2004 to March 2, 2004 (69 FR 2559). The Final Environmental Impact Statement was issued December 2004. Authority: 40 CFR 1506(b). Julie Jacobson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior. [FR Doc. E6-4662 Filed 3-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-AG-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 060322083-6083-01; I.D. 032006C] RIN 0648-AU04 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Gulf of Mexico Recreational Grouper Fishery Management Measures AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement a regulatory amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico

(FMP)prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). This proposed rule would establish a recreational bag limit for Gulf red grouper of one fish per person per day; prohibit the captain and crew of a vessel operating as a charter vessel or headboat from retaining any Gulf grouper, i.e.,establish a zero bag limit for captain and crew; and establish a seasonal closure of the recreational fishery for gag, red grouper, and black grouper in or from the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The intended effect of this proposed rule is to maintain recreational landings at levels consistent with the red grouper rebuilding plan while minimizing potential shift of fishing effort to associated grouper species. DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on May 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposed rule by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *0648-AU04.Proposed@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line the following document identifier: 0648-AU04. • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Andy Strelcheck, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13 th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. • Fax: 727-824-5308; Attention: Andy Strelcheck. Copies of the regulatory amendment, which includes a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and an Environmental Assessment

(EA)may be obtained from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: 813-348-1630; fax: 813-348-1711; e-mail: *gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org* . Copies of the regulatory amendment may also be downloaded from the Council's website at *http://www.gulfcouncil.org* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Strelcheck, telephone: 727-824-5374, fax: 727-824-5308, e-mail: *andy.strelcheck@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. Background On July 15, 2004, NMFS implemented Secretarial Amendment 1 to the FMP to establish a red grouper rebuilding plan, including a 5.31 million-lb (2.42 million-kg), gutted weight, commercial quota and a 1.25 million-lb (0.57 million-kg), gutted weight, recreational target catch level for red grouper (69 FR 33315). In 2004, recreational red grouper landings totaled 3.18 million lb (1.44 million kg), gutted weight -significantly exceeding the target catch level. In March 2005, the Council requested NMFS implement interim regulations for the recreational red grouper fishery to return landings to levels specified in Secretarial Amendment 1. NMFS implemented interim regulations in August 2005, to reduce recreational red grouper landings (70 FR 42510, July 25, 2005). Those regulations were amended and extended in January 2006, for an additional 180 days (71 FR 3018, January 19,2006). Provisions of This Proposed Rule The purpose of this proposed rule is to establish more permanent management measures for the recreational grouper fishery consistent with the regulatory amendment prepared by the Council. These measures are needed to restrict recreational red grouper landings to levels specified in the rebuilding plan and to prevent or minimize increases in fishing mortality on gag and black grouper resulting from any shift in fishing effort from red grouper to these species because of the more restrictive recreational red grouper regulations. Gag are not overfished or undergoing overfishing, but landings have been above recommended catch levels since 2000; therefore, gag should not be subjected to increased fishing mortality. Black grouper are included in the seasonal closure because they are similar in appearance to gag and are difficult for many recreational fishermen to distinguish from gag. If black grouper were not included in the seasonal closure, compliance with the closure would be compromised because of the species identification problem. This proposed rule would establish a red grouper recreational bag limit of one fish per person per day; prohibit the captain and crew of a vessel operating as a charter vessel or headboat from retaining any Gulf grouper ,i.e., establish a zero bag limit for captain and crew; and establish a seasonal closure of the recreational fishery for gag, red grouper, and black grouper in or from the Gulf exclusive economic zone

