Notices. Proposed rule

8,808 words·~40 min read·/register/2006/05/15/06-4518

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 93 Monday, May 15, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency 7 CFR Part 762 RIN 0560-AH41 Guaranteed Loan Fees AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Farm Service Agency

(FSA)proposes to amend the regulations for guaranteed loans to change the amount charged and collected in order for the FSA to provide a guarantee. Except in certain limited cases, FSA currently charges a fee of one percent (1%) of the guaranteed amount on all guaranteed Farm Ownership

(FO)loans, and guaranteed Operating Loans (OL). The rule change is necessary for the Agency to be able to offset the cost of the guaranteed loan program so as to maintain program funding at levels that will best service farmers and ranchers. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 14, 2006 in order to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: FSA invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed final rule. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *Galen.VanVleet@wdc.usda.gov* . Include “Guarantee Fees” in the subject line of the message. • Fax: Submit comments by facsimile transmission to: 202-690-6797. • Mail: Send comments to: Galen VanVleet, USDA/FSA, Loan Making Division, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0522, Washington, DC 20250-0522; • Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver comments to: FSA, Loan Making Division, 1280 Maryland Ave., SW., Suite 240, Washington, DC 20024. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. All written comments will be available for public inspection at the above address during business hours from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Galen VanVleet at the above address or at

(202)720-3889. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion of the Proposed Rule FSA guaranteed loans, administered under 7 CFR part 762, provide eligible lenders ( *e.g.* , banks, Farm Credit System institutions, credit unions) with a guarantee of up to 95 percent of the loss of principal and interest on a loan. Farmers and ranchers apply to an agricultural lender, which then arranges for the guarantee. The FSA guarantee permits lenders to make agricultural credit available to farmers who do not meet the lender's normal underwriting standards. FSA guaranteed loans may be made for farm ownership and operating purposes. Guaranteed farm ownership

(FO)loans generally may be made to purchase farmland, construct or repair buildings and other fixtures, develop farmland to promote soil and water conservation, or refinance debt. Guaranteed operating

