Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-12-04 · Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) · Notices

Notices. Notice of proposed rulemaking

31,476 words·~143 min read·/register/2006/12/04/06-9463

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 232 Monday, December 4, 2006 Proposed Rules FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 5 CFR Part 3201 RIN 3209-AA15 Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for FDIC Employees AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This proposal would amend existing FDIC ethics regulations involving extensions of credit, ownership of stock, and definitions. This proposal would implement the Preserving Independence of Financial Institution Examinations Act of 2003, which amended sections 212 and 213 of title 18 of the United States Code.
These sections continue generally to impose criminal penalties on examiners borrowing from banks they have examined, and financial institutions extending a loan to anyone who examines or has authority to examine that institution. The statutory amendment, however, decriminalizes extensions of credit to examiners for credit cards and for primary residential home loans from institutions that they examine or have authority to examine if these loans are made on the same terms and conditions as are available to other cardholders and borrowers and satisfy other criteria contained in the statute as amended.
Additionally, the proposed regulation would clarify and make minor revisions to definitions and restrictions for FDIC employees' acquisition, ownership, or control of securities of FDIC-insured depository institutions and certain holding companies. DATES: Comments are invited and must be received on or before January 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN number by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* .
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Agency Web site: *http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html* . Follow instructions for submitting comments on the Agency Web site. • E-mail: *Comments@FDIC.gov* . Include the RIN number in the subject line of the message. • Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20429. • Hand Delivery/Courier: Guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street) on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. • Instructions:
All submissions received must include the agency name and RIN for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html* including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *FDIC:* Robert J. Fagan, Ethics Program Manager, Legal Division,
(202)898-6808; and Michelle Borzillo, Counsel, Legal Division,
(202)898-7400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background This proposed revised regulation addresses issues involving extensions of credit to all FDIC employees, including FDIC employees covered by the amended criminal statutes pertaining to examiners, members of the FDIC Board of Directors, Division and Office Directors, and their direct subordinates, as well as employees in the Corporate Employee Program who perform examiner functions (“covered employees”). This proposal would also clarify and make minor revisions to the provisions governing employee ownership of stock and the definitions used in the regulation. On December 19, 2003, the President signed Public Law 108-198, the Preserving Independence of Financial Institution Examinations Act of 2003. The bill amended sections 212 and 213 of title 18 of the United States Code. These sections continue generally to impose criminal penalties on examiners borrowing from banks they examine, and financial institutions extending a loan to anyone who examines or has authority to examine that institution. The amendment, however, decriminalizes extensions of credit to examiners for credit cards and for primary residential home loans from institutions that they examine or have authority to examine if these loans are made on the same terms and conditions as are available to other cardholders and borrowers. The amended statute at 18 U.S.C. 212 provides that, subject to the exception noted above, any officer, director, or employee of a financial institution, who makes or grants any loan or gratuity, to any examiner or assistant examiner who examines or has authority to examine such bank, branch, agency, organization, corporation, association, or institution is subject to criminal penalties. Under 18 U.S.C. 213, as amended, any examiner or assistant examiner who accepts a loan or gratuity, except for primary residential loans or credit cards described in this proposed rule, from any bank, branch, agency, organization, corporation, association, or institution examined by the examiner or from any person connected with it, is subject to criminal penalties and will be disqualified from holding office as an examiner. On April 7, 2004, based on the statutory amendments, FDIC's Board of Directors adopted the Interim Policy on Credit Cards and Home Mortgages (“Interim Policy”) pending revisions to the FDIC's existing regulation on extensions of credit. The Interim Policy permits extensions of credit in the form of home mortgages for primary residences and credit cards under certain conditions. This proposed amended rule, once finalized, would replace the Interim Policy and supersede the current version of 5 CFR 3201.102. 1 1 Under the regulation, before being modified by the Interim Policy adopted by the FDIC Board of Directors in April 2004, the staff responsible for examination of FDIC-insured depository institutions were prohibited from obtaining credit from an FDIC-insured state nonmember bank, any subsidiary of such bank, or any person associated with such bank. No exceptions were made for home mortgages. An exception was made for credit cards issued outside the region or field office of assignment. Corporation officials in top management positions were prohibited under the existing regulation from entering into financial obligations with an institution over which the Corporation had primary Federal supervisory authority and its subsidiaries. An employee in the Division of Finance, Division of Insurance and Research, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, the Legal Division, or who was a member of a standing committee of the Board of Directors, was prohibited from obtaining credit from an FDIC-insured depository institution or its subsidiary for a period of two years after the employee had participated personally and substantially in certain matters affecting the institution, its predecessor, successor, or affiliate. An exception was made for ordinary credit cards. Additionally, the proposed regulation would clarify and make revisions to 5 CFR 3201.103, which restricts FDIC employees' acquisition, ownership, or control of securities of FDIC-insured depository institutions and certain holding companies. Finally, the proposed regulation would make appropriate revisions to the definitions in 5 CFR 3201.101. In proposing to make these regulatory revisions in part pursuant to its rulemaking authority under 18 U.S.C. 212(b), the FDIC has consulted with the other Federal financial institution regulatory agencies. In addition, the FDIC has determined, with the Office of Government Ethics'