(EEZ)from February 15 to March 15 each year. Cumulatively, these measures are expected to reduce recreational red grouper landings by approximately 34 percent and recreational landings of gag and black grouper by 7 percent. The proposed restriction on possession of any grouper by captain and crew while under charter is intended to restrict allowable bag limits on board for-hire vessels to paying clients who are fishing recreationally, excluding captain and crew, thereby, contributing to a reduction in fishing mortality. With a reduction in the red grouper bag limit to one fish per person per day, there is a greater incentive for captain and crew on for-hire vessels to retain fish and supplement the landings of their clients, thereby negating some of the effect of the lower red grouper bag limit. The Council considered this restriction on captain and crew necessary to make the red grouper bag limit effective. The proposed February 15 to March 15 closure is consistent with the existing seasonal closure of the commercial fishery for gag, red grouper, and black grouper and would make the closure more equitable for both user groups and should help improve compliance and enforceability. The closure occurs during important spawning seasons for all three species. Because red grouper are part of a multispecies fishery, prohibiting the landings of the three species that represent about 97 percent of recreationally caught grouper should reduce red grouper discard mortality during the closure and compensate for any additional gag and black grouper fishing mortality during the open season that would otherwise occur because of more restrictive red grouper regulations. Additional Consideration of the Seasonal Closure The proposed February 15 to March 15 closure of the recreational fishery for gag, red grouper, and black grouper is based on the best scientific information currently available. However, NMFS expects a new stock assessment for gag to be completed in July 2006 that might contain new information pertinent to evaluating the need for the seasonal closure. In addition, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has expressed concerns about implementation of the seasonal closure and has requested an extension of the time period for its review of the proposed action under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Therefore, at the final rule stage, NMFS may through appropriate procedural steps separate the management measures into two separate final rules -one addressing the bag limit provisions, and one addressing the seasonal closure. That approach would allow the bag limit provisions to be implemented in a timely manner, assuming approval, and would allow NMFS to defer implementation of the seasonal closure until the new gag assessment has been completed. Any implications regarding the seasonal closure will have been thoroughly analyzed, and NMFS and the state of Florida can resolve any remaining coastal zone management issues. NMFS and the Council would carefully evaluate the conclusions of the new assessment to determine whether the closure remains justified based on the best scientific information available. Classification At this time, NMFS has not determined that the regulatory amendment, which this proposed rule would implement, is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. In making that determination, NMFS will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period on the regulatory amendment and the comment period on this proposed rule. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. NMFS prepared an IRFA 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. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. This proposed rule would reduce the daily recreational red grouper bag limit, establish a closed recreational season for gag, black grouper, and red grouper, and eliminate the captain and crew daily grouper bag limit. The purpose for this regulatory amendment is to implement management measures for the Gulf of Mexico grouper fishery which will restrict recreational red grouper landings to levels specified in the red grouper-rebuilding plan and minimize impacts on other grouper species resulting from more restrictive recreational red grouper regulations. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. A moratorium on the issuance of new charter vessel/headboat (for-hire) permits for reef fish has been in effect since June 16, 2003, and, currently, approximately 1,625 unique vessels are permitted to operate in this fishery. The for-hire fishery is comprised of charter vessels, which charge fees on a vessel basis, and headboats, which charge fees on an individual angler basis. The average charter vessel is estimated to generate $76,960 in annual revenue and $36,758 in annual “profit” (computed as gross revenue minus costs; costs exclude depreciation, fixed costs, and returns to owner/operators). The comparable figures for an average headboat are $404,172 in annual gross revenue and $338,209 in annual profits. Some vessels in the for-hire fleet also participate in the commercial grouper fishery. However, information on the average revenues generated from operation as a commercial vessel and the impacts of these revenues on the overall economic performance of the business operation are unknown. Although the proposed actions would not directly affect support industries, potential reductions in fishing effort and associated expenditures may have indirect impacts on hotels, restaurants, gear and bait shops, and other associated businesses. It is not possible to enumerate or characterize these businesses. The proposed rule would not change current reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements under the FMP. These requirements include permit qualification criteria and participation in data collection programs if selected by NMFS. All of the information elements required for these processes are standard elements essential to the successful operation of a fishing business and should, therefore, already be collected and maintained as standard operating practice by the business. The requirements do not require professional skills, and, therefore, are deemed not to be onerous. The Small Business Administration defines a small business in the for-hire fishery sector as a firm that is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation, and has annual receipts up to $6.5 million. Given the economic profile of the for-hire fleet