Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations

14,901 words·~68 min read·/register/2006/06/21/06-5537

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

BILLING CODE 6750-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-109512-05] RIN 1545—BE47 Information Returns Required With Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations and Certain Foreign-Owned Domestic Corporations AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations. SUMMARY: In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** , the IRS is issuing temporary regulations to clarify existing guidance under sections 6038 and 6038A of the Internal Revenue Code

(Code)with respect to the information required to be furnished regarding certain related party transactions of certain foreign corporations and certain foreign-owned U.S. corporations. The temporary regulations also increase the amount of certain penalties, and make certain other changes, to reflect the statutory changes made by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The text of the temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. DATES: Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by September 19, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-109512-05), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-109512-05), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the IRS Internet site at *http://www.irs.gov/regs* or via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* (IRS REG-109512-05). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations, Kate Y. Hwa,

(202)622-3840; concerning submissions of comments, Kelly Banks,

(202)622-7180 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act The collection of information contained in these proposed regulations has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments concerning the collection of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, SE:W:CAR:MP:T:T:SP, Washington, DC 20224. Any such comments should be submitted not later than August 21, 2006. Comments are specifically requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the IRS, including whether the information will have practical utility; The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information (see below); How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced; How the burden of complying with the proposed collections of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operations, maintenance, and purchase of service to provide information. The collection of information is in § 1.6038-2(f)(11). This information is required by the IRS pursuant to section 6038 of the Code. The likely recordkeepers are business or other for-profit institutions. The estimated burden is as follows: Estimated total annual reporting and/or recordkeeping burden: 1250 hours. Estimated average annual burden per respondent: 15 minutes. Estimated number of respondents: 5,000. Estimated annual frequency of responses: Once. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. Background Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** amend the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) to clarify the existing rules under sections 6038 and 6038A of the Code with respect to the information required to be furnished regarding certain related party transactions of certain foreign corporations and certain foreign-owned domestic corporations. The text of the temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the temporary regulations and these proposed regulations. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. Because these regulations impose no new collection of information on small entities, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business. Comments and Request for Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight

(8)copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing may be scheduled if requested by any person who timely submits comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the hearing will be published in the **Federal Register** . Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Kate Y. Hwa, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1** . The authority citation for part 1 is amended by adding entries in numerical order to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.** Section 1.6038-2 is amended to read as follows: 1. Paragraphs (f)(11), (k)(1), (k)(5) and

(m)are revised. 2. Paragraph (f)(12) is added. The additions and revisions read as follows: § 1.6038-2 Information returns required of United States persons with respect to annual accounting periods of certain foreign corporations beginning after December 31, 1962. (f)(11) [The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.6038-2T(f)(11) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. (f)(12) [The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.6038-2T(f)(12) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. (k)(1) [The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.6038-2T(k)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].

(5)* * * Example 3. [The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.6038-2T(k)(5) *Example 3* published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. Example 4. [The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.6038-2T(k)(5) *Example 4* published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].

(m)[The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.6038-2T(m) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** .] **Par. 3.** Section 1.6038A-2 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(8) and

(h)to read as follows: § 1.6038A-2 Requirement of return.

(b)* * *

(8)[The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.6038A-2T(b)(8) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].

(h)[The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.6038A-2T(h) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. Mark E. Matthews, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E6-9611 Filed 6-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 262 [EPA-R01-RCRA-2006-0391; FRL-8186-2] Extension of Site-Specific Regulations for University Laboratories XL Project AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)is proposing to extend the expiration date of the New England University Laboratories XL Project (Labs XL Project) rule that EPA previously promulgated under the eXcellence and Leadership program (Project XL), allowing laboratories at certain universities in Massachusetts and Vermont to follow certain alternative RCRA generator requirements. In this action, EPA proposes to extend the expiration date from September 30, 2006 to April 15, 2009. DATES: Written comments must be received by July 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-RCRA-2006-0391, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: biscaia.robin@epa.gov.* • *Fax:* to the attention of Robin Biscaia,

(617)918-0642. • *Mail:* Robin Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit, Office of Ecosystems Protection, EPA Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Mail Code: CHW, Boston, MA 02114-2023. • *Hand Delivery:* Robin Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit, Office of Ecosystems Protection, EPA Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Mail Code: CHW, Boston, MA 02114. Such deliveries are only accepted during the EPA's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-RCRA-2006-0391. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R01-RCRA-2006-0391. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA New England Library, One Congress Street—11th Floor, Boston, MA 02114-2023, business hours Monday through Thursday 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., telephone:

(617)918-1990. Records in these dockets are available for inspection and copying during normal business hours. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit, EPA Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CHW), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone:

(617)918-1642, e-mail: *biscaia.robin@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is taking direct final action on the proposed extension of the expiration date for the Labs XL, because EPA views the extension as non-controversial, and anticipates no adverse comments. EPA has explained its reasons for the proposed extension in the preamble to the direct final rule. If EPA receives no adverse comments, the direct final rule will take effect and the EPA will take no further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule, by publishing a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** indicating that the direct final rule is being withdrawn. If the direct final rule is withdrawn, comments will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA may not institute a second comment period on the subsequent final rule. Any parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. For additional information, please see the direct final rule in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: June 12, 2006. Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, EPA New England. [FR Doc. E6-9753 Filed 6-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 1 [WT Docket No. 05-211; FCC 06-52] Implementation of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act and Modernization of the Commission's Competitive Bidding Rules and Procedures AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: In this document the Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should implement additional safeguards beyond those the Commission adopted in its Second Report and Order and whether the Commission should further modify its competitive bidding rules governing benefits reserved for designed entities. The Commission also seeks comment to obtain additional evidence regarding how and under what circumstances an entity's size might affect its relationships and agreements with designated entity applicants and licensees. DATES: Comments due August 21, 2006; Reply Comments due September 19, 2006. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)and other interested parties on or before August 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 05-211, by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to *PRA@fcc.gov,* and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, via the Internet to *Kristy_L. LaLonde@omb.eop.gov* , or via fax at 202-395-5167. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rule making process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Carter, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at

(202)418-0660. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Judith B. Herman at

(202)418-0214, or via the Internet at *PRA@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the *Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making* released on April 25, 2006. The complete text of the *Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making* including attachments and related Commission documents is available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Friday at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The *Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making* and related Commission documents may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, facsimile 202-488-5563, or you may contact BCPI at its Web site: *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* When ordering documents from BCPI please provide the appropriate FCC document number, for example, FCC 06-52. The *Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making* and related documents are also available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site: *http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions.* Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. *All filings related to this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making should refer to WT Docket No. 05-211.* Comments may be filed using:

(1)The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),

(2)the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or

(3)by filing paper copies. *See* Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. • For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e- mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov,* and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rule making number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rule making number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request materials in accessible formats (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format, etc.) by e-mail at *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at

(202)418-0531 (voice),

(202)418-7365 (TTY). Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis This document may contain proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due August 21, 2006. Comments should address:

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

(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0600. *Title:* Application to Participate in an Auction. *Form No.:* FCC Form 175. *Type of Review:* Revision of currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions and/or state, local or tribal governments. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 620 (60 respondents for this Second FNPRM and; 560 respondents in a previously approved submission to OMB. *Estimated Time per Response:* 0.350 hours-1.5 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 775 hours (10 hours for this Second FRPRM and 765 hours for the previous submission approved by OMB). *Estimated Total Annual Costs:* N/A. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Needs and Uses:* The information collected will be used by the Commission to determine if the applicant is legally, technically, and financially qualified to participate in an FCC auction and eligible for the status requested. The Commission's auction rules and requirements are designed to ensure that the competitive bidding process is limited to serious qualified applicants; to deter possible abuse of the bidding and licensing process; and to enhance the use of competitive bidding to assign Commission licenses in furtherance of the public interest. Synopsis of the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making I. Introduction 1. The Commission issued a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making ( *Second FNPRM* ) released on April 25, 2006 to consider whether it should modify further its general competitive bidding rules governing benefits reserved for designated entities. 2. Specifically, the Commission seeks guidance on whether it should implement additional safeguards beyond those adopted in its Second Report & Order (Second R&O) released April 25, 2006, 71 FR 26245, May 4, 2006, to ensure that its designated entity benefits are awarded to the entities and for the purposes intended by Congress. The Commission requests additional economic evidence regarding how and under what circumstances an entity's size might affect its relationships and agreements with designated entity applicants and licensees. Additionally, the Commission seeks further comment on whether it should adopt additional rule changes that would restrict the award of designated entity benefits under certain circumstances and in connection with relationships with certain entities. A. Defining the Class 3. In the *FNPRM,* 71 FR 6992, February 10, 2006, the Commission tentatively concluded that it should restrict the award of designated entity benefits to an otherwise qualified applicant where it has a material relationship with a large in-region incumbent wireless service provider. The Commission sought comment on how to define the specific elements of such a restriction. 4. The *FNPRM* also sought comment on whether the Commission should instead apply the restriction to the award of designated entity benefits where an applicant had a material relationship with entities with significant interests in communications services in order to extend the scope of such a restriction to a broader category of businesses such as voice or data providers, content providers, equipment manufacturers, other media interests, and/or facilities or non-facilities based communications services providers. The Commission sought comment on whether all of these entities should be included as part of its definition of entities with significant interests in communications services or whether the Commission should consider excluding some of these entities from its proposed definition. The Commission also sought comment on whether it should consider including other entities as part of its proposed definition. 5. The Commission acknowledges that voice, data, and video services are converging and are being offered as bundled service packages. These bundled service offerings may include wireline, wireless, cable and or DBS services along with the required equipment such as handsets and receivers. In light of the continuing dynamic technological developments and convergence occurring in the communications marketplace, the Commission seeks comment on the appropriate class of entity, if any, that should trigger any additional restriction the Commission may adopt regarding relationships with designated entities. For instance, would the Commission be better positioned to achieve its statutory mandates if it defined such an entity to include one that is subject to the Commission's jurisdiction under Titles I, II, III, or VI of the Communications Act, including any of the entity's controlling interests or affiliates as those terms are defined in § 1.2110 of the Commission's rules. The Commission seeks comment on whether adopting a definition of a class of entities with which a designated entity's agreements might trigger additional restrictions for designated entity benefits will better ensure that the Commission can continue to award such benefits to entities that Congress intended. 6. The Commission also seeks comment on the financial threshold, if any, that it should consider in defining the appropriate class of entity that might trigger any additional eligibility restrictions it adopts. It seeks further comment on the proposed financial benchmarks raised by commenters. Should the Commission consider a financial threshold of $5 billion in annual gross revenues as advocated by various parties or lower thresholds such as $1 billion or $125 million as suggested by other commenters? The Commission also seeks comment on whether an entity's size is relevant to its incentive and/or ability to influence a designated entity with respect to the type and scope of the service it might provide as well as relevant economic analysis to support such arguments. 7. Similarly, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should define a class of entities based on its particular spectrum interests, for instance those that have licenses for commercial mobile radio services