(OL)loans generally may be used to purchase livestock, farm equipment, feed, seed, fuel, farm chemicals, insurance, and other operating expenses. Operating loans can also be used to pay for minor improvements to buildings, costs associated with land and water development, family living expenses, and to refinance debts under certain conditions. A percentage of guaranteed loan funds is targeted to beginning farmers and ranchers and minority and female applicants. FSA proposes to amend its regulations governing fees on guaranteed loans. These fees have not been changed since the inception of the program in the early 1980's. Such fees are authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1927(b) and 31 U.S.C. 9701. With a few exceptions, FSA currently charges a one-time, one (1.0) percent fee on guaranteed loans when the loan is made in accordance with 7 CFR 762.130. The fee is charged to and collected from the lender by FSA. However, FSA allows the fee to be passed on to the applicant and, in practice, the expense is almost always passed on to the applicant or borrower. FSA limits fees to loan origination and currently does not charge any fees for annual renewal, loan servicing, or restructuring actions. The proposal to revise fees on farm loans is intended to reduce the subsidy cost for such loans, which is reflected in the budget authority needed to support a given loan level. The President's 2007 budget proposes to maintain approximately the same level of farm loans as expected to be made in 2006, and to increase fees so that less budget authority would be needed to support the proposed loan level. This proposal is based on the expectation that there will be sufficient demand to maintain the loan level, which means that borrowers are likely to be willing to pay higher fees to obtain the loans at less cost to the Government. It is proposed that beginning with fiscal year 2007 (October 1, 2006), the one-time origination fee for a guaranteed farm ownership loan will be increased to 1.5 percent of the loan amount guaranteed (Loan Amount × percent guaranteed × .015). This fee structure will cover the subsidy cost of the program. The fee on non-subsidized guaranteed operating loans will be increased to 1.5 percent of the loan amount guaranteed (Loan Amount × percent guaranteed × .015). In addition, beginning with fiscal year 2007 on October 1, 2006, an annual continuation fee of 0.75 percent of the loan will be charged on lines of credit (Line of Credit Ceiling Amount × percent guaranteed × .0075). This fee structure on operating loans will cover the budgetary shortfall anticipated in the fiscal year 2007 budget preparations. The Agency determined an annual fee was appropriate for lines of credit because additional funds are extended to the borrower annually; loan funds could be made available to pay the continuation fee; and the losses on lines of credit have been higher than on term loans. The continuation fee will be based upon the ceiling amount because this best reflects the amount of credit a borrower will have available. Fees will not be imposed on loans where imposition is statutorily prohibited, including where the loans are to beginning farmers or ranchers involved in the direct beginning farmer downpayment program or made through a qualified State Beginning Farmer Program under 7 U.S.C. 309. To encourage refinancing, FSA will continue its policy of not charging fees where a majority of the guaranteed loan funds are used to refinance an Agency direct loan. In addition, fees on loans under the interest assistance program will be addressed under separate rulemaking and are not included in this rule. This proposed rule provides that the level of fees charged for a guarantee may change in the future without promulgation of a rule to amend the guaranteed loan regulations. The fee schedule, however, will be published as a Notice in the **Federal Register** . It is not possible to accurately predict future fee requirements, and the change in fee may be required quickly after adoption of a budget. When making adjustments in the guarantee origination or continuation fees, the Agency will consider a number of economic and budgetary factors in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-25, including guaranteed loan portfolio performance, the economic outlook of agriculture, the costs of the program, and Federal budget rules and requirements. A fee schedule will apply to all loans obligated during a particular fiscal year or budget cycle and will not apply retroactively to loans made before the increase was effective. Guarantee fee schedules will be available from any FSA office as well as on the Internet at *http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafl/guaranteed.htm* . Notice and Comment This rule is issued as a proposed rule. Upon completion of the public comment period and consideration of the comments received, FSA will issue a final rule addressing the comments, announcing the final determinations, and making the provisions effective. Executive Order 12866 The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has determined this rule is not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866; therefore, this rule has not been reviewed by OMB. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 The information collections to which this rule applies have reviewed by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), approved, and assigned OMB control number 0560-0155. This rule involves no change to the collection of information currently approved. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Executive Order 12612 It has been determined under section 6(a) of Executive Order 12612, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Regulatory Flexibility Act In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, FSA has determined that there will not be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may make a few individuals ineligible for FSA guaranteed loans and it will increase the costs of compliance with program regulations for all participants who must pay a guarantee fee. However, the number of applicants who will be severely impacted due to increased fees is expected to be minimal. Further, all persons or entities affected by this change are small. The agency will continue to waive fees for those applicants who have the greatest needs—those who need interest assistance subsidy, those graduating from FSA direct credit, and those who are beginning farmers in need of a downpayment loan or a State Beginning Farmer Program loan. Otherwise, changes will be applied to all applicants equally without regard to their size. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Agency certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 12372 These regulations are not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983. Executive Order 12988 This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, on Civil Justice Reform. The provisions of this rule are not retroactive. The provisions of this rule preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent. Generally, all administrative appeal provisions, including those published at 7 CFR part 11, must be exhausted before any action for judicial review may be brought in connection with the matters that are the subject of this rule. Environmental Evaluation The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered consistently with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* , the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and the FSA regulations for compliance with NEPA, 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G. FSA concluded that the rule is categorically excluded in accordance with 7 CFR 1940.310(e)(3) and does not require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. List of Subjects in Part 762 Agriculture, Loan programs—Agriculture. Accordingly, 7 CFR chapter VII is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 762—GUARANTEED FARM LOANS 1. The authority citation for part 762 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 7 U.S.C. 1989. 2. Amend § 762.130 by revising paragraphs (d)(4)(ii) and (d)(4)(iii)(C) to read as follows: § 762.130 Loan approval and issuing the guarantee.

(d)* * *

(4)* * *

(ii)Guaranteed fees are established by the Agency at the time the guarantee is obligated. The current fee schedule is available at any FSA office and will be published periodically as a Notice in the **Federal Register** . Loan guarantee fees may be adjusted annually, based on factors which affect program costs. The nonrefundable fee is paid to the Agency by the lender. The fee may be passed on to the borrower and included in loan funds. The origination fee for the loan type will be calculated as follows:

(A)FO: Loan Amount × % guaranteed × (FO factor established by FSA).

(B)OL: Loan Amount × % guaranteed × (OL factor established by FSA).

(iii)* * *

(C)Loans to beginning farmers or ranchers involved in the direct beginning farmer downpayment program or a qualified State Beginning Farmer Program. 3. Amend § 762.140 by adding a new paragraph

(e)as follows: § 762.140 General servicing responsibilities.

(e)*Continuation fee* . For lines of credit with a year or more remaining on their term that will be continued, the lender will remit a continuation fee to FSA as follows:

(1)The fee will be due on the anniversary date of the issuance of the guarantee on a line of credit. Fees will be accepted within 60 days of the anniversary date. Any fee received after 60 days but within 90 days of the anniversary date may be accepted by FSA provided the lender has documented that circumstances existed that were beyond their control to be able to remit the fee in a timely manner. If the annual fee is not received within this time, all advances made after the anniversary date will not be covered by the guarantee.