presented above, NMFS determined that all for-hire fishing entities that would be affected by the proposed action are small business entities. Since all of these entities could be affected, NMFS determined that the proposed action would affect a substantial number of small entities. The outcome of “significant economic impact” can be ascertained by examining two issues: disproportionality and profitability. The disproportionality question is whether the regulations place a substantial number of small entities at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities. All for-hire entities affected by the proposed rule are considered small entities so the issue of disproportionality does not arise in the present case. The profitability question is whether the regulations significantly reduce profit for a substantial number of small entities. For-hire operations will bear the primary burden of the proposed actions, though spill-over impacts would be expected in associated industries, such as hotels, marinas, and bait and tackle shops. For-hire operations may experience a reduction in bookings, resulting in reduced receipts from for-hire fees, tips, gear rental, food or beverages, and fish-cleaning. The proposed rule is projected to result in a reduction of for-hire fees of up to $2.52 million. Potential reduced receipts from other sources cannot be determined. Although the incidence of cancellation is not expected to be uniform across the Gulf, since the importance of grouper as a target species varies geographically and by business entity, the expected reduction in reduced for-hire fees equates to approximately $1,400 per vessel, or approximately 2 percent of average gross revenues and 4 percent of net revenues. The potential impact of the proposed actions on associated industries cannot be determined. Six alternatives, including the status quo, were considered in addition to the preferred red grouper bag limit and seasonal closure. The status quo would have allowed continued landing overages in the recreational sector and would, therefore, not meet the Council's objectives. The second alternative would have reduced the red grouper daily bag limit to one fish per angler or three fish per vessel, whichever is less. This alternative contained no protection for associated grouper species and increased the possibility of excessive redirected effort to these other species and red grouper bycatch mortality. This alternative did not, therefore, meet the Council's objectives. The third alternative would have increased the red grouper recreational minimum size limit to 22 inches. An increase in the minimum size limit, however, would be expected to increase bycatch and discard mortality, which is inconsistent with the Council's objective of minimizing bycatch and discard mortality. Thus, this alternative would not meet the Council's objectives. The fourth alternative would have reduced the red grouper recreational bag limit within the aggregate grouper limit to one per person per day and closed the season for all grouper during August. This alternative would have resulted in greater reductions in consumer surplus and potential foregone expenditures than the proposed action, therefore increasing the adverse economic impacts relative to the proposed action. The fifth alternative would have reduced the red grouper recreational bag limit within the aggregate limit to one per person per day and closed the season for all grouper during April through May. This alternative would also have resulted in greater reductions in consumer surplus and potential foregone expenditures than the proposed action. The sixth alternative would have reduced the red grouper bag limit within the aggregate limit to one per person per day and increased the minimum recreational size limit to 21 inches. Similar to an increase of the minimum size limit to 22 inches, excessive bycatch mortality was expected to accrue to this alternative. The final alternative to the proposed red grouper bag limit and seasonal closure would have reduced the red grouper bag limit within the aggregate grouper limit to one fish per angler or three fish per vessel per day, whichever is less, except for reef fish-permitted for-hire vessels with a U.S. Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection. For these vessels, the resultant vessel limit would be one red grouper per two paying passengers. While this alternative is projected to result in reduced short-term reductions in consumer surplus relative to the proposed action, this alternative contained no protection for associated species and, therefore, would not address the Council's concerns for redirection of effort to other grouper species and increased bycatch of red grouper. One alternative, the status quo, was considered for the proposed 0-fish captain and crew grouper bag limit. The status quo, which would allow captain and crew a bag limit equal to that of the recreational angler, in combination with the other proposed actions, would not achieve the necessary red grouper harvest reductions and would not, therefore, meet the Council's objectives. The 0-fish captain and crew bag limit constrains the potential harvest capacity aboard for-hire vessels, limits allowable bag limits to paying clients who are fishing recreationally, and contributes to some additional reduction in fishing mortality. Three alternatives to the preferred alternative, the status quo, were considered for the aggregate grouper daily bag limit. The status quo for this action would not impose additional restrictions on the harvest of other grouper species and would not, therefore, result in any direct adverse economic impacts on small entities. Three alternatives would reduce the aggregate grouper daily bag limit to 4, 3, or 2 fish, respectively. The Council has determined that the 1-month closure for red, gag, and black grouper would provide the necessary protection for these other grouper species to compensate for potential redirection of effort in response to the proposed red grouper restrictions. Reducing the aggregate bag limit was determined to be excessive and would increase the adverse economic impacts relative to the proposed action. Copies of the IRFA are available (see ADDRESSES ). List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622 Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands. Dated: March 28, 2006. William T. Hogarth, 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 § 622.34, paragraph