(CMRS)spectrum. If the Commission were to define a class in this manner, should it define CMRS spectrum to include any spectrum for which the service specific rules permit the provision of commercial mobile radio services as that term is defined in § 20.9 of the Commission's rules? If the Commission determines to base any additional safeguards upon an entity's particular spectrum interests, should it consider including spectrum other than CMRS spectrum for the purposes of such restrictions? If so, what spectrum and why is it more or less relevant than other types of spectrum? B. In-Region Limitation for Class of Entities 8. In the *FNPRM,* the Commission sought comment on whether geographic overlap should be an element in establishing any additional restriction on the availability of designated entity benefits for entities that have a material relationship with a large wireless service provider. The Commission also sought comment on whether it should apply a different, or any, geographic standard if it extends the restriction on designated entity benefits to applicants that have a material relationship. The Commission asked whether it should apply the standard set forth in the former spectrum aggregation rule to define the geographic overlap or if it should adopt a different definition of geographic overlap. Further, the Commission sought comment on how the Commission should implement such a restriction if the Commission determined that a significant geographic overlap did exist. The Commission asked whether an incumbent should be allowed to divest its interest in the subject service area to allow a designated entity applicant to maintain eligibility for a bidding credit, and if so, within what time period should it require the divestiture. The Commission also sought comment on whether the application of the standard set forth in § 20.6(c) of the Commission's rules or any other geographic overlap restriction would place an undue administrative burden on the Commission, making it difficult to monitor an applicant's compliance with any adopted geographic overlap restriction. 9. In response to the *FNPRM,* the Commission received comment both in support of and against an in-region element to any further designated entity restrictions. Many of these commenters suggested using the significant overlap, attributable interest, and divestiture standards from the sunset CMRS spectrum aggregation limit pursuant to § 20.6(c)(2) of the Commission's rules. Other commenters stated that significant overlap should not be a factor in determining eligibility for small business benefits. 10. In the *Second FNPRM,* the Commission seeks further comment on whether it should adopt an in-region component to defining relationships with any particular class or type of entity that could trigger any additional eligibility restrictions it might adopt. The Commission also seeks comment on whether all entities with in-region spectrum interests have the same ability and incentive to leverage an inappropriate level of influence over a designated entity with which it has financial and/or operational arrangements. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on how the in-region component might protect the designated entity program from being subject to potential abuse from those entities that might seek to craft relationships with designated entity applicants in a manner intended to serve their self-interests. 11. Assuming the Commission does adopt an in-region component to any additional eligibility restrictions, the Commission seeks comment as to whether it should find that a geographic overlap that triggers the in-region restriction occurs when there is any overlap between the licensed service areas of the entity that has in-region spectrum, with whom the designated entity applicant has a material relationship, or any affiliate of the entity that has in-region spectrum as defined in § 1.2110 of the Commission's rules, and the licensed service area to be acquired by the designated entity applicant. Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether the adoption of an in-region component to any additional eligibility restrictions would be burdensome to implement. 12. Most entities responding to the *FNPRM* declined to discuss whether a restricted entity should be allowed to divest its interest in the subject service area to allow a designated entity applicant to maintain eligibility for designated entity benefits. Thus, in the *Second FNPRM,* the Commission seeks comment as to whether any class of entities on which any additional eligibility restriction is based should be allowed to divest its interest in the subject service area to allow a designated entity applicant to maintain eligibility for benefits. The Commission also seeks comment as to whether the Commission should adopt divestiture provisions similar to those found in the eliminated spectrum aggregation limit rules. 13. The Commission seeks comment on whether divestiture should be permitted. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment as to how such divestitures should be implemented. The Commission seeks comment on the time period for divestiture and whether the restricted entity should be allowed to market the spectrum or whether such marketing should be done by a trustee. The Commission seeks comment as to whether the award of designated entity licenses should be withheld until the restricted entity files the applications to divest or until the transaction to sell the divestiture spectrum has been consummated. The Commission also seeks comment as to whether the Commission should receive reports detailing the progress made in identifying a buyer for the divestiture spectrum and how often such reports should be filed. 14. The Commission also asked commenters to discuss what should occur if the restricted entity that has in-region spectrum fails to divest. The Commission seeks comment on whether the designated entity must purchase the license without the benefit of the bidding credit and be subject to the Commission's default rules. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the requirement for a designated entity to purchase the license without the bidding credit maintains auction integrity and ensures that entities with in-region CMRS spectrum are not able to game the auction process. C. Material Relationships 15. Following on its rule revisions adopted in the *Second R&O,* in the *Second FNPRM,* the Commission seeks comment on whether there is a need to even further modify its part 1 designated entity eligibility rules to include other types of agreements in its definitions of “impermissible material relationships” or “attributable material relationships.” 16. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the specific types of additional agreements, if any, that should fall within its definitions of impermissible material relationships and attributable material relationships. The Commission also seeks comment on whether its concern regarding relationships between designated entity applicants or licensees and other entities should differ depending upon the type of entity at issue and the circumstances surrounding the relationship. Should the Commission reconsider adopting a minimum equity requirement for designated entity applicants or define material relationship in a way that would prohibit a designated entity applicant from securing all of its capitalization from outside sources? The Commission also seeks comment on commenters' suggestions to include additional operational agreements in its definitions of material relationship and asks whether doing so creates technological and practical restrictions that could hinder a designated entity licensee's ability to become a provider of spectrum based services, as intended by Congress. 17. Based on the limited record developed in response to the *FNPRM,* and the Commission's extensive experience in administering the designated entity program, the Commission is concerned that additional types of relationships could have the potential to confer significant influence over the actions of a designated entity licensee thereby allowing an ineligible entity the ability to gain undue advantages in the communications marketplace through the benefits offered to a designated entity applicant. The Commission therefore seeks comment on the specific types of additional agreements that should fall within its definitions of “impermissible material relationships” and “attributable material relationships” so that it may be better able to prevent the potential for abuse of the designated entity program, thereby ensuring the award of our designated entity benefits only to legitimate small businesses. 18. The Commission generally does not have the same concerns regarding relationships between designated entity applicants and those who do not have interests in spectrum capacity or the provision of service, such as financial institutions or venture capital firms, provided that such entities do not have a controlling interest relationship with the applicant. The Commission presumes that for those entities, the overarching goal and primary incentive for partnering with a designated entity is to seek a return on investment rather than to provide service themselves using the designated entity's spectrum licenses. The Commission seeks comment on its presumption. Likewise, the Commission presumes that where an entity is not already providing communications services, there is no opportunity for it to bundle existing communications services with a strategic wireless partner, and there is less potential for those entities to exert undue influence over a designated entity licensee's decision making regarding its service provision or the use of its licensed spectrum. The Commission also seeks comment on this presumption. Assuming that its presumptions are valid, the Commission anticipates that such relationships will not require the additional safeguards the Commission may apply to relationships with other entities that have differing incentives and motivations. For instance, if the Commission includes financial relationships in its definition of either impermissible material relationships or attributable material relationship it might specifically exclude relationships with financial institutions from such a definition. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should specifically do so. 19. With regard to financial relationships, Commission asks whether it should conclude that the greater the financial stake an entity has in a designated entity the more incentive it has to significantly influence the designated entity licensee's decisions regarding its provision of service. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should expand its definitions of impermissible material relationship or attributable material relationship to include any financial relationship(s) (including any combination of equity, debt, loan or credit agreements, as well as future interests for such financial arrangements) between a designated entity applicant or licensee and another entity that represents more than a certain percentage of the designated entity's total financing. If so, it asks what is the appropriate percentage? The Commission seeks comment on how the percentage of an entity's financial interest in a designated entity applicant or licensee should be considered in its definitions of impermissible material relationship or attributable material relationship. In this regard the Commission is concerned that it does not want to create a situation in which additional safeguards regarding financial interests render a designated entity without any avenues for access to much needed capital. 20. Additionally, the Commission asks whether there are circumstances in which it should define material relationships to include, without limitation, management agreements, trademark license agreements, joint marketing agreements, future interest agreements (such as puts, calls, options, and warrants), and long-term *de facto* and spectrum manager leasing arrangements? If so, should such relationships be considered to be impermissible material relationships or attributable material relationships? Likewise, the Commission seeks comment regarding the circumstances under which the existence of any agreement between a designated entity applicant or licensee and another entity will have the strong potential to convey influence over the operations of the designated entity and the deployment of its spectrum in a manner contrary to that intended by Congress. 21. The Commission also seeks comment upon whether it should adopt even tighter safeguards to prevent the development of relationships that might deter designated entities from evolving into independent facilities-based competitors. For example, are circumstances in which the Commission should define “material relationship” to include any relationship, financial and/ or operational, between a designated entity applicant or licensee and another entity? For instance, does the likelihood that certain relationships will influence a designated entity's provision of service increase when agreements are entered into with an entity that has existing self-interests in the same spectrum? 22. The Commission seeks comment on whether, if it includes all agreements, both financial and operational, as either impermissible material relationships or attributable material relationships between designated entities and entities that have existing spectrum interests in the same geographic areas, it can reduce the reliance of designated entities on those that might provide funding or operational support in a manner designed to complement their own services rather than for facilitating the emergence of new technologies and new facilities-based competitors. 23. The Commission also seeks comment on any and all of the agreements it should consider including in its definitions of impermissible material relationships or attributable material relationships and whether it should take into consideration whether such agreements are made with certain types of entities with certain geographic interests. 24. Moreover, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should include personal net worth in determining designated entity eligibility and if so, whether it should adopt the proposal to prohibit individuals with a net worth of $3 million or more (excluding the value of a primary residence) from having a controlling interest in a designated entity or whether it should place other net-worth-based restrictions on designated entity eligibility. 25. The Commission generally has not adopted personal net worth restrictions, including personal income and assets, for purposes of eligibility for designated entity provisions. The Commission has observed, for example, that personal net worth limits are difficult to apply and enforce and may be easily manipulated. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should reconsider its treatment of personal net worth in determining eligibility for designated entity benefits and if so, what changes the Commission should adopt and why. II. Procedural Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 26. The Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)for the *Second FNPRM.* Comments on the IRFA should be labeled as IRFA Comments, and should be submitted pursuant to the filing dates and procedures. III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 27. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making ( *Second FNPRM* ). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided in the *Second FNPRM.* The Commission will send a copy of the *Second Further Notice,* including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the *Second FNPRM* and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the **Federal Register** . A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 28. The initial *FNPRM* proceeding tentatively concluded that it should restrict the award of designated entity benefits to an otherwise qualified applicant where it has a material relationship with a large in-region incumbent wireless service provider. The Commission sought comment on how it should define the elements of such a restriction. Based on the Commission's experience in administering the designated entity program and the record developed in response to the *FNPRM* , the *Second FNPRM* seeks further comment on those issues, including comment to obtain additional economic evidence regarding how and under what circumstances an entity's size might affect its relationships and agreements with designated entity applicants and licensees. The *Second FNPRM* also seeks comment on whether the Commission should adopt additional rule changes that would restrict the award of designated entity benefits under certain circumstances and in connection with relationships with certain types of entities and individuals with high personal net worth, including whether and how in-region relationships and personal net worth should be considered in determining eligibility for designated entity benefits. 29. Over the last decade, the Commission has engaged in numerous rulemakings and adjudicatory investigations to prevent companies from circumventing the objectives of the designated entity eligibility rules. To that end, in determining whether to award designated entity benefits, the Commission adopted a strict eligibility standard that focused on whether the applicant maintained control of the corporate entity. The Commission's objective in employing such a standard was to deter the establishment of sham companies in a manner that permits easy resolution of eligibility issues without the delay of administrative hearings. The Commission intends its small business provisions to be available only to bona fide small businesses. B. Legal Basis 30. The proposed actions are authorized under sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. sections 154(i), 303(r), and 309(j). C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 31. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term small entity as having the same meaning as the terms small organization, small business, and small governmental jurisdiction. The term small business has the same meaning as the term small business concern under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which:

(1)Is independently owned and operated;

(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and

(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 32. A small organization is generally any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. The term small governmental jurisdiction is defined as governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand. Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. The Commission estimates that, of this total, 84,377 entities were small governmental jurisdictions. Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data. 33. Any proposed changes or additions to the Commission's Part 1 rules that may be made as a result of the *Second FNPRM* would be of general applicability to all services, applying to all entities of any size that apply to participate in Commission auctions. Accordingly, this IRFA provides a general analysis of the impact of the proposals on small businesses rather than service by service analysis. The number of entities that may apply to participate in future Commission auctions is unknown. The number of small businesses that have participated in prior auctions has varied. In all of our auctions held to date, 1,975 out of a total of 3,545 qualified bidders either have claimed eligibility for small business bidding credits or have self-reported their status as small businesses as that term has been defined under rules adopted by the Commission for specific services. In addition, we note that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 34. The Commission will not require additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements pursuant to the *Second FNPRM* . E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 35. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others):

(1)The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;

(2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;

(3)the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and

(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule or any part thereof for small entities. 36. The initial *FNPRM* in that proceeding tentatively concluded that it should restrict the award of designated entity benefits to an otherwise qualified applicant where it has a material relationship with a large in-region incumbent wireless service provider. The Commission sought comment on how it should define the elements of such a restriction. Based on the Commission's experience in administering the designated entity program and the record developed in response to the *FNPRM,* the *Second FNPRM* seeks further comment on those issues, including comment to obtain additional economic evidence regarding how and under what circumstances an entity's size might affect its relationships and agreements with designated entity applicants and licensees. The *Second FNPRM* also seeks comment on whether the Commission should adopt additional rule changes that would restrict the award of designated entity benefits under certain circumstances and in connection with relationships with certain types of entities and individuals with high personal net worth, including whether and how in-region relationships and personal net worth should be considered in determining eligibility for designated entity benefits. The *Second FNPRM* seeks guidance from the industry on how it should define the elements of any restrictions it might adopt regarding the award of designated entity benefits. Small entity comments are specifically requested. F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule 37. None. IV. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 38. The *Second FNPRM* may contain proposed new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget

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

(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates;

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

(DEA)evaluating the take of raptors from the wild for use in falconry and in raptor propagation. We have prepared this DEA as part of the process we must follow to finalize two rules under the National Environmental Policy Act. DATES: Send comments on the DEA by September 19, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may pick up a copy of the DEA or hand-deliver your comments to the Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop 4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610. The DEA also is available on the Division of Migratory Bird Management Web pages at *http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. George T. Allen, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at 703-358-1714. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We have prepared this DEA as part of the process we must follow under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ) as we move toward finalizing two proposed rules on falconry and raptor propagation. We published proposed falconry regulations on February 9, 2005 (70 FR 6978), in which we proposed numerous changes governing the practice of falconry. We published proposed raptor propagation regulations on October 14, 2005 (70 FR 60052). We proposed few significant changes to the falconry regulations, but for both proposed rules we changed to simpler language for the regulations. We now make available our DEA on the effects of take from the wild for these two activities. In the DEA, we considered three alternatives for take of raptors from the wild for use in falconry and in raptor propagation. The first, the No Action Alternative, would leave take regulated as it is now; take limits for falconry would not be established. Neither the dual Federal/State permitting system for falconry nor the permitting system for raptor propagation would be changed. Under Alternative 2, we would establish upper limits on take of raptor species based on the published data for, and biology of, each species. We would not change falconry or captive propagation permitting; neither the dual Federal/State permitting system for falconry nor the permitting system for raptor propagation would be changed. Under this alternative, we would base allowed take on published data and evaluations of the effects of take for falconry and raptor propagation. Harvest of juvenile raptors would be limited to levels that would not harm wild populations. Our preferred choice is Alternative 3. Under this alternative, we would establish upper limits on take of raptor species based on the published data for, and biology of, each species. We would eliminate Federal permitting for falconry, but would not change the captive propagation regulations in a manner that would impact take of raptors from the wild. We would base allowed take on published data and evaluations of the effects of take for falconry and raptor propagation. Harvest of juvenile raptors would be limited to levels that would not harm wild populations. The Federal/State permitting system for falconry would be changed, with the responsibility for falconry permitting resting with the States, subject to the requirements of revised falconry regulations. The current permitting for raptor propagation would be maintained. Based on our modeling of raptor populations using the best available survival data, we have concluded that the impact of any of these alternatives on raptor populations would be imperceptible. Our analyses indicate that most raptor populations can sustain significantly more take for falconry and raptor propagation than will occur under any reasonable take scenario. Public Comments We welcome comments on the DEA. When submitting written comments, please include your name and return address in your letter and identify it as comments on the DEA. To facilitate our compilation of the Administrative Record for this action, you must submit written comments on 8 1/2 inch by 11 inch paper. Or, you may submit comments electronically via the Migratory Bird Management Web page at *http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/,* where a link for comments will be available. Please submit comments by only one method, do not send duplicate submissions. All comments received, including any personal information provided, will be available for public inspection at the address given above for hand delivery of comments. We will not consider anonymous comments. Dated: June 12, 2006. H. Dale Hall, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E6-9725 Filed 6-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 060606151-6151-01; I.D. 051906A] RIN 0648-AU33 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast

(NE)Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 43 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Framework Adjustment 43 (Framework 43) to the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which was developed by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council). Framework 43 proposes measures to address the incidental catch of NE multispecies by vessels fishing for Atlantic herring. The proposed measures would establish a Herring Exempted Fishery. Vessels issued a Category 1 Atlantic herring fishing permit (Category 1 vessels) would be authorized to possess incidentally caught haddock until the catch of haddock reached the level specified as an incidental haddock catch cap; upon attainment of the haddock catch cap, all herring vessels would be limited to 2,000 lb (907 kg) of herring per trip, if any of the herring on board was caught within the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank (GOM/GB) Herring Exemption Area defined in Framework 43. Herring Category 1 vessels would also be authorized to possess up to 100 pounds (45 kg) of other regulated multispecies (cod, witch flounder, plaice, yellowtail flounder, pollock, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, redfish, and white hake), and would be required to provide advance notification of their intent to land for purposes of enforcement. Atlantic herring processors and dealers that sort herring catches as part of their operations would be required to cull and report all haddock. DATES: Comments must be received by July 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents, including the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA), and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment are available from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at *http://www.nero.gov* . Written comments on the proposed rule may be sent by any of the following methods: • Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Herring Framework 43”; • Fax to Patricia A. Kurkul , 978-281-9135; • E-mail to the following address: *HerringFramework43@NOAA.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: “Comments on Herring Framework 43;” or • Electronically through the Federal e-Rulemaking portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9259, e-mail at *eric.dolin@noaa.gov,* fax at 978-281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Currently, regulations established under the FMP for the Northeast

(NE)multispecies (groundfish) fishery prohibit vessels fishing for Atlantic herring from possessing or landing any groundfish species, including haddock. In July 2004, NMFS's Office of Law Enforcement

(OLE)observed prohibited juvenile haddock in catches being landed by midwater trawl vessels fishing for herring on GB. Representatives from the herring industry reported that they were encountering haddock unusually high in the water column and were unable to avoid catching them, even with midwater trawl gear. Many midwater trawl vessels ceased fishing for herring on GB in the summer of 2004 due to concerns about haddock bycatch and the fact that possession of haddock was prohibited, and the herring landings from the GB area decreased. As a result, NMFS, at the Council's request, implemented an emergency rule that established an incidental catch allowance for haddock to allow the herring fishery to operate on GB during 2005 while the Council developed a long-term solution. The emergency rule was published by NMFS in the **Federal Register** on June 13, 2005 (70 FR 34055), and extended for 180 days on December 8, 2005 (70 FR 72934). The emergency rule expires on June 6, 2006, and the Council developed Framework 43 to address this issue on a permanent basis. The Council requested emergency action on March 30, 2005. The Council discussed the issue further at subsequent meetings and voted on November 17, 2005, to establish the Council meeting that day as the initial meeting to develop permanent measures to address the issue in Framework 43. The measures contained in Framework 43 were included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and public hearing document for Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Herring FMP (Amendment 1). The Council voted on February 2, 2006, to adopt the measures in Amendment 1 and Framework 43, but to submit Framework 43 in advance of Amendment 1 in order to establish measures for the fishery as soon as possible during the 2006 summer season. The proposed measures would apply to all Category 1 vessels on all trips that do not use NE multispecies days-at-sea (DAS). The Atlantic herring regulations establish two vessel permits: Category 1 permits are issued to vessels that have landed, or intend to land, 500 metric tons

(mt)or more of herring in the upcoming year; Category 2 permits are issued to vessels that do not intend to land 500 mt or more of herring. However, the public should be aware that the Council is proposing to revise the Atlantic herring vessel permit requirements in Amendment 1. Amendment, which has been submitted to NMFS for review, would revise the vessel permitting requirements for the herring fishery by establishing limited access permits for vessels that fish for large amounts of herring, and maintain an open access permit for vessels that catch herring incidentally. If the limited access permit measures proposed in Amendment 1 are approved and implemented by NMFS, the measures proposed in this rule would, in the future, be applicable to all vessels issued limited access permits The proposed measures in Framework 43 would:

(1)Authorize the possession of haddock by Category 1 vessels up to the amount established as a cap on total haddock catch by such vessels;

(2)establish a cap on the amount of haddock that could be caught by Category 1 vessels that is equal to 0.2 percent of the total combined target total allowable catch

(TAC)for GOM and GB haddock; and

(3)establish a Herring Exempted Fishery and define a GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area in which any herring permitted vessel that catches any herring from this area would be limited to 2,000 lb (907 kg) per trip when the haddock catch cap is attained;

(4)authorize Category 1 vessels to possess an incidental catch of up to 100 lb (45 kg) of regulated NE multispecies other than haddock (cod, witch flounder, plaice, yellowtail flounder, pollock, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, redfish, and white hake);

(5)suspend the minimum fish size for NE multispecies possessed by Category 1 vessels;

(6)prohibit Category 1 vessels from selling haddock for human consumption and prohibit dealers from purchasing haddock from such vessels for human consumption;

(7)prohibit Category 1 vessels from discarding haddock at sea;

(8)require herring processors that cull landings to report all culled haddock, and retain such haddock for 12 hr for inspection by enforcement officials; and

(9)require Category 1 vessels to provide advance notification of landing via the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). The haddock catch cap specified would be applicable to the NE multispecies fishing year (May 1 April 30), which differs from the herring fishing year (January 1 December 31). If the haddock catch cap is attained by the herring fishery, the 2,000-lb (907-kg) limit on herring in the GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area would be in effect until the end of the NE multispecies fishing year. For example, the 2006 haddock catch cap would be specified for the period May 1, 2006 April 30, 2007, and the 2007 haddock catch cap for the period May 1, 2007 April 30, 2008. If the catch of haddock by Category 1 vessels reached the 2006 catch cap at any time prior to the end of the NE multispecies 2006 fishing year (April 30, 2007), the catch of herring by Category 1 vessels would be limited to 2,000 lb (907 kg) per trip in the GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area through April 30, 2007 (which is 4 months after the end of the 2006 herring fishing year), at which time the 2007 catch cap would go into effect. The final rule to establish the NE multispecies haddock TACs was published on April 28, 2006 (71 FR 25095). Based on the haddock TACs in that rule, the proposed haddock catch cap would be 161,377 lb (73.2 mt) for the period May 1, 2006 - April 30, 2007 [GB + GOM haddock TAC = 35,309 + 1,279 = 36,588 mt; 0.2 percent x 36,588 mt = 73.2 mt]. Upon implementation of Herring Amendment 1, if approved, the haddock landings from May 1, 2006 forward would be applied to the catch cap for the NE multispecies 2006 fishing year. Prior to Framework 43, herring midwater trawl gear (single trawls and pair trawls) and purse seine gear were each defined by the NE Multispecies FMP as exempted gear, that is, gear that is not capable of catching NE multispecies. The Council determined that this classification was not consistent with the available information documenting catches of NE multispecies. Framework 43 would instead establish the Herring Exempted Fishery to enable the fishery to be prosecuted as an exempted fishery, and authorize an incidental catch of small amounts of NE multispecies. The total amount of haddock set-aside for the herring fishery is not expected to cause either the GB or GOM haddock TACs to be exceeded or impact the availability of haddock for groundfish vessels, because the haddock set-aside is set in consideration of the fact that haddock bycatch has previously occurred in the herring fishery. Management Measures

(1)Authorize the Possession of Haddock by Category 1 Vessels While temporarily authorized under the emergency regulations, the NE multispecies regulations prohibit vessels using midwater trawl or purse seine gear from possessing or landing NE multispecies. This action would allow Category 1 vessels to possess and land haddock of unlimited amounts until the haddock bycatch cap is attained, and to possess and land up to 100 lb (45 kg) of other regulated multispecies (cod, witch flounder, plaice, yellowtail flounder, pollock, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, redfish, and white hake) on all trips that do not use a NE multispecies DAS. This provision is intended to reflect the incidental catch of NE multispecies by Category 1 vessels.