(OGE)concurrence, that, under 5 CFR 2635.403(a) of the executive branch standards of ethical conduct, these proposed revised provisions as to FDIC employees, their spouses and minor children, are needed so that a reasonable person would not question the impartiality and objectivity with which agency programs are administered. Further, with respect to the proposed revised restrictions and prohibitions on the holding of financial interests (including indebtedness, i.e., certain extensions of credit and loans) by the spouses and minor children of FDIC employees and covered FDIC employees, the FDIC has determined that there is a direct and appropriate nexus between such restrictions and prohibitions as applied to spouses and minor children and the efficiency of the service. II. Description of Proposed Amended Sections of the FDIC Ethics Regulations Proposed Amended Section 3201.102—Extensions of Credit and Loans From FDIC-Insured Institutions The proposed revision to 5 CFR 3201.102 would retain the existing general prohibitions on borrowings and disqualification provisions for FDIC employees and members of the FDIC Board of Directors. Likewise, under the proposed revision, as with the existing version of this section a current or contingent financial obligation of an employee's spouse or minor child would be considered to be an obligation of the employee. However, the proposed rule in a new paragraph
(e)would authorize the FDIC Ethics Counselor to waive any disqualification under this proposed revised section based on a determination with the advice of the Legal Division that the waiver is not inconsistent with the standards of ethical conduct for employees of the executive branch as set forth in 5 CFR part 2635 or otherwise prohibited by law and that, under the particular circumstances, application of the prohibition is not necessary to avoid the appearance of misuse of position or loss of impartiality and objectivity with which the FDIC programs are administered. The proposed rule, in keeping with the amended statutes at 18 U.S.C. 212 and 213, would eliminate the current regulatory disqualification for FDIC examiners, FDIC Board members, Division and Office Directors, and employees in the Corporate Employee Program performing examiner duties (defined as “covered employees” in § 3201.101(d)(3) of the proposed rule), who obtain credit cards on terms and conditions no more favorable than generally available to other borrowers. See new proposed paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of § 3201.102. Covered employees assigned to a bank from which they hold a credit card would have to inform their supervisor and ethics official prior to the examination or other participation in a matter involving the bank if any issue exists such as non-current payments, a billing dispute, or if negotiating with the bank concerning the debt. In certain cases, a disqualification would be required. Under proposed paragraph (d)(4) of § 3201.102, covered employees and their spouses and minor children are prohibited from applying for or receiving a credit card from an institution if the covered employee is assigned or about to be assigned to an examination of that institution. Under the proposed rule in § 3201.102(c)(3)(ii), disqualification would continue to be generally required for residential real property loans on a primary residence. However, such loans would be permitted in accordance with proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of § 3201.102, if the terms and conditions were no more favorable than the terms and conditions of loans generally available to other similarly situated creditworthy borrowers. Thus, covered FDIC employees could obtain such permitted loans, but would need to be recused from official participation in any particular matters involving the lending institution or person. The proposed rule would also cover limitations, restrictions, and the mechanism for waiver of the disqualification from participation in an examination or other matter in appropriate circumstances, under paragraphs (c)(4), (c)(5),
(d)and
(e)of § 3201.102 as proposed for amendment. As previously noted above, a new general waiver would be available under the proposed rule in certain circumstances. Specifically, the proposed rule in paragraph
(e)of § 3201.102 would authorize the Ethics Counselor to waive any disqualification based on a determination with the advice of the Legal Division that the waiver is not inconsistent with the standards of ethical conduct for employees of the executive branch as set forth in 5 CFR part 2635 or otherwise prohibited by law and that, under the particular circumstances, application of the prohibition is not necessary to avoid the appearance of misuse of position or loss of impartiality and objectivity with which the FDIC programs are administered. A waiver under proposed paragraph
(e)of § 3201.102 could impose appropriate conditions, such as requiring the execution of a written disqualification. Under proposed paragraph (c)(5)(i) of § 3201.102, a covered FDIC employee would not be prohibited from retaining a loan or extension of credit from a State nonmember bank or its subsidiary on its original terms if it was obtained prior to FDIC employment or reassignment to a covered employee position, or a result of the sale, or transfer of the loan or credit extension to, or the conversion or merger of the lender into, such a bank (or subsidiary). However, any renewal or renegotiation of such a pre-existing loan or credit extension would be subject to the prohibitions in paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) of § 3201.102 as proposed, subject to an exception noted in the following sentence. Under proposed paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of § 3201.102, a covered employee who experiences financial or other hardship unless allowed to renegotiate credit incurred prior to FDIC employment or reassignment of duties could submit a request for a waiver to his or her supervisor and the Ethics Counselor setting forth the reasons for the desired renegotiation and other details. After consideration, the employee's supervisor and the Ethics Counselor could jointly grant a written waiver of the prohibition based on a finding that the renegotiation would not be prohibited by law and that the waiver would not result in a loss of impartiality or objectivity or misuse of the employee's position. Paragraph
(d)of § 3201.102 of the proposed rule would also prohibit an FDIC employee from directly or indirectly accepting or becoming obligated on any extension of credit from an FDIC-insured depository institution or its subsidiary for a period of two years from the date of the employee's last personal and substantial participation in an audit, resolution, liquidation, assistance transaction, supervisory proceeding, or internal agency deliberation affecting that particular institution, its predecessor or successor, or any subsidiary of such institution. This prohibition as proposed would not apply to credit obtained through the use of a credit card or a residential real property loan secured by the principal residence of the employee, subject to the same conditions, limitations, disqualification, and waiver procedures applicable to covered employees under proposed paragraphs
(c)and
(e)of § 3201.102. Proposed Amended Section 3201.103—Prohibition on Acquisition, Ownership or Control of Securities of FDIC-Insured Depository Institutions and Certain Holding Companies In addition, this proposed rule would amend 5 CFR 3201.103, which generally provides in paragraph (a), with certain exceptions set forth in paragraph (b), that no FDIC employee, spouse of an employee, or minor child of an employee may acquire, own, or control, directly or indirectly, a security of an FDIC-insured depository institution or its affiliate. The existing regulation at 5 CFR 3201.103(b) provides six exceptions to that general prohibition:
(1)Acquiring, owning, or controlling securities of certain bank holding companies or their nonbank subsidiaries that are publicly traded, not primarily engaged in banking, and exempt from the Bank Holding Company Act;
(2)acquiring, owning, or controlling securities of certain nonfinancial savings association holding companies;