(u)is added to read as follows: § 622.34 Gulf EEZ seasonal and/or area closures.

(u)*Seasonal closure of the recreational fishery for gag, red grouper, and black grouper.* The recreational fishery for gag, red grouper, and black grouper in or from the Gulf EEZ is closed from February 15 to March 15, each year. During the closure, the bag and possession limit for gag, red grouper, and black grouper in or from the Gulf EEZ is zero. 3. In § 622.39, the suspensions of paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(1)(v) are lifted; paragraphs (b)(1)(viii) and (b)(1)(ix) are removed; and paragraph (b)(1)(ii) is revised to read as follows: § 622.39 Bag and possession limits.

(b)* * *

(1)* * *

(ii)Groupers, combined, excluding goliath grouper and Nassau grouper -5 per person per day, but not to exceed 1 speckled hind or 1 warsaw grouper per vessel per day or 1 red grouper per person per day. However, no grouper may be retained by the captain or crew of a vessel operating as a charter vessel or headboat -their bag limit is zero. [FR Doc. E6-4748 Filed 3-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 680 [I.D. 032406D] RIN 0648-AU37 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab Fishery Resources AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments. SUMMARY: Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to require the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to approve the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands

(BSAI)Crab Rationalization Program (Program). The Program allocates BSAI crab resources among harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. Amendment 21 would modify the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands

(BSAI)King and Tanner crabs

(FMP)and the Program to alter the timing for harvesters and processors to match harvesting and processing shares and the timing for initiating arbitration proceedings incorporated in the Program to resolve price and other delivery disputes among harvesters and processors. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws. DATES: Comments on the amendment must be received on or before May 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Records Office. Comments may be submitted by: • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. • Hand Delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK. • Facsimile: 907-586-7557. • E-mail: *0648-AU37-NOAKTC21@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail the following document identifier: Crab Rationalization RIN 0648-AU37. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes. • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments. Copies of Amendment 21 and the and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for this action may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region at the address above or from the Alaska Region Web site at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228 or *glenn.merrill@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. The king and Tanner crab fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the BSAI are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the Magnuson-Stevens Act as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-199, section 801). Amendments 18 and 19 to the FMP amended the FMP to include the Program. Regulations implementing these amendments were published on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174) and are located at 50 CFR part 680. Amendment 20 to the FMP, which would authorize the management of an Eastern and Western Tanner crab ( *C. bairdi* ), is currently under Secretarial review. A NOA for Amendment 20 was published in the **Federal Register** on February 27, 2006. The comment period on the NOA ends on April 28, 2006. A proposed rule to implement Amendment 20 was published in the **Federal Register** on March 21, 2006 (71 FR 14153). The comment period on the proposed rule ends on May 5, 2006. The Council submitted Amendment 21 to the FMP for Secretarial review, which would make minor changes to the FMP necessary for the management of the arbitration system under the Program. If approved, Amendment 21 to the FMP would modify the timing of both share matching and initiation of a binding arbitration proceeding by removing the requirement that share matching and binding arbitration must be initiated at a certain point prior to the date of the first crab fishing season. Amendment 21 would require initiation of share matching and binding arbitration after the issuance of individual fishing quota