(2)The fee amount will be established by the Agency at the time the guarantee is obligated.

(3)Fees are nonrefundable and are paid to the Agency by the lender. The fee may be passed on to the borrower and included in loan funds.

(4)The continuation fee will be calculated as follows: Fee = Line of Credit Ceiling Amount × % guaranteed × (continuation factor established by FSA). The current fee schedule is available at any FSA office and will be published periodically as a Notice in the **Federal Register** . The continuation fee may be adjusted annually based on factors which affect program costs.

(5)Loans with interest assistance or loans to beginning farmers or ranchers in the direct beginning farmer downpayment program or a qualified State Beginning Farmer Program will not be charged an annual continuation fee. Signed at Washington, DC, on April 24, 2006. Teresa Lasseter, Administrator, Farm Service Agency. [FR Doc. E6-7326 Filed 5-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 31 CFR Part 103 RIN 1506-AA85 Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; Provision of Banking Services to Money Services Businesses AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Department of the Treasury. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) is extending the comment period for the referenced advance notice of proposed rulemaking, 71 FR 12308 (March 10, 2006), for an additional sixty

(60)days. The original comment period would have expired on May 9, 2006. The new extended comment period will expire on July 10, 2006. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 10, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1506-AA85, by any of the following methods: • Federal e-rulemaking portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *regcomments@fincen.treas.gov.* Include RIN 1506-AA85 in the subject line of the message. • Mail: FinCEN, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183. Include RIN 1506-AA85 in the body of the text. *Instructions:* It is preferable for comments to be submitted by electronic mail because paper mail in the Washington, DC area may be delayed. Please submit comments by one method only. All submissions received must include the agency name and the Regulatory Information Number

(RIN)for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.fincen.gov* , including any personal information provided. Comments may be inspected at FinCEN between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. in the FinCEN reading room in Washington, DC. Persons wishing to inspect the comments submitted must request an appointment by telephoning

(202)354-6400 (not a toll-free number). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regulatory Policy and Programs Division, FinCEN on

(800)949-2732 (toll-free). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FinCEN issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (71 FR 12308) on March 10, 2006 in order to solicit further information as part of our ongoing effort to address, in the context of the Bank Secrecy Act, the issue of access to banking services by money services businesses. We have received a number of comments to date, including a request to extend the deadline for comments in order to allow interested parties more time in which to comment on the specific issues raised in the advance notice. In light of the fact that an extension of time will not impede any imminent rulemaking and will allow additional interested parties to respond to the issues raised in the advance notice, we have determined that it is appropriate to extend the comment period until July 10, 2006. Dated: May 9, 2006. Robert W. Werner, Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. [FR Doc. E6-7327 Filed 5-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-02-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Part 76 RIN 1890-AA13 State-Administered Programs AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction. SUMMARY: On April 27, 2006, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking for State-Administered Programs

(NPRM)in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 24824). In the NPRM, we inadvertently included the incorrect OMB Control number for the Department's electronic ED *Facts* Data Management System. This notice corrects that error as follows: On page 24824, column three, second to last sentence in the SUMMARY section, replace “1880-0541” with “1875-0240.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonny Long, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 7C110, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:

(202)401-0325 or via Internet: *Bonny.Long@ed.gov.* If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service

(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in this section. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

(PDF)on the Internet at this site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site listed above. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at

(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: May 10, 2006. Tom Luce, Assistant Secretary, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. [FR Doc. E6-7346 Filed 5-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 060503118-6118-01; I.D. 042606E] RIN 0648-AT26 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 6 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes measures contained in Framework Adjustment 6 (Framework 6) to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan

(FMP)that would allow regional conservation equivalency in the summer flounder recreational fishery. The intent is to provide flexibility and efficiency to the management of the summer flounder recreational fishery, specifically by expanding the suite of management tools available when conservation equivalency is implemented. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *FSBFW6@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line the following identifier: “Comments on Summer Flounder Framework 6.” • Federal e-rulemaking portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Summer Flounder Framework 6.” • Fax:

(978)281-9135. Copies of the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) are available from Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19901-6790. The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at *http://www.nero.noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah McLaughlin, Fishery Policy Analyst,