(3)retaining securities of an FDIC-insured depository institution or affiliate if retention was permitted under 12 CFR part 336 prior to a certain date, prior to employment with the FDIC, or when the securities were acquired by a spouse prior to his or her marriage to the employee;
(4)acquiring, owning, or controlling securities of an FDIC-insured depository institution or affiliate if acquired by inheritance, gift, stock split, involuntary stock dividend, merger, acquisition, or other change in corporate ownership, exercise of preemptive right, or otherwise without specific intent to acquire it, or if acquired by a spouse or minor child as part of a compensation package from their employer, subject to certain disclosure and disqualification requirements;
(5)acquiring, owning, or controlling an interest in certain publicly traded or publicly available investment funds; and
(6)using an FDIC-insured depository institution or affiliate as a custodian or trustee of accounts containing tax-deferred retirement funds. The proposed amendment would narrow the scope of these prohibitions and generally clarify the prohibitions of this section. The proposed amendment at § 3201.103(a) would narrow the scope of the general prohibition concerning ownership and control of a security by FDIC employees, spouses and their minor children by removing the prohibitions on ownership of securities with respect to insured depository institution affiliates, other than certain holding companies. The reason for proposing to eliminate other affiliates from the prohibition is that the potential for a conflict of interest is generally only present when there is ownership or control of a company that in turn has control of an insured depository institution. Affiliates other than holding companies do not own, and generally do not control, an insured depository institution that is their parent or sister organization. The proposed amendment to § 3201.103 would generally prohibit ownership of a security of, in addition to an FDIC-insured bank or savings association; a bank holding company that is subject to supervision by the Federal Reserve Board (FRB); a savings and loan holding company that is subject to supervision by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS); a financial holding company that is subject to supervision by the FRB; and a company that
(i)owns or controls an FDIC-insured bank or savings association,
(ii)is not an FRB-supervised bank holding company, an OTS-supervised savings and loan holding company, nor an FRB-supervised financial holding company, and
(iii)either is primarily engaged in banking or is not publicly traded on a U.S. securities exchange. These categories, in appropriate cases, cover companies that control industrial banks. The proposed amendment of § 3201.103 would also create in paragraph (b)(1), a specific exception for acquisition, ownership, or control of securities of a unitary thrift holding company. In addition, the proposed amendment of the section would reorganize the descriptions of the prohibited securities and exceptions. The intent of the reorganization proposed is to make this section clearer and more useable. The proposed amendment would retain in revised paragraphs
(b)and
(c)the other existing exceptions, limitations, and divestiture requirements of § 3201.103. Moreover, in a new paragraph
(d)of this section, the proposed rule would add a provision for written waiver in appropriate circumstances by the Ethics Counselor, with Legal Division advice and legal clearance, of any provision of the section that is identical to the proposed § 3201.102(e) waiver provision discussed above. Proposed Amended Section 3201.101(d)—General Section; Definitions Finally, the definitional section at paragraph
(d)of § 3201.101 would be amended to add and revise certain useful definitions and delete others (“assisted entity” and “assuming entity”) that would no longer be used. The term “covered employees” would be expanded to include employees whose duties and responsibilities include the examination of a financial institution or participation in the examination of any financial institution. The FDIC is republishing all the definitions in the paragraph, including those not proposed for revision, for ease of reference. Request for Comments The FDIC welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposal. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)requires that each Federal agency either certify that a proposed rule would not, if adopted in final form, have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA)of the proposal and publish the analysis for comment. See 5 U.S.C. 603, 605. The Small Business Administration
(SBA)defines small banks as those with less than $165 million in assets. The proposed rule decriminalizes under certain circumstances extensions of credit to FDIC examiners for credit cards and for primary residential home loans from institutions that they examine and clarifies certain restrictions on the acquisition, ownership, or control of securities of FDIC-insured depository institutions and certain holding companies on the part of FDIC employees. The proposed rule does not impose any obligations or restrictions on depository institutions, including small depository institutions. On this basis, the FDIC certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule, if it is adopted in final form, will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Commenters are nevertheless invited to provide the FDIC with any information they may have about the likely quantitative effects of the proposal. Paperwork Reduction Act The FDIC has determined that this proposed rule does not involve a collection of information pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* .). Solicitation of Comments on Use of Plain Language Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Pub. L. 106-102, sec. 722, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471 (Nov. 12, 1999), requires the FDIC to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. Therefore, the FDIC specifically invites your comments on how to make this proposal easier to understand. For example: • Have we organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could this material be better organized? • Are the requirements in the proposed guidelines and regulations clearly stated? If not, how could the guidelines and regulations be more clearly stated? • Do the proposed guidelines and regulations contain language or jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification? • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the guidelines and regulations easier to understand? If so, what changes to the format would make them easier to understand? • What else could we do to make the guidelines and regulations easier to understand? The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999—Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families The FDIC has determined that the proposed rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681). List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 3201 Conflict of interests, Ethical conduct, Extensions of credit and loans from FDIC-insured depository institutions, Government employees, Prohibitions on ownership of securities of FDIC-insured depository institutions. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board of Directors of the FDIC, with the concurrence of OGE, proposes to amend part 3201 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 3201—SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 1. The authority citation for 5 CFR part 3201 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 7301; 5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); 12 U.S.C. 1819(a), 1822; 18 U.S.C. 212, 213; 26 U.S.C. 1043; E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306; 5 CFR 2635.105, 2635.403, 2635.502, 2635.803. 2. Paragraph
(d)of § 3201.101 is revised to read as follows: § 3201.101 General.