(IFQ)and individual processor quota (IPQ). This revision would provide participants with a reasonable and reliable opportunity to fully use the arbitration system. The Program includes an arbitration system to resolve price, delivery terms, and other disputes, in the event that holders of Class A IFQ and IPQ are unable to negotiate those terms. Under the existing arbitration system regulations, after the issuance of IFQ and IPQ, harvesters that are not affiliated with a processor through ownership or control linkages (unaffiliated harvesters) are permitted to unilaterally commit delivery of harvests from Class A IFQ to a processor with available IPQ. Once committed, the unaffiliated harvester is permitted to initiate a binding arbitration proceeding if the parties are unable to agree to the terms of delivery. The IFQ holder must initiate binding arbitration proceedings at least 15 days prior to a season opening. This approach is commonly called the “share match” approach to binding arbitration. The share match approach to resolve price disputes does not meet the needs of IFQ holders. Under the current schedule for the stock assessment process and total allowable catch determination, NMFS typically does not issue IFQ and IPQ 15 days prior to a season opening, which limits the ability of IFQ holders to rely on the share match component to achieve a price resolution. Amendment 21 would modify the timing for the initiation of binding arbitration under share matching so that it would be based upon the issuance of IFQ and IPQ, including a five-day assessment period for negotiated commitments, instead of upon the starting date of a crab season. For a period of five days after the issuance of IFQ and IPQ, unaffiliated harvesters holding Class A IFQ and holders of IPQ could voluntarily agree to commit their respective shares. After the five-day assessment period, holders of uncommitted Class A IFQ may unilaterally commit that IFQ to any holder of uncommitted IPQ. During the 10-day period beginning five days after the issuance of IFQ and IPQ, any holder of committed Class A IFQ could unilaterally initiate a binding arbitration proceeding with the IPQ holder to which the IFQ were committed. Public comments are being solicited on proposed Amendment 21 through the end of the comment period (see DATES ). NMFS intends to publish a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 21 in the **Federal Register** for public comment, following NMFS' evaluation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 21 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 21. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 21, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendments. To be considered, comments must be received not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted by the close of business on the last day of the comment period. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: March 27, 2006. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-4749 Filed 3-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 62 Friday, March 31, 2006 Notices JOINT BOARD FOR THE ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES Meeting of the Advisory Committee; Meeting AGENCY: Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries. ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting. SUMMARY: The Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of a closed meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations. DATES: The meeting will be held on April 24, 2006, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at The Segal Company, 101 North Wacker Drive, Suite 500, Chicago, IL. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick W. McDonough, Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, 202-622-8225. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet at The Segal Company, 101 North Wacker Drive, Suite 500, Chicago, IL on Monday, April 24, 2006, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions that may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics, pension law and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B). A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the subject of the meeting falls within the exception to the open meeting requirement set forth in Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such meeting be closed to public participation. Dated: March 10, 2006. Patrick W. McDonough, Executive Director, Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries. [FR Doc. E6-4671 Filed 3-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 28, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax

(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling

(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Forest Service *Title:* Day Use on the National Forests of Southern California. *OMB Control Number:* 0596-0129. *Summary of Collection:* Users of urban proximate National Forests in Southern California come from a variety of ethnic/racial, income, age, educational, and other socio-demographic categories. The activities pursued, sources utilized, and site attributes preferred are just some of the items affected by these differences. Additional information is needed for the managers of the National Forests in Southern California, in part to validate previous results and in part because of the continuously changing profile of the visitor population recreating on the National Forests of Southern California. In the absence of the resultant information from the proposed series, the Forest Service