(978)281-9279. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries are managed cooperatively by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), in consultation with the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The management units specified in the FMP include summer flounder ( *Paralichthys dentatus* ) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from the southern border of North Carolina northward to the U.S./Canada border, and scup ( *Stenotomus chrysops* ) and black sea bass ( *Centropristis striata* ) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from 35°15.3′ N. lat. (the latitude of Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, Buxton, NC) northward to the U.S./Canada border. The FMP and its implementing regulations, which are found at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A (General Provisions), G (summer flounder), H (scup), and I (black sea bass), describe the process for specifying annual recreational measures that apply in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The states manage these fisheries within 3 miles of their coasts, under the Commission′s plan for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The Federal regulations govern vessels fishing in the EEZ, as well as vessels possessing a Federal fisheries permit, regardless of where they fish. The Council and the Commission seek to expand the suite of management tools available for management of the summer flounder recreational fishery when conservation equivalency is recommended by the Council. The Council initiated Framework 6, pursuant to § 648.108, in order to address issues related to the administration of the summer flounder recreational fishery, while continuing to achieve the management objectives of the FMP. Framework 6 complements Addendum XVII to the Interstate Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP. In 2001, NMFS implemented Framework Adjustment 2 to the FMP (Framework 2), which established a process that makes conservation equivalency an option for the summer flounder recreational fishery (66 FR 36208, July 11, 2001). Conservation equivalency allows each state to establish its own recreational management measures (possession limits, minimum fish size, and fishing seasons) to achieve its state harvest limit, as long as the combined effect of all of the states′ management measures achieves the same level of conservation as would Federal coastwide measures developed to achieve the overall recreational harvest limit. Conservation equivalency has been approved for the summer flounder recreational fishery each year since 2002. During the development of Framework 2, the Council considered but did not approve an alternative that would divide the recreational harvest limit into three subregions: Northern (MA, RI, CT), Central (NY, NJ, DE), and Southern (MD, Potomac River Fisheries Commission, VA, and NC). Development of Framework 6 was necessary to allow for modification of the state-specific conservation equivalency procedures as established in Framework 2. Framework 6 would allow for the voluntary formation of multi-state regions by two or more adjacent states for the purpose of setting regional, conservation-equivalent recreational summer flounder fishing measures. Using guidelines approved by both the Council and the Commission, multi-state conservation equivalency regions would develop fishing measures (i.e., minimum fish size, possession limits, and fishing seasons) intended to maximize landings in the region, without resulting in overages of the regional targets (in number of fish). All states forming a region would be required to implement identical recreational fishery regulations. Currently, the Council and Board recommend annually that either state- specific recreational measures be developed (conservation equivalency) or coastwide management measures be implemented by all states to ensure that the recreational harvest limit will not be exceeded. The Commission′s conservation equivalency guidelines require the states to determine and implement appropriate state-specific management measures to achieve state-specific harvest limits. Under this approach, each state may implement unique management measures appropriate to that state, so long as these measures are determined by the Commission to provide equivalent conservation as would Federal coastwide measures developed to achieve the overall recreational harvest limit. For each fishing year, if the Council recommends conservation equivalency, the Board requires that each state submit its conservation equivalency proposal to the Commission by January 15. The Commission's Summer Flounder Technical Committee then evaluates the proposals and advises the Board of each proposal's consistency with respect to achieving the coastwide recreational harvest limit. The Commission invites public participation in its review process by allowing public comment on the state proposals at the Technical Committee meeting and Board meeting. The Board meets in February to approve or disapprove the state management proposals. Once the states select and submit their final summer flounder management measures to the Commission, the Commission officially notifies NMFS as to which state proposals have been approved or disapproved. NMFS retains the final authority to either approve or disapprove using conservation equivalency in place of the coastwide measures and publishes its determination in the final rule establishing the annual recreational measures for these fisheries. If conservation equivalency is recommended, and following confirmation that the proposed state measures would achieve conservation equivalency, NMFS may waive the permit condition found at § 648.4(b), which requires federally permitted vessels to comply with the more restrictive management measures when state and Federal measures differ. Federally permitted charter/party permit holders and recreational vessels fishing for summer flounder in the EEZ then would be subject to the recreational fishing measures implemented by the state in which they land summer flounder, rather than the coastwide measures. In addition, the Council and the Board must recommend precautionary default measures. The precautionary default measures would be assigned to any state that either does not submit a summer flounder management proposal to the Commission′s Summer Flounder Technical Committee, or that submits measures that are determined not to achieve the required reduction. The precautionary default measures are defined as the set of measures that would achieve the greatest reduction in landings required for any state. Under Framework 6, multi-state conservation equivalency measures for each region would be developed in the same manner as state-specific conservation equivalency measures, as specified in Framework 2. The procedures and timeline associated with development of summer flounder recreational management measures as determined in Framework 2 would also apply to multi-state conservation equivalency, i.e., with regard to distribution of multi-state conservation equivalency guidelines by the Commission to each state, distribution of multi-state conservation equivalency proposals to the Commission′s Summer Flounder Technical Committee, evaluation of conservation equivalency proposals, and approval or disapproval of the proposals. The recreational harvest limit for a multi-state region