(d)*Definitions.* For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:
(1)*Affiliate,* as defined in 12 U.S.C. 1841(k), means any company that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another company.
(2)*Appropriate director* means the head of a Washington office or division or the highest ranking official assigned to a regional office in each division or the Ethics Counselor.
(3)*Covered employee* means:
(i)Members of the FDIC Board of Directors and any employee required to file a public or confidential financial disclosure under 5 CFR part 2634 who holds a position immediately subordinate to such Board member;
(ii)The director of any Washington division or office and the director of any regional office, and any employee required to file a public or confidential financial disclosure report under 5 CFR part 2634 who holds a position immediately subordinate to such director;
(iii)An FDIC examiner;
(iv)Any other FDIC employee whose duties and responsibilities include the examination of or the participation in the examination of any financial institution;
(v)Any other FDIC employee whose duties and responsibilities, as determined by the Chairman or Ethics Counselor after notice to the employee, require application of the prohibition on borrowing contained in § 3201.102 to ensure public confidence that the FDIC's programs are conducted impartially and objectively.
(4)*Employee* means an officer or employee, other than a special Government employee, of the Corporation, including a member of the Board of Directors appointed under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 1812(a)(1)(C). For purposes of 5 CFR part 2635 and §§ 3201.103 and 3201.104, employee includes any individual who, pursuant to a contract or any other arrangement, performs functions or activities of the Corporation, under the direct supervision of an officer or employee of the Corporation.
(5)*Ethics Counselor* means an officer or employee who is designated by the head of the agency to coordinate and manage the agency's ethics program, and includes the Corporation's Alternate Ethics Counselor.
(6)*Security* includes an interest in debt or equity instruments. The term includes, without limitation, a secured or unsecured bond, debenture, note, securitized assets, commercial paper, and all types of preferred and common stock. The term includes an interest or right in a security, whether current or contingent, a beneficial or legal interest derived from a trust, the right to acquire or dispose of any long or short position, an interest convertible into a security, and an option, right, warrant, put, or call with respect to a security. The term security does not include a deposit account.
(7)*State nonmember bank* means any State bank as defined in 12 U.S.C. 1813(e) that is not a member of the Federal Reserve System.
(8)*Subsidiary,* as defined in 12 U.S.C. 1813(w), means any company that is owned or controlled directly or indirectly by another company. 3. Section 3201.102 is revised to read as follows: § 3201.102 Extensions of credit and loans from FDIC-insured institutions.
(a)*Credit subject to this section.* The prohibition, disqualification, and retention provisions of this section apply to a current or contingent financial obligation of the employee. For purposes of this section, a current or contingent financial obligation of an employee's spouse or minor child is considered to be an obligation of the employee.
(b)*Disqualification applicable to FDIC employees generally.* Except as provided in this section:
(1)No FDIC employee may participate in an examination, audit, visitation, review, or investigation, or any other particular matter involving an FDIC-insured institution, subsidiary or other person with whom the employee has an outstanding extension of credit.
(2)For employees, other than covered employees as defined in § 3201.101(d)(3), disqualification is not required if the credit was extended through the use of a credit card on the same terms and conditions as are offered to the general public.
(3)The Comptroller of the Currency and the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision shall be disqualified from any matter pending before the FDIC Board of Directors to the same extent as an FDIC employee subject to paragraph
(c)of this section.
(c)*Prohibited borrowing by covered employees.*
(1)*Prohibition on covered employee borrowing.* Except as provided below, no covered employee shall, directly or indirectly, accept or become obligated on a loan or extension of credit, whether current or contingent, from any FDIC-insured State nonmember bank or its subsidiary or from an officer, director, or employee, of any FDIC-insured State nonmember bank or its subsidiary.
(2)*Exceptions:*
(i)*Credit Cards.* A covered employee (or spouse or minor child of a covered employee) may obtain and hold a credit card account established under an open end consumer credit plan and issued by an FDIC-insured State nonmember bank or its subsidiary subject to the following conditions:
(A)The cardholder must satisfy all financial requirements for the credit card account that are generally applicable to all applicants for the same type of credit card account; and
(B)The terms and conditions applicable with respect to the account and any credit extended to the cardholder under the account are no more favorable generally to the cardholder than the terms and conditions that are generally applicable to credit card accounts offered by the same bank (or the same subsidiary) to other cardholders in comparable circumstances under open end consumer credit plans.