(FS)will be ill-equipped to implement management changes required to respond to needs and preferences of day use visitors. FS will collect information using a questionnaire and face-to-face interviews. The statute authorizing the collection of information is the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-307, 92 Stat. 353). *Need and Use of the Information:* FS will collect information on socio-demographic profile; National Forest visitation history and patterns; activity patterns; and why they recreate at particular sites, etc. The information will be used to assist resource managers in their effective management of recreation activities in the region studied. The Wildland Recreation and Urban Cultures Project will use the information to further expand its information base on visitor characteristics, safety, fire management, and mitigation of depreciative behaviors, such as vandalism. If the information is not collected, resource managers will have to make visitor based decisions on limited information. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Number of Respondents:* 600. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 80. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-4704 Filed 3-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Malheur National Forest, Oregon; Malheur National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The Malheur National Forest proposes to treat approximately 3,800 acres of invasive plants located across the 1.7 million acre National Forest. It is anticipated that approximately 800 acres of both existing and newly discovered sites would be treated in any year. The proposed treatment methods includes: manual pulling or use of hand tools, use of mechanical hand tools, herbicide, cultural methods such as grazing or mulching, and biological controls. The method used would depend on resource protection concerns for a given site. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by May 1, 2006. The draft environmental impact statement is expected in March, 2007 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in September, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send written comments about this project to Stan Benes, Forest Supervisor, Malheur National Forest, P.O. Box 909, John Day OR 97845. Electronic comments can be mailed to: *comments-pacificnorthwest-malheur@fs.fed.us.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Holly, Project Leader, Phone: 541-575-3026 or e-mail: *cholly@fs.fed.us.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action The Purpose of this action is to provide a rapid and more comprehensive, up to date approach to the treatment of invasive plants that occur on the National Forest. The purpose of treating weed infestations is to maintain or improve the diversity, function, and sustainability of desired native plant communities and other natural resources that can be adversely impacted by invasive plant species. Specifically, there is an underlying need on the Forest to:

(1)implement treatment actions to contain and reduce the extent of invasive plants at existing inventoried sites, and