would be the sum of the harvest limits for all of the states volunteering to form that region. The Summer Flounder Technical Committee would develop region-specific tables as necessary for use by a multi-state region in determining recreational management measures expected to constrain recreational landings to the regional harvest limit. For the purpose of explanation, it should be assumed that a state or region makes its plans for the current calendar year at the beginning of the calendar year. To determine the multi-state conservation equivalency measures for a current year, the prior year′s recreational landings would be pooled among the inclusive states and then compared to the current year′s region-specific recreational harvest limit to determine if any reduction in landings would be required of that region. Each multi-state region would then craft their regulations under the same guidelines used to develop state-specific conservation equivalency measures and under the same timeline identified in Framework 2. There are two possible scenarios for how states could proceed based on whether a region decides to maintain their voluntary regional agreement or decides to dissolve the voluntary multi-state region and resume state-specific conservation equivalency. First, in the event that a multi-state region maintains its voluntary conservation equivalency agreement, the region would again compare its regional recreational landings for the prior year to the current year′s region-specific recreational harvest limit to determine if any necessary reductions in landings would be required of that region. The region would then adjust their regulations such that the region-specific harvest limit would be achieved. Second, in the event the region dissolves its agreement and opts for state-specific conservation equivalency, state-specific harvest limits would apply and individual states would compare their state-specific landings for the prior year to the state-specific harvest limits in the current year. Each state would then adjust their regulations such that the state-specific harvest limits would be achieved. As established for individual states in Framework 2, a multi-state region that does not exceed its regional harvest limit in a given year may be allowed to set less restrictive management measures for the following year, if the following year′s regional harvest limit is greater than the current year′s regional landings. NMFS proposes to expand the scope of the regulations at § 648.100(e) to allow states and/or multi-state regions to implement conservation equivalent recreational fishing measures. The conservation equivalency regulations at § 648.107 would continue to apply, i.e., references to “state” would not be modified, since individual states are ultimately responsible for implementation of the conservation equivalent regulations (including those approved for a multi-state region). Need for Clarification/Correction NMFS has identified the need to clarify and to correct the regulations regarding summer flounder commercial gear restrictions. This proposed rule would clarify (at § 648.104(b)) that, although the minimum mesh size requirements specified for otter trawls would not apply for a vessel issued a summer flounder small-mesh exemption letter, other restrictions in part 648 may limit the area in which the exemption letter may be used. This proposed rule would correct the reference to net stowage requirements at § 648.104(b)(1) to be § 648.104(e) rather than § 648.100(e) as it was inadvertently published in a final rule that consolidated regulations governing multiple marine fisheries of the Northeast region into one new CFR part (61 FR 34966, July 3, 1996). In addition, NMFS proposes a non-substantive modification to the regulatory text at § 648.107(b) for clarification purposes. Classification NMFS has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the FMP and preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). 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 of the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES ). This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules. The proposed action could affect any recreational angler who fishes for summer flounder in the EEZ or on a party/charter vessel issued a Federal permit for summer flounder. However, the IRFA focuses upon the impacts on party/charter vessels issued a Federal summer flounder permit because these vessels are considered small business entities for the purposes of the RFA, i.e., businesses with receipts (gross revenues) of up to $6.5 million. These small entities can be specifically identified in the Federal vessel permit database and would be impacted by the recreational measures, regardless of whether they fish in Federal or state waters. Data from the Northeast permit application database indicates that in 2004 there were 803 party/charter vessels permitted to take part in the summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass recreational fisheries in the EEZ. Of those 803 party/charter vessels, 56 held a summer flounder permit alone, and 683 held a summer flounder permit in combination with a scup permit, black sea bass permit, or both. However, only 284 of these vessels reported active participation in the recreational summer flounder fishery in 2004. Although individual recreational anglers may be impacted, they are not considered small entities under the RFA. Also, there is no permit requirement to participate in these fisheries; thus, it would be difficult to quantify any impacts on recreational anglers in general. In the EA/RIR/IRFA, the no-action alternative (i.e., maintenance of the regulations as codified) is defined as continuance of the state-specific conservation equivalency procedures as established in Framework 2. The implications of the no-action alternative are not substantial. State-specific summer flounder conservation equivalency, which was designed to constrain landings to the annual recreational harvest limit while allowing states the flexibility of determining their own recreational management measures, has been recommended by the Council and approved by NMFS each year since 2002. The proposed action is not expected to result in negative impacts to a significant number of small entities participating in the recreational summer flounder fishery, relative to the status quo. The coastwide recreational harvest limit for summer flounder would not be altered. Multi-state conservation equivalency regions will develop fishing measures that maximize the harvest of the region-specific limit, without resulting in overages. This is similar to what is currently done on a state-specific basis when conservation equivalency is implemented, but on a larger scale. It is expected that the conservation equivalent recreational management measures would allow each state or multi-state region to develop specific summer flounder recreational measures that allow the fishery to operate during critical fishing periods, while still achieving conservation goals and mitigating potential adverse economic effects in specific states. There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 09, 2006. James W. Balsiger, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 648.100, paragraphs (e)(2) introductory text, (e)(2)(i), and (e)(2)(ii) are revised to read as follows: § 648.100 Catch quotas and other restrictions.