(ii)*Loans secured primarily by principal residence.* A covered employee (or a spouse or minor child of a covered employee) may obtain and hold a loan from an FDIC-insured State nonmember bank or its subsidiary subject to the following conditions:
(A)The loan is secured by residential real property that is the principal residence of the borrower. The borrower may retain the loan if the residential real property ceases to be the principal residence. However, any subsequent renewal or renegotiation of the original terms of such a loan must meet the requirements of this paragraph;
(B)The borrower may not apply for the loan while the covered employee participates in any examination, the review of any application, or any other supervisory or regulatory or other particular matter directly affecting the State nonmember bank or its subsidiaries;
(C)The borrower must satisfy all financial requirements for the loan that are generally applicable to all applicants for the same type of residential real property loan; and
(D)The terms and conditions applicable with respect to the loan and any credit extended to the borrower under the loan are no more favorable generally to the borrower than the terms and conditions that are generally applicable to residential real property loans offered by the same State nonmember bank or the same subsidiary to other borrowers in comparable circumstances for residential real property loans.
(3)*Disqualification of covered employees.* A covered employee shall not participate in an examination, audit, visitation, review, or investigation, or other particular matter involving an FDIC-insured depository institution or other person with whom the covered employee has an outstanding extension of credit, or with whom the covered employee is negotiating an extension of credit. *(i) Payment dispute, delinquency, or other significant matter concerning credit card debt.* Disqualification is not required if the credit is extended through the use of a credit card. However, disqualification will be required when a covered employee is delinquent on payments, has a billing dispute, is negotiating with the institution, or has any other significant issue regarding the credit card debt. The covered employee must notify his or her supervisor and deputy ethics counselor of a dispute in writing. *(ii) Primary residence mortgage loan.* Disqualification will be required if the covered employee is negotiating for, has an application pending for, or enters into a primary residence mortgage loan. This disqualification will cease when the loan is sold, even if the loan originator retains the loan servicing.
(4)*Other limitations on covered employees. (i)* A covered employee shall not accept or become obligated on an otherwise permissible loan if the disqualification arising from the credit relationship would materially impair the covered employee's ability to participate in matters that are central to the performance of the covered employee's official duties, or if the covered employee has been advised of an assignment to handle a matter involving that institution. ( *ii* ) Covered employees to whom the prohibitions in this section apply may not apply for a credit card or primary residence mortgage loan from a State nonmember bank or subsidiary that the covered employee is assigned to examine or participate in a matter involving that institution, or if such an assignment is imminent.
(5)*Pre-existing credit. (i)* This section does not prohibit a covered employee, or any FDIC employee who becomes a covered employee as a result of any reassignment of duties or position, from retaining a loan or extension of credit from a State nonmember bank or its subsidiary on its original terms if the loan or extension of credit was incurred prior to employment by the FDIC or as a result of the sale or transfer of a loan or credit to a State nonmember bank or its subsidiary or the conversion or merger of the lender into a State nonmember bank or its subsidiary. Any renewal or renegotiation of a pre-existing loan or extension of credit will be treated as a new loan or extension of credit subject to the prohibitions at paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) of this section. ( *ii* ) A covered employee may request that an exception be made to the prohibitions to permit renegotiation of a pre-existing loan or extension of credit. If a covered employee would experience financial or other hardship unless allowed to renegotiate a pre-existing loan or extension of credit, the covered employee may submit a written request to his or her supervisor and to the Ethics Counselor, describing the reasons for renegotiation, the original and the proposed terms and conditions, including whether the financial institution makes such terms generally available to the public, and any attempts by the covered employee to move the loan to a non-prohibited source. After consideration of the request, the covered employee's supervisor and the Ethics Counselor jointly may grant the waiver upon a finding that renegotiation is not prohibited by law, and that the waiver does not result in a loss of impartiality or objectivity or in misuse of the employee's position. To be effective, the waiver must be in writing.
(d)*Two-year prohibition on acceptance of credit from an FDIC-insured depository institution* . An FDIC employee shall not, directly or indirectly, accept or become obligated on any extension of credit from an FDIC-insured depository institution or its subsidiary for a period of two years from the date of the employee's last personal and substantial participation in an audit, resolution, liquidation, assistance transactions, supervisory proceeding, or internal agency deliberation affecting that particular institution, its predecessor or successor, or any subsidiary of such institution. This prohibition does not apply to credit obtained through the use of a credit card or a residential real property loan secured by the principal residence of the employee, subject to the same conditions, limitations, disqualification, and waiver procedures applicable to covered employees under paragraphs
(c)and
(e)of this section.
(e)*Waiver* . The Ethics Counselor may grant a written waiver from any provision of this section based on a determination made with the advice and legal clearance of the Legal Division that the waiver is not inconsistent with part 2635 of this title or otherwise prohibited by law, and that, under the particular circumstances, application of the prohibition is not necessary to avoid the appearance of misuse of position or loss of impartiality, or otherwise to ensure confidence in the impartiality and objectivity with which the FDIC's programs are administered. A waiver under this paragraph may impose appropriate conditions, such as requiring execution of a written disqualification. 4. Section 3201.103 is revised to read as follows: § 3201.103 Prohibition on acquisition, ownership, or control of securities of FDIC-insured depository institutions and certain holding companies.