(2)Establish Cap on Amount of Haddock Caught by Category 1 Vessels This action would establish a catch cap for Category 1 vessels equal to 0.2 percent of the total combined target TAC for GOM and GB haddock specified for each NE multispecies fishing year. The haddock catch cap specified for the period May 1, 2006 - April 30, 2007, would be 161,377 lb (73.2 mt). The haddock catch cap is intended to limit the total amount of haddock caught by the directed herring fishery while allowing the fishery to operate with a small amount of incidental catch. The information that would be used to monitor the haddock catch cap includes: at-sea observer reports, Federal dealer/processor reports, and haddock landings reported by law enforcement agents as a result of catch inspections. These measures are supported by the provisions that would require specified dealers/processors to report and retain culled haddock (see measure 8) and require vessels to provide advance notification of landing (see measure 9). Once the haddock cap has been caught, all vessels issued a herring permit or fishing in the Federal portion of the GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area (see 3) would be prohibited from fishing for, possessing, or landing herring in excess of 2,000 lb (907 kg) of herring per trip in or from the GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area, except that such vessels may possess more than 2,000 lb (907 kg) of herring that was caught outside of the area and may transit the area, with gear properly stowed.

(3)Define the GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area The herring fishery is prosecuted at various times of the year throughout the GOM and GB. Herring vessels would be authorized to fish for amounts of herring allowed under their applicable permits until the haddock catch cap applicable to the fishery is projected to be attained. Framework 43 identifies the area where 90 percent of the haddock catch historically has occurred and defines the area as the GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area. Once the cap is determined to be attained, the Regional Administrator would announce that all herring vessels would be limited to the 2,000-lb (907-kg) catch limit for herring if any of the herring is caught in the GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area. In the event that the haddock catch cap is reached, the measures that would require processors/dealers to retain and report culled haddock, and the requirement for Category 1 vessels to provide advance notification of landing, would remain in effect to enhance the enforceability of the closure. Category 1 vessels and other herring vessels would not be subject to the 2,000-lb (907-kg) herring limit if all herring caught, possessed, or landed by the vessel is from outside the GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area, and provided the vessel complies with the gear stowage requirements in the Exemption Area as specified in the regulations.

(4)Establish a Regulated NE Multispecies Possession Allowance for Category 1 Vessels This action would establish a possession allowance for Category 1 vessels to authorize them to possess and land up 100 lb (45 kg) of regulated multispecies other than haddock (cod, witch flounder, plaice, yellowtail flounder, pollock, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, redfish, and white hake) on all trips that do not use a NE multispecies DAS. Vessels fishing under a NE multispecies DAS would be subject to the possession limits specified for such fishing activity.

(5)Suspend the Minimum Fish Size for NE Multispecies Possessed by Category 1 Vessels This action would exempt Category 1 vessels from the minimum size requirements for haddock and the other regulated multispecies (cod, witch flounder, plaice, yellowtail flounder, pollock, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, redfish, and white hake). The suspension of the minimum size is necessary because, in a high-volume fishery such as the herring fishery, it is difficult, if not impossible, to cull fish that resemble herring in size and shape. Herring are often pumped directly from the nets into the holds, with no sorting of the catch. Thus, it is impracticable to sort out haddock and other regulated multispecies that are smaller than the current minimum fish size.

(6)Prohibit the Purchase or Sale for Human Consumption of NE Multispecies Landed by Category 1 Vessels To eliminate any incentive for Category 1 vessels to target haddock or other regulated multispecies, this action would prohibit the sale of haddock and those other species caught by Category 1 vessels for human consumption. It also prohibits Atlantic herring dealers and processors from purchasing such fish to be sold for human consumption. It is not feasible to establish a similar prohibition on the sale of haddock or the other regulated multispecies for use as bait because herring catches landed for use as bait are generally offloaded by pumping the fish from the vessel hold into tanker trucks. As a result, some haddock and other regulated multispecies could remain mixed in with the herring catch. The Council concluded that it would be impossible to require all such landings to be culled or sorted, and would be inequitable to make downstream purchasers of such bait legally liable for the presence of haddock or other regulated multispecies.

(7)Prohibit Discarding of Haddock at Sea by Category 1 Vessels In order to more fully account for all the haddock caught by Category 1 vessels, this action would prohibit the discarding of haddock at sea.

(8)Require Specified Herring Dealers/Processors to Retain Haddock Landed by Category 1 Vessels This action would require herring dealers and processors that sort herring as part of their operations to separate out, report, and retain for 12 hr all haddock landed by a Category 1 vessel in order to facilitate monitoring and enforcement of the haddock catch cap. The haddock would have to be set aside and retained for 12 hr to facilitate inspection by enforcement officials, and the vessel that landed the haddock must be clearly identified. The sale of these culled haddock, for any purpose, would be prohibited. All herring dealers and processors would have to continue to comply with the current reporting requirements that require federally permitted dealers and processors to report all fish purchased or received with a vessel trip identifier via the weekly electronic dealer reporting system as specified under § 648.7(a).