(e)* * *

(2)*Conservation equivalent measures.* Individual states or regions formed voluntarily by adjacent states (i.e., multi-state conservation equivalency regions) may implement different combinations of minimum fish sizes, possession limits, and closed seasons that achieve equivalent conservation as the coastwide measures established under paragraph (e)(1) of this section. Each state or multi-state conservation equivalency region may implement measures by mode or area only if the proportional standard error of Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) landings estimates by mode or area for that state are less than 30 percent.

(i)After review of the recommendations, the Regional Administrator will publish a proposed rule in the **Federal Register** on or about March 1 to implement the overall percent adjustment in recreational landings required for the fishing year, the Council and Commission′s recommendation concerning conservation equivalency, the precautionary default measures, and coastwide measures.

(ii)During the public comment period on the proposed rule, the Commission will review conservation equivalency proposals and determine whether or not they achieve the necessary adjustment to recreational landings. The Commission will provide the Regional Administrator with the individual state and/or multi-state region conservation measures for the approved state and/or multi-state region proposals, and in the case of disapproved state and/or multi-state region proposals, the precautionary default measures. 3. In § 648.104, paragraphs

(b)introductory text and (b)(1) are revised to read as follows: § 648.104 Gear restrictions.

(b)*Exemptions.* Unless otherwise restricted by this part, the minimum mesh-size requirements specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section do not apply to:

(1)Vessels issued a summer flounder moratorium permit, a summer flounder small-mesh exemption area letter of authorization (LOA), required under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, and fishing from November 1 through April 30 in the exemption area, which is east of the line that follows 72°30.0′ W. long. until it intersects the outer boundary of the EEZ (copies of a map depicting the area are available upon request from the Regional Administrator). Vessels fishing under the LOA shall not fish west of the line. Vessels issued a permit under § 648.4(a)(3)(iii) may transit the area west or south of the line, if the vessel's fishing gear is stowed in a manner prescribed under § 648.104(e), so that it is not “available for immediate use” outside the exempted area. The Regional Administrator may terminate this exemption if he/she determines, after a review of sea sampling data, that vessels fishing under the exemption are discarding more than 10 percent, by weight, of their entire catch of summer flounder per trip. If the Regional Administrator makes such a determination, he/she shall publish notification in the **Federal Register** terminating the exemption for the remainder of the exemption season. 4. In § 648.107, paragraph

(b)is revised to read as follows: § 648.107 Conservation equivalent measures for the summer flounder fishery.

(b)Federally permitted vessels subject to the recreational fishing measures of this part, and other recreational fishing vessels subject to the recreational fishing measures of this part and registered in states whose fishery management measures are not determined by the Regional Administrator to be the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum size and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.102, 648.103(b) and 648.105(a), respectively, due to the lack of, or the reversal of, a conservation equivalent recommendation from the Summer Flounder Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, shall be subject to the following precautionary default measures: Season - January 1 through December 31; minimum size - 18 inches (45.7 cm); and possession limit - one fish. [FR Doc. E6-7357 Filed 5-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [I.D. 050306E] RIN 0648-AT71 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Gulf of Alaska Fishery Resources AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS manages Gulf of Alaska