(a)*Prohibition on acquisition, ownership, or control* . Except as provided in paragraph
(b)of this section, no employee, spouse of an employee, or minor child of an employee may acquire, own, or control, directly or indirectly, a security of any of the following:
(1)A bank or savings association that is insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC);
(2)A bank holding company that is subject to supervision by the Federal Reserve Board (FRB);
(3)A savings and loan holding company that is subject to supervision by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS);
(4)A financial holding company that is subject to FRB supervision; or
(5)A company that:
(i)Owns or controls an FDIC-insured bank or savings association;
(ii)Is neither an FRB-supervised bank holding company, an OTS-supervised savings and loan holding company, nor an FRB-supervised financial holding company; and
(iii)Is either primarily engaged in banking or not publicly traded on a U.S. securities exchange.
(b)*Exceptions* . Notwithstanding the prohibitions of paragraph
(a)of this section, but subject to the limitations of paragraph
(c)of this section, an employee, or the spouse or minor child of an employee, may do any or all of the following:
(1)Acquire, own, or control the securities of a unitary thrift holding company (i.e., a savings and loan holding company that is subject to OTS supervision but whose principal business is neither banking nor activities closely related to banking);
(2)Own or control a security of an entity described in paragraph
(a)of this section if the security was permitted to be retained by the employee under 12 CFR part 336 prior to May 25, 1995, was obtained prior to commencement of employment with the Corporation, or was acquired by a spouse prior to marriage to the employee;
(3)Own, or control a security of an entity described in paragraph
(a)of this section if:
(i)The security was acquired by inheritance, gift, stock-split, involuntary stock dividend, merger, acquisition, or other change in corporate ownership, exercise of preemptive right, or otherwise without specific intent to acquire the security, or, by an employee's spouse or minor child as part of a compensation package in connection with his or her employment;
(ii)The employee makes full, written disclosure on FDIC form 2410/07 to the Ethics Counselor within 30 days of the commencement of employment or the acquisition of the interest; and
(iii)The employee is disqualified in accordance with 5 CFR part 2635, subpart D, from participating in any particular matter that affects his or her financial interests, or that of his or her spouse or minor child;
(4)Acquire, own, or control an interest in a publicly traded or publicly available investment fund provided that, upon initial or subsequent investment by the employee (excluding ordinary dividend reinvestment), the fund does not have invested, or indicate in its prospectus the intent to invest, more than 30 percent of its assets in the securities of one or more entities described in paragraph
(a)of this section and the employee neither exercises control nor has the ability to exercise control over the financial interests held in the fund; and
(5)Use an FDIC-insured depository institution or an affiliate of an FDIC-insured depository institution as custodian or trustee of accounts containing tax-deferred retirement funds.
(c)*Divestiture* . Based upon a determination of substantial conflict under 5 CFR 2635.403(b), the Ethics Counselor may require an employee, or the spouse or minor child of an employee, to divest a security he or she is otherwise authorized to acquire, own, control, or use under paragraph
(b)of this section.
(d)*Waiver* . The Ethics Counselor may grant a written waiver from any provision of this section based on a determination made with the advice and legal clearance of the Legal Division that the waiver is not inconsistent with part 2635 of this title or otherwise prohibited by law, and that, under the particular circumstances, application of the prohibition is not necessary to avoid the appearance of misuse of position or loss of impartiality, or otherwise to ensure confidence in the impartiality and objectivity with which the FDIC's programs are administered. A waiver under this paragraph may impose appropriate conditions, such as requiring execution of a written disqualification. By order of the Board of Directors. Dated at Washington, DC, this 6th day of October, 2005. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary. Approved: November 27th, 2006. Robert I. Cusick, Director, Office of Government Ethics. [FR Doc. E6-20400 Filed 11-28-06; 4:06 pm] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0133] RIN 0579-AC20 Importation of Unshu Oranges From the Republic of Korea Into Alaska AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations governing the importation of citrus fruit to allow fresh Unshu oranges from the Republic of Korea to be imported into the State of Alaska under certain conditions. As a condition of entry, the oranges would have to be prepared for shipping using packinghouse procedures that include culling of damaged or diseased fruit and washing in a water bath. In addition, the oranges would have to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the oranges were inspected and found free from *Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *citri* and *Unaspis yanonensis.* The individual cartons or boxes in which the Unshu oranges are shipped would also have to be stamped or printed with a statement restricting their importation and distribution to the State of Alaska. This action would allow for the importation of Unshu oranges from the Republic of Korea into Alaska while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of quarantine pests. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before February 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0133 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0133, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0133. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alex Belano, Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, Plant Health Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-8765. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Citrus canker is a disease that affects citrus and is caused by the infectious bacterium *Xanthomonas axonopodis* (also known as *Xanthomonas campestris* pv. *citri* (Hasse) Dye and *Xanthomonas citri* ). Currently, the regulations in 7 CFR 319.28 (referred to below as the regulations) allow the importation of Unshu oranges ( *Citrus reticulata* Blanco var. *unshu* Swingle) from certain areas in the Republic of Korea (South Korea) into certain areas of the United States under a permit and after the specified safeguards of a preclearance program have been met to prevent the introduction of citrus canker. However, the importation of Unshu oranges from South Korea was administratively suspended in 2002 due to the increased number of interceptions of the causal agent of citrus canker at various packinghouses in South Korea. In 2005, the national plant protection organization