(2)rapidly respond to new or expanded invasive plant sites as they may occur in the future. Proposed Action A detailed project description can be found on the Malheur National Forest Web page at *http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mai/projects.* Various types of treatments would be used to treat invasive plants including the use of herbicides, physical, and biological methods. Treatments are proposed for existing or new infestations including new plant species that currently are not found on the Forest. Potential treatments based on existing mapped sites include: Biological methods on approximately 1 acre; Chemical/non riparian methods on approximately 904 acres; Chemical/riparian methods on approximately 553 acres; and Physical methods on 2,404 acres. *Herbicide Treatments:* Any use of Chemicals would be done in accordance with USDA Forest Service policies, regulations and Forest Plan Standards as well as product label requirements. Chemicals approved for use, within or outside riparian areas, are listed in the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants FEIS (Regional Invasive Plant EIS), April 2005 and ROD and includes: Chlorosulfuron, clopyralid, glyphosate, imazapic, imazapyr, metsulfuron methyl, picloram, sethroxydim, sulfometuron methyl, and triclopyr. The application rates depend on the presence of the target species, condition of non-target vegetation, soil type, depth to the water table, the distance to open water sources, riparian areas, special status plants, and requirements of the herbicide label. Monitoring of treated sites would determine what follow-up treatments would be needed. Ground based application methods would be used based on accessibility, topography, and the size of treatment area. The following are examples of the proposed methods of application: • Spot spraying—This method targets individual plants and is usually applied with a backpack sprayer. Spot Spraying can also be applied using a hose off a truck-mounted or ATV-mounted tank. • Wicking—This hand method involves wiping a sponge or cloth that is saturated with chemical over the plant. This is used in sensitive areas, such as near water, to avoid getting any chemical on the soil or in contact with non-target vegetation. • Stem injection—A new hand application technique currently being used on Japanese knotweed in western OR. • Hand broadcast—Herbicide would be applied by hand using a backpack or hand spreader to cover in area of ground rather than individual plants. • Boom broadcast—This involves using a hose and nozzle from a tank mounted on a truck or ATV. Herbicide is applied to cover an area of ground rather than individual plants. This method is used when the weed is dense enough that it is difficult to discern individual plants and the area to be treated makes spot spraying impractical. This would be the method used for aerial applications. When needed to facilitate recovery, native seed would be used to recover the site and increase competition. *Use of Physical Treatments:* Physical methods include manual control, hand mechanical and cultural methods. *Manual Control Methods:* These methods include non-mechanized approaches, such as hand pulling or using hand tools (e.g., grubbing), to remove plants or cut off seed heads. Where sites are small or there are few individual target species, handsaws, axes, shovel, rakes, machetes, grubbing hoes, mattocks, brush hooks, and hand clippers may all be used to remove invasive plant species. To meet control objectives or reduce the risk of activities spreading invasive plants, seed heads and flowers would be removed and disposed of using proper disposal methods. Developed flowers or seed heads are generally bagged and burned. *Hand Mechanical Control Methods:* This method uses hand power tools and includes such actions as mowing, weed whipping, road brushing, root tilling methods, or foaming, steaming, infrared, and other techniques using heat to reduce plant cover and root vigor. Mowing and cutting would be used to reduce or remove above ground biomass. Seed heads and cut fragments of species capable of re-sprouting from stem or root segments would be collected and properly disposed of to prevent them from spreading into uninfested areas. *Cultural Control Methods:* Approved methods include any cultural practice known to be useful for treating invasive plants such as mulching with a variety of materials, grazing animals, using fertilizer/soil amendments, competitive planting, or other local remedies that may be determined to be effective (e.g., spraying water/salt/sugar mixtures). Competitive planting would consist of a combination of methods used with planting native vegetation in small areas of disturbance, less than 100 square feet. *Biological Control:* Biological weed control activities typically include the release of parasitic and “host specific” insects. Presently, insects are the primary biological control agent in use. Mites, nematodes, and pathogens are used occasionally. Treatments do not eradicate the target species but rather reduce target plant densities and competition with desired plant species for space, water and nutrients. The treated areas would continue to be inventoried and monitored to determine the success of the treatments and when the released bio-control agents have reached equilibrium with the target species. Responsible Official The Forest Supervisor, Stan Benes, will be the responsible official for making the decision and providing direction for the analysis. He can be contacted at the address listed above. Nature of Decision To Be Made The responsible official will decide what type of methods and how they will be used to control invasive plants on the Malheur National Forest. Scoping Process The public is asked to provide the responsible official with written comments describing their concerns about this project. At this time, no public meetings are being planned. Comment Requested This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. When reviewing the proposed action, bear in mind that the Forest has been operating under direction found in the 1988 Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)and 1988 & 1992 Records of Decision

(ROD)for Competing and Unwanted Vegetation and the associated 1989 Mediated Agreement. Treatments under this agreement have previously been by manual control methods. Monitoring has indicated that this approach is not successful. In 2005 the Forest Service's Pacific Northwest Region completed and implemented the *Pacific Northwest Region Invasive plant Program FEIS* providing new direction and updating the herbicides that would be permitted for use in the Region. The new herbicides offer many advantages over the more limited set allowed previously, including greater selectively, less harm to desired vegetation, reduced application rates, and lower toxicity to animals and people. The proposed treatments will be guided by this FEIS. The most useful comments to developing or refining the proposed action would be site specific concerns and those that can help us develop treatments that would be responsive to our goal to control, contain, or eradicate invasive plants as well as being cost effective. Prevention measures have already been built into the Regional Invasive Plant EIS and will be implemented with all actions occuring on the Forest. The purpose of this proposed action is to begin treatments on known invasive plant sites and provide a mechanism to respond rapidly when new infestations are discovered. Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposed so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contents. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC,* 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel,* 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris,* 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. (Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21) Dated: March 27, 2006. Roger W. Williams, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 06-3124 Filed 3-30-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 4

Traces to 4 documents