(9)Require Category 1 Vessels to Provide VMS Notification Prior to Landing This action would require Category 1 vessels to provide notification to NMFS of their intent to land at least 6 hr prior to landing. This provision is intended to facilitate the enforcement and monitoring of the haddock catch cap by giving enforcement agents sufficient notice of landing to enable them to meet a fishing vessel at the dock to observe offloading or sample the catch. Classification This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Council prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which describes the economic impacts this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A copy of the IRFA can be obtained from the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) or via the Internet at *http://www.nero.noaa.gov* . A summary of the analysis follows: Statement of Objective and Need A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, is contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and is not repeated here. Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply During the 2005 fishing year, 115 vessels had Category 1 permits (the class to which this rule applies), with 38 of these vessels averaging more than 2,000 lb (907 kg) of herring per trip. There are no large entities, as defined in section 601 of the RFA, participating in this fishery. Therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements The collection-of-information requirement in this proposed rule (requiring Category 1 vessels to provide notification to NMFS of their intent to land at least 6 hr prior to landing) has already been approved by OMB as follows: Haddock Bycatch Notification of Landing, Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)control number 0648 0525, (5 min/response). Minimizing Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities Three alternatives were considered in the development of this action. The first would have continued the program put into place by the emergency action. Specifically, this would have established a 1,000 lb (453 kg) incidental catch possession limit on haddock, and a 100 lb (45.3 kg) incidental catch possession limit on other regulated multispecies, with no limit on the total amount of haddock or other regulated multispecies that could be caught. The second alternative is the one proposed in this action. The third alternative is no action, under which the herring vessels would not be allowed to possess any multispecies. Compared to the no-action alternative, the other alternatives significantly minimize the economic impacts on herring vessels. Both the proposed action and the non-selected alternative prevent direct economic loss resulting from herring harvest that would be foregone by vessel owners concerned about haddock bycatch and the potential for resulting regulatory violations under the no-action alternative. By allowing for the incidental catch of groundfish, both the proposed action and the other alternative would enable herring vessels to continue fishing even if they encounter groundfish. This is particularly important in herring Management Area 3 (GB), where herring vessels are most likely to encounter groundfish. The herring fishery has not fully harvested the allowed catch from Area 3 and the resource in that area can support increased fishing effort. Estimate foregone revenues from not fishing in Area 3 would be $2,123,727 based on preliminary reported herring landings during 2005 (13,029 mt) and an average price for herring of $163 per mt. Foregone revenues could be as high as $8,150,000 based on utilization of the entire available TAC from Area 3 (50,000 mt). This assumes that the herring fleet would not fish in Area 3 at all for fear of being in violation of the prohibition on the possession of haddock and other regulated groundfish on every trip and therefore represents an upper bound to the range of expected impacts. Also, the proposed action would have the least impact on small entities because it would not impose a 1,000 lb (453 kg) possession limit, thereby allowing vessels that unintentionally run into a large amount of haddock to continue fishing, while still imposing an upper limit on haddock catches by shutting down 90 percent of the area where haddock is caught if the herring fleet reaches the haddock TAC . List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 14, 2006. James W. Balsiger, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. 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 § 648.2, the definition of “Exempted gear” is revised to read as follows: § 648.2 Definitions. *Exempted gear* , with respect to the NE multispecies fishery, means gear that is deemed to be not capable of catching NE multispecies, and includes: Pelagic hook and line, pelagic longline, spears, rakes, diving gear, cast nets, tongs, harpoons, weirs, dipnets, stop nets, pound nets, pelagic gillnets, pots and traps, shrimp trawls (with a properly configured grate as defined under this part), and surfclam and ocean quahog dredges. 3. In § 648.14, paragraph (bb)(20) is revised, and paragraphs (a)(166), (a)(167), (a)(168), and (bb)(21) through

(24)are added to read as follows: § 648.14 Prohibitions.

(a)* * *

(166)Sell, purchase, receive, trade, barter, or transfer haddock or other regulated multispecies, or attempt to sell, purchase, receive, trade, barter, or transfer haddock or other regulated multispecies (cod, witch flounder, plaice, yellowtail flounder, pollock, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, redfish, and white hake) for, or intended for, human consumption landed by a Category 1 herring vessel as defined in § 648.2.

(167)Fail to comply with requirements for herring processors/dealers that handle individual fish to separate out and retain all haddock offloaded from a Category 1 herring vessel, and to retain such catch for at least 12 hr with the vessel that landed the haddock clearly identified by name.

(168)Sell, purchase, receive, trade, barter, or transfer, or attempt to sell, purchase, receive, trade, barter, or transfer to another person any haddock or other regulated multispecies (cod, witch flounder, plaice, yellowtail flounder, pollock, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, redfish, and white hake) separated out from a herring catch offloaded from a Category 1 herring vessel as defined in § 648.2.

(bb)* * *

(20)If the vessel has been issued a Category 1 herring permit and is fishing for herring, fail to notify the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement of the time and date of landing via VMS at least 6 hr prior to landing or crossing the VMS demarcation line on its return trip to port.

(21)Possess, land, transfer, receive, sell, purchase, trade, or barter, or attempt to transfer, receive, purchase, trade, or barter, or sell more than 2,000 lb (907 kg) of Atlantic herring per trip taken from the GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area defined in § 648.86(a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) following the effective date of the determination that the haddock cap has been reached pursuant to § 648.86(a)(3), unless all of the herring possessed or landed by a vessel was caught outside of that area.

(22)If fishing with midwater trawl or a purse seine gear, fail to comply with the requirements of § 648.80(d) and (e).

(23)Discard haddock at sea if a Category 1 herring vessel.

(24)Transit the GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area when that area is limited to the 2,000-lb (907-kg) limit specified in § 648.86(a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) with more than 2,000 lb (907 kg) of herring, unless all the herring on board was caught outside of that area and all fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as required by § 648.23(b). 4. In § 648.15, paragraphs

(d)and

(e)are added to read as follows: § 648.15 Facilitation of enforcement.

(d)Retention of haddock by herring dealers and processors.

(1)Federally permitted herring dealers and processors, including at-sea processors, that receive herring from Category 1 herring vessels, and that cull or separate out from the herring catch all fish other than herring in the course of normal operations, must separate out and retain all haddock offloaded from a Category 1 herring vessel. Such haddock may not be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred, and must be retained for at least 12 hours with the vessel that landed the haddock clearly identified, and law enforcement officials must be given access to inspect the haddock.

(2)All haddock separated out and retained is subject to reporting requirements specified at § 648.7.

(e)Retention of haddock by Category 1 herring vessels. All Category 1 herring vessels must retain all the haddock that they catch. 5. In § 648.80, paragraphs (d), (e), and (g)(3) are revised to read as follows: § 648.80 NE Multispecies regulated mesh areas and restrictions on gear and methods of fishing.

(d)*Midwater trawl gear exempted fishery.* Fishing may take place throughout the fishing year with midwater trawl gear of mesh size less than the applicable minimum size specified in this section, provided that:

(1)Midwater trawl gear is used exclusively;

(2)When fishing under this exemption in the GOM/GB Exemption Area, as defined in paragraph (a)(17) of this section, and in the area described in § 648.81(c)(1), the vessel has on board a letter of authorization issued by the Regional Administrator, and complies with the following restrictions:

(i)The vessel only fishes for, possesses, or lands Atlantic herring, blueback herring, or mackerel in areas north of 42°20′ N. lat. and in the areas described in § 648.81(a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1); and Atlantic herring, blueback herring, mackerel, or squid in all other areas south of 42°20′ N. lat.; and

(ii)The vessel is issued a letter of authorization for a minimum of 7 days.

(3)The vessel must carry a NMFS-approved sea sampler/observer, if requested by the Regional Administrator;

(4)The vessel does not fish for, possess or land NE multispecies, except that Category 1 herring vessels may possess and land haddock or other regulated NE multispecies (cod, witch flounder, plaice, yellowtail flounder, pollock, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, redfish, and white hake) consistent with the incidental catch allowance and bycatch caps specified in § 648.86(a)(3). Such haddock or other regulated NE multispecies may not be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred, or attempted to be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred for, or intended for, human consumption. Haddock or other regulated NE multispecies that is separated out from the herring catch pursuant to § 648.15(d) may not be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred, or attempted to be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred for any purpose. Category 1 vessels must retain all haddock they catch;

(5)To fish for herring under this exemption, vessels issued a Category 1 herring permit defined in § 648.2 must provide notice to NMFS of the vessel name; contact name for coordination of observer deployment; telephone number for contact; and the date, time, and port of departure, at least 72 hr prior to beginning any trip into these areas for the purposes of observer deployment; and

(6)All Category 1 herring vessels on a declared herring trip must notify NMFS Office of Law Enforcement through VMS of the time and place of offloading at least 6 hr prior to crossing the VMS demarcation line on their return trip to port, or, for vessels that have not fished seaward of the VMS demarcation line, at least 6 hr prior to landing. The Regional Administrator may adjust the prior notification minimum time through publication of a notice in the **Federal Register** consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.