(NPPO)of South Korea requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) allow the shipment of Unshu oranges into the State of Alaska until the pest risk of citrus canker from South Korea could be adequately mitigated for the rest of the United States. As part of our evaluation of South Korea's request, we prepared a pest risk assessment
(PRA)and a risk management document. Copies of the PRA and risk management document may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov). The PRA, titled “A Qualitative Pest Risk Analysis for the Importation of Fresh Unshu Orange Fruit ( *Citrus reticulata* Blanco var. *unshu* Swingle) from the Republic of Korea into Alaska” (May 2006), evaluates the risks associated with the importation of Unshu oranges into Alaska from South Korea. The PRA and supporting documents identified 45 pests of quarantine significance associated with Unshu oranges in South Korea. However, the assessment further determined that only 2 of the 45 quarantine significant pests identified—citrus canker and the arrowhead scale *Unaspis yanonensis* Kuwana—may be reasonably expected to follow the pathway of Unshu orange shipments from South Korea. The other 43 quarantine pests have the potential to be harmful if introduced into the United States, but are not likely to follow the import pathway and therefore, were not analyzed further. Citrus canker is present in the State of Florida and occurs in Asia, Africa, Central America, the Caribbean, South America, and Oceania, and the D-strain has been reported in Mexico. It has the potential to establish itself in Plant Hardiness Zones 8 to 10. However, those zones do not occur in Alaska, so the bacterium would be unable to become established in that State. In addition, hosts of the causal agent of citrus canker, *X. axonopodis,* do not occur in Alaska. Symptomatic citrus canker diseased fruit are easily identified by the necrotic lesions on the rind of the fruit, so most infected fruit would be culled during post-harvest processing or detected through post-harvest inspection. *U. yanonensis* is a predominantly Asian species of scale insect that prefers warm, temperate climates that correspond to at least four Plant Hardiness Zones (zones 8 to 11) within the United States. Host plants grow in North America in Plant Hardiness Zones 5 to 10. However, because those zones do not occur in Alaska and because hosts of *U. yanonensis* do not occur in Alaska, it is unlikely that this insect would be able to establish itself within the State. Although *U. yanonensis* is small, careful inspection for the mobile stages of this insect by inspectors can detect it as proven by the high number of interceptions of this pest from many countries and on many commodities. Because of the lack of host material and the unsuitable climate for these pests in Alaska, the PRA concluded that the risk of establishment of these pests in Alaska is low. APHIS has determined that measures beyond standard port of entry inspection are required to mitigate the risk posed by the two plant pests. Therefore, we are proposing to require that the individual cartons or boxes in which the Unshu oranges are shipped be stamped or printed with a statement specifying that “These oranges may not be shipped to any State other than Alaska.” Based on APHIS' past experience with similar programs for limited distribution, we have concluded that it is highly unlikely that whole shipments or containers of Unshu oranges from South Korea would be moved from Alaska into other areas of the United States. Since 1995, an estimated 24 million South Korean Unshu oranges have been shipped to the United States. In that time, only one shipment of Unshu oranges was mistakenly redirected to a citrus-producing State; that shipment was immediately redirected to a non-citrus-producing State. We are also proposing to require that the Unshu oranges be prepared for shipping using packinghouse procedures that include culling damaged or diseased fruit and washing in a water bath. While the water bath is unlikely to directly kill either *X. axonopodis* or *U. yanonensis,* washing fruits may help to remove any hitchhiking pests. We would also require that each shipment of Unshu oranges be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate from the NPPO of South Korea with an additional declaration stating that the oranges were inspected and are considered to be free from *X. axonopodis* pv. *citri* . and *U. yanonensis.* Specifically listing the pests on the additional declaration would also serve to alert APHIS inspectors at the point of entry to the specific pests of concern. As with current imports of Unshu oranges from Japan, the importation of Unshu oranges from South Korea into Alaska will require a permit. We note that producers in South Korea employ a systems approach that includes additional mitigation measures. These measures include a field pest control program involving twice-yearly chemical sprays to control citrus canker, and cultural practices such as tree thinning, pruning of dead branches, and removal of injured or symptomatic fruits. These measures, while not part of the requirements proposed in this document, are routinely applied in the Unshu orange production areas and help to minimize the expression of citrus canker and the presence of symptomatic fruit in the groves during the growing season. We have determined that these proposed measures would prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. The proposed conditions described above for the importation of Unshu oranges from South Korea into Alaska would be added to the citrus fruit regulations in § 319.28 as a new paragraph (c). This proposed rule, if implemented, would not affect the provisions of § 319.28(b) regarding the importation of Unshu oranges from Cheju Island, South Korea, into any area of the United States except American Samoa, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Texas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Those provisions will remain administratively suspended. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The United States is not a commercial producer of Unshu oranges ( *Citrus reticulata* var. unshui). The United States does produce other mandarin varieties of *Citrus reticulata,* such as tangerines and Satsuma mandarins. Effects of the proposed rule on U.S. entities would depend on