(GOA)groundfish fisheries through the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Congress granted NMFS specific regulatory authority to manage Central GOA rockfish fisheries in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004. Congress provided additional guidance to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) in the development of a program to allocate harvesting privileges to fishermen and permit a defined group of processors to form associations with these harvesters for the exclusive use of specific rockfish and other groundfish in the Central GOA. The Council adopted Amendment 68 in June 2005. Amendment 68 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska

(FMP)would establish a program to allocate Central GOA groundfish resources among harvesters and processors (Program). Amendment 68 would modify the FMP to increase resource conservation, improve economic efficiency, and improve safety in the Central GOA rockfish fisheries and other fisheries that are subject to the Program. 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 July 14, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Walsh. 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-AT71-GOA68-NOA@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail the following document identifier: “Central GOA Rockfish RIN 0648-AT71.” 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 68 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 website 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 FMP 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 an FMP amendment, immediately publish a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. The Council submitted Amendment 68 to the FMP for Secretarial review, which would implement the Program designed to meet the requirements of Section 802 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-199). Section 802 states: SEC. 802. GULF OF ALASKA ROCKFISH DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM. The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, shall establish a pilot program that recognizes the historic participation of fishing vessels (1996 to 2002, best 5 of 7 years) and historic participation of fish processors (1996 to 2000, best 4 of 5 years) for pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, and pelagic shelf rockfish harvested in Central Gulf of Alaska. Such a pilot program shall

(1)provide for a set-aside of up to 5 percent for the total allowable catch of such fisheries for catcher vessels not eligible to participate in the pilot program, which shall be delivered to shore-based fish processors not eligible to participate in the pilot program;

(2)establish catch limits for non rockfish species and non-target rockfish species currently harvested with pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, and pelagic shelf rockfish, which shall be based on historical harvesting of such bycatch species. The pilot program will sunset when a Gulf of Alaska Groundfish comprehensive rationalization plan is authorized by the Council and implemented by the Secretary, or 2 years from date of implementation, whichever is earlier. The Council considered congressional guidance in the development of the Program, particularly in the selection of specific years on which to base participation and for the “recognition” of processor participation. Additionally, Section 802 provides NMFS with the authority to regulate processors under this Program. NMFS does not have specific authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to regulate on-shore processing activities. Amendment 68 would amend the FMP to allow the implementation the Program consistent with Section 802. If approved, the proposed Program would be effective through December 31, 2008. Broadly, the Program would provide exclusive harvesting and processing privileges for a specific set of rockfish species and associated species harvested incidentally to those rockfish in the Central GOA, an area from 147° W. long. to 159° W. long. The granting of exclusive harvesting and processing privileges is commonly called rationalization. The rockfish species rationalized under the Program are: northern rockfish, Pacific Ocean perch (POP), and pelagic shelf rockfish. These rockfish species are called the primary species. The incidentally harvested groundfish taken in the primary rockfish fisheries and which also are rationalized under the Program are called the secondary species. The secondary species are: Pacific cod, rougheye rockfish, shortraker rockfish, and sablefish that are harvested by vessels using trawl gear. In addition to these secondary species, the Program would allocate a portion of the halibut bycatch mortality limit annually specified for the GOA trawl fisheries to Program participants based on their historic mortality rates in the primary species fisheries. This allocation of bycatch mortality could be used by Program participants during harvest activities in the fisheries rationalized under the Program. Basic provisions of the Program implemented under Amendment 68 would:

(1)Allocate a catch history of primary rockfish species, secondary species, and halibut bycatch mortality to harvesters that use trawl gear in the Central GOA. To receive this catch history allocation, a harvester must have harvested primary rockfish species during a specific time period and meet other eligibility requirements. On an annual basis, this catch history allocation would yield a specific harvest amount of primary and secondary species and halibut bycatch mortality that could be exclusively caught by a group of harvesters if they are part of a harvesting cooperative. Cumulatively, these amounts, when allocated to a cooperative, are referred to as a cooperative fishing quota (CFQ);

(2)Establish eligibility criteria for processors to have an exclusive privilege to receive and process primary rockfish and secondary species allocated to harvesters in the Program;

(3)Allow a harvester that receives a catch history allocation to form a cooperative with other harvesters and a processor on an annual basis. This cooperative would be allocated an amount of fish that could be harvested in that year based on the sum of the catch history allocation held by all of the participants in the cooperative. This amount of fish could only be harvested by that cooperative. Cooperatives could only form under specific conditions. Harvesters that catch and process (catcher/processor) their catch at sea could form cooperatives with each other. Harvesters that deliver their catch onshore could only form a cooperative in association with the processor to whom they have historically delivered most of their catch;

(4)Allow cooperatives to transfer their CFQ of fish to and from other cooperatives.