(e)*Purse seine gear exempted fishery.* Fishing may take place throughout the fishing year with purse seine gear of mesh size smaller than the applicable minimum size specified in this section, provided that:

(1)The vessel uses purse seine gear exclusively;

(2)When fishing under this exemption in the GOM/GB Exemption Area, as defined in paragraph (a)(17) of this section, the vessel has on board a letter of authorization issued by the Regional Administrator and complies with the following:

(i)The vessel only fishes for, possesses, or lands Atlantic herring, blueback herring, mackerel, or menhaden; and

(ii)The vessel must carry a NMFS-approved sea sampler/observer, if requested to do so by the Regional Administrator;

(3)The vessel is issued a letter of authorization for a minimum of 7 days, and cancels it only as instructed by the Regional Administrator; and

(4)The vessel does not fish for, possess or land NE multispecies, except that Category 1 herring vessels may possess and land haddock or other regulated multispecies (cod, witch flounder, plaice, yellowtail flounder, pollock, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, redfish, and white hake) consistent with the incidental catch allowance and bycatch caps specified in § 648.86(a)(3). Such haddock or other regulated multispecies may not be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred, or attempted to be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred for, or intended for, human consumption. Haddock or other regulated multispecies that is separated out from the herring catch pursuant to § 648.15(d) may not be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred, or attempted to be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred for any purpose. Category 1 vessels must retain all haddock they catch;

(5)To fish for herring under this exemption, vessels issued a Category 1 herring permit as defined in § 648.2 must provide notice to NMFS of the vessel name; contact name for coordination of observer deployment; telephone number for contact; and the date, time, and port of departure, at least 72 hr prior to beginning any trip into these areas for the purposes of observer deployment; and

(6)All Category 1 herring vessels must notify NMFS Office of Law Enforcement through VMS of the time and place of offloading at least 6 hr prior to crossing the VMS demarcation line on their return trip to port, or, for vessels that have not fished seaward of the VMS demarcation line, at least 6 hr prior to landing. The Regional Administrator may adjust the prior notification minimum time through publication of a notice in the **Federal Register** consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.

(g)* * *

(3)*Pair trawl prohibition.* No vessel may fish for NE multispecies while pair trawling, or possess or land NE multispecies that have been harvested by means of pair trawling, except as authorized under paragraph

(d)of this section. 6. In § 648.83, paragraph (b)(4) is added to read as follows: § 648.83 Multispecies minimum fish sizes.

(b)* * *

(4)Category 1 herring vessels may possess and land haddock and other regulated multispecies (cod, witch flounder, plaice, yellowtail flounder, pollock, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, redfish, and white hake) that are smaller than the minimum size specified under § 648.83, consistent with the bycatch caps specified in §§ 648.86(a)(3) and 648.86 (j). Such fish may not be sold for human consumption. 7. In § 648.85, paragraph

(d)is added to read as follows: § 648.85 Special management programs.

(d)*Incidental catch allowance for Category 1 herring vessels.* The incidental catch allowance for Category 1 herring vessels is defined as 0.2 percent of the combined target TAC for Gulf of Maine haddock and Georges Bank haddock (U.S. landings only) specified according to § 648.90(a) for a particular multispecies fishing year. 8. In § 648.86, paragraph

(i)is moved and reserved and paragraphs (a)(3) and

(k)are added to read as follows: § 648.86 Multispecies possession restrictions.

(a)* * * (3)(i) *Incidental catch allowance for herring Category 1 vessels.* Category 1 herring vessels defined in § 648.2 may possess and land haddock on all trips that do not use a NE multispecies DAS, subject to the requirements specified in § 648.80(d) and (e).

(ii)*Haddock Incidental Catch Cap.* (A)( *1* ) When the Regional Administrator has determined that the incidental catch allowance in § 648.85

(d)has been caught, all vessels issued a herring permit or fishing in the Federal portion of the GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area, defined below, are prohibited from fishing for, possessing, or landing herring in excess of 2,000 lb (907 kg) per trip in or from the GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area, unless all herring possessed and landed by the vessel were caught outside the GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area and the vessel complies with the gear stowage provisions specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A)(3) of this section while transiting the Exemption Area. Upon this determination, the haddock possession limit is reduced to 0 lb (0 kg) for all Category 1 herring vessels regardless of where they were fishing. In making this determination, the Regional Administrator shall use haddock landings observed by NMFS-approved observers and law enforcement officials, and reports of haddock catch submitted by vessels and dealers pursuant to the reporting requirements of this part. The GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area is defined by the straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated (copies of a map depicting the area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request): GB/GOM Herring Exemption Area Point N. lat. W. long. 1 41° 33.05′ 70° 00′ 2 41° 20′ 70° 00′ 3 41° 20′ 69° 50′ 4 41° 10′ 69° 50′ 5 41° 10′ 69° 30′ 6 41° 00′ 69° 30′ 7 41° 00′ 68° 50′ 8 39° 50′ 68° 50′ 9 39° 50′ 66° 40′ 10 40° 30′ 66° 40′ 11 40° 30′ 64° 44.34′ 12 41° 50′ 66° 51.94′ 13 41° 50′ 67° 40′ 14 44° 00′ 67° 40′ 15 44° 00′ 67° 50′ 16 44° 10′ 67° 50′ 17 44° 27′ 67° 59.18′ 18 ME, NH, MA Coast lines 19 41° 33.05′ 70° 00′ ( *2* ) The haddock incidental catch cap specified is for the NE multispecies fishing year (May 1 April 30), which differs from the herring fishing year (January 1 December 31). If the haddock catch cap is attained by the Category 1 herring fishery, the 2,000-lb (907-kg) limit on herring possession and landings in the GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area will be in effect until the end of the NE multispecies fishing year. For example, the 2006 haddock catch cap would be specified for the period May 1, 2006 April 30, 2007, and the 2007 haddock catch cap would be specified for the period May 1, 2007 April 30, 2008. If the catch of haddock by Category 1 vessels reached the 2006 catch cap at any time prior to the end of the NE multispecies fishing year (April 30, 2007), the 2,000-lb (907-kg) limit on possession or landing herring in the GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area would extend through April 30, 2007, at which time the 2007 catch cap would go into effect. ( *3* ) A vessel may transit the GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area with more than 2,000 lb (907 kg) of herring when the haddock catch cap in § 648.86 (a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) has been caught, providing that all of the herring possessed or landed by the vessel was caught outside of the GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area and all fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as required by § 648.23(b).

(i)[Reserved.]

(k)*Other regulated NE multispecies possession restrictions for herring vessels. Incidental catch allowance for herring Category 1 vessels.* Category 1 herring vessels defined in § 648.2 may possess and land up to 100 lb (45 kg) of other regulated NE multispecies (cod, witch flounder, plaice, yellowtail flounder, pollock, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, redfish, and white hake) on all trips that do not use a multispecies DAS, subject to the requirements specified in § 648.80(d) and (e). Such fish may not be sold for human consumption. [FR Doc. 06-5537 Filed 6-16-06; 11:43 am]

Connectionstraces to 8

Traces to 8 documents

U.S. Code