(1)the substitutability in Alaska of Unshu oranges for these other mandarin varieties, and
(2)Alaska's share of the U.S. supply of the other mandarin varieties. We address these overriding issues before discussing small entities that may be affected. Unshu orange prices are higher than the prices of U.S.-grown mandarin varieties, indicating that they are not close substitutes. Retail prices of Unshu oranges are approximately $1.20 per pound, whereas other mandarin varieties, such as Satsuma, range from $0.60 to $1 per pound depending on the time of year. 1 1 Information on retail prices of Unshu oranges provided by Jerry Kraft of The Oppenheimer Group, the sole importer of Unshu oranges from Japan. Regarding the second issue, only mandarin varieties marketed in Alaska could be directly affected by the proposed rule. We do not know the quantities of these varieties consumed in Alaska, but can reasonably assume the amounts to be relatively small compared to consumption in the rest of the United States. In addition, Unshu oranges are imported only 2 weeks of the year, with a shipping season beginning in mid-to late November or early December. On top of Unshu oranges and U.S.-grown mandarin varieties not being close substitutes and the relatively short shipping season, the relative small size of the Alaska market for U.S. producers would also tend to minimize possible effects of the rule for them. Clearly, the effects of the proposed rule with respect to Alaska's broadly defined demand for all mandarin varieties are most likely to be very limited. Rather, we expect reestablished imports from Korea to compete for a share of Alaska's Unshu orange market, with the main effects being on imports into Alaska from Japan. Prior to the administrative suspension in 2002, Korea and Japan were principal suppliers of Unshu oranges to the United States. It is estimated that Alaska consumes approximately 30 percent of the Unshu oranges imported from Japan. Quantities of Unshu oranges imported from Korea and Japan, 1995 to 2005, are shown in table 1. Table 1.—Unshu Orange Imports by the United States From Korea and Japan, 1995-2005 Year Korea Japan Metric tons 1995 50 231 1996 220 160 1997 1,190 143 1998 40 223 1999 380 342 2000 240 106 2001 1,434 291 2002 1,601 ( 1 ) 2003 275 2004 271 2005 256 Source: USDA, APHIS, International Services. 1 In 2002, we amended the regulations to allow Unshu oranges from Honshu Island, Japan, to be imported into the previously prohibited citrus-producing States of Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, and Texas. That same rule imposed a fumigation requirement for all Unshu oranges from Honshu Island, which seriously curtailed the market for that fruit in non-citrus producing States. As a result, there were no exports of Unshu oranges from Japan to the United States in 2002. We subsequently amended the regulations to apply the fumigation requirement only to fruit bound for citrus-producing States, and exports resumed in 2003. Unshu orange imports from Japan between 1995 and 2005 averaged 238 metric tons per year. 2 Average imports of Unshu oranges from Korea between 1995 and 2002 were 644 metric tons per year, with significant year-to-year fluctuations and the average for 2001 and 2002 jumping to 1,518 metric tons. Imports of Unshu oranges from Japan have maintained a more steady supply, even in the more recent years during which Unshu oranges from Korea have been administratively suspended. From this data, it is not apparent that Korean supplies would significantly displace Unshu orange imports from Japan. 2 This average does not include 2002, since it is likely that Japan would have exported Unshu oranges to the United States in that year if the fumigation requirement described under Table 1 had not been in place. According to the pest risk assessment prepared for this rulemaking, the quantity of Unshu oranges that would be imported from Korea into Alaska each year is estimated to be between 200 and 2,000 metric tons (440,925 and 4,409,245 pounds), based on projected imports of between 10 and 100 standard 40-foot containers. 3 The lower end of this range of imports would be comparable to recent import levels from Japan. Based upon the past shipments detailed in Table 1, we anticipate that imports of Unshu oranges from Korea would not exceed 75 containers (1,500 metric tons) per annum. The historical import data detailed in Table 1 suggest that Korean supplies would not significantly displace Japanese Unshu oranges on the Alaskan market. 3 USDA, APHIS, PPQ-CHPST, “A Qualitative Pest Risk Analysis for the Importation of Fresh Unshu Orange Fruit ( *Citrus reticulate* Blanco var. *unshu* Swingle) from the Republic of Korea,” May 25, 2006, pg 33. Our expectation is that the proposed rule would have little effect on U.S. producers of mandarin varieties such as tangerines and Satsumas. Any impact for these producers would be small, given that the various mandarin varieties do not appear to be close substitutes for Unshu oranges. Moreover, only sales to Alaska would be affected. However, recognizing that our information for determining possible effects of the proposed rule is incomplete, we present here data on U.S. tangerine trade and production. The United States is a net importer of mandarins (including Satsumas and tangerines). In 2005, the United States imported 209.4 million pounds of mandarins (including Satsumas and tangerines) with approximately 91 percent arriving from Spain. In that same year, the United States exported approximately 48.1 million pounds of mandarins (including Satsumas and tangerines). Canada is the largest importer of U.S. fresh mandarins, accounting for 52 percent of U.S. exports. The second and third largest importers of U.S. mandarins are South Korea and Japan, accounting for approximately 38 and 6 percent of exports, respectively. 4 U.S. imports of tangerines experienced an average increase of 17.8 percent annually over the last decade while exports have increased an average of 5.9 percent. 5 Domestic production accounted for approximately 80 percent of domestic fresh consumption in 2005. 6 The United States relies on imports of mandarins to supplement domestic production in satisfying domestic demand. Fresh utilization of U.S. mandarin and tangerine production only accounts, on average, for 70 percent of total utilized production annually. 7 U.S. grower revenue from fresh tangerine production in 2004-05 was approximately $107.4 million. 8 4 Source: Global Trade Atlas. 5 Source: USDA, FAS, PS&D Online. “