(5)Provide an opportunity for harvesters not in a cooperative to fish in a limited access fishery. All harvesters in the limited access fishery compete with all other harvesters in the fishery to catch the total amount of fish assigned to the limited access fishery;

(6)Establish an entry level fishery for Central GOA rockfish for harvesters and processors not eligible to receive a catch history allocation under this Program;

(7)Allow catcher/processor harvesters to opt-out of the Program, with certain limitations;

(8)Limit the ability of processors to process catch outside of the communities in which they have traditionally processed Central GOA rockfish and associated secondary species;

(9)Establish catch limits, commonly called “sideboards,” that limit the ability of participants eligible for this Program to harvest fish in other fisheries. Sideboard provisions are intended to prevent harvesters in the Program from using their economic advantage to out compete participants in other fisheries. Sideboard harvest limits are established for groundfish outside of the Central GOA and for the amount of GOA halibut bycatch mortality annually specified for the GOA flatfish fisheries; and

(10)Establish monitoring and enforcement provisions to ensure that harvesters maintain catches within their annual allocations and do not exceed sideboard limits. By creating an exclusive harvest privilege, the Program would provide greater security to harvesters in cooperatives. Although participants in the limited access fishery, opt-out fishery, and entry level fishery would not receive a guaranteed annual catch amount, most harvesters likely would participate in a cooperative that receives this allocation. A CFQ allocation would increase the focus on quality, promote a slower paced fishery, enhance safety by providing a vessel operator more flexibility to choose when to fish and therefore avoid poor weather, and provide greater stability for processors by spreading out production over a greater period of time. Public comments are being solicited on proposed Amendment 68 through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 68 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 68 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 68. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 68, 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 (see DATES ). Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 *et seq.* , 1801 *et seq.* , 3631 *et seq.* ; and Pub. L. 108-199, 118 Stat. 110. Dated: May 9, 2006. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-7352 Filed 5-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 93 Monday, May 15, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service McKelvie Geographic Area Rangeland Allotment Management Plans on National Forest System Lands on the Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest, Bessey Ranger District in Nebraska AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in conjunction with the revision of allotment management plans. SUMMARY: Revise Rangeland Allotment Management Plans

(RAMP)for all allotments within the McKelvie Geographic Area and analyze continuation of grazing within the constraints of the Revised Nebraska Land and Resource Management Plan (NLRMP). DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received within 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . The draft environmental impact statement is expected February 2007 and the final environmental impact statement is expected May 2007. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Michael E. Croxen, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 39, Halsey Nebraska 69142. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael E. Croxen, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 39, Halsey Nebraska 69142. Phone

(308)533-2257. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose and Need for Action:* The purpose of the EIS is to determine current conditions, analyze environmental consequences of actions to those conditions, and assist the decision maker in selecting management/monitoring strategies consistent with meeting desired conditions in the NLRMP. The need for the action is to ensure that authorized uses and associated management activities move them towards or maintain desired NLRMP conditions. *Proposed Action:* The Bessey Ranger District proposes to implement best management practices and activities with adaptive management and monitoring strategies to ensure compliance between current conditions and NLRMP desired conditions. *Possible alternatives:* No-Action Alternative is to not change current permitted uses. No-Grazing alternative is to eliminate any grazing on the project area. *Responsible Official:* Patricia D. Barney, District Ranger, Bessey Ranger District, P.O. Box 39, Halsey Nebraska 69142. *Nature of Decision to be Made:* The decision to be made is whether or not to continue permitted uses within the project area. If uses are permitted, then adaptive management strategies and monitoring will be identified to ensure compliance with desired NLRMP conditions. *Scoping Process:* The agency sent a letter to interested parties on May 19, 2006 requesting comments concerning the scope of the analysis. Comments were due by June 19, 2006. *Release and Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement:* The draft environmental impact statement

(DEIS)is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)and to be available for public comment by February 2007. At that time, the EPA will publish a notice of availability for the DEIS in the **Federal Register** . The comment period on the DEIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . Reviewers of the DEIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions; *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Com.* v *NRDC* , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the DEIS stage but are not raised until after completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS)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 FEIS. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed actions, comments on the DEIS 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 DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statements. 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: May 5, 2006. Patricia D. Barney, District Ranger. [FR Doc. 06-4518 Filed 5-12-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 14

Traces to 14 documents

U.S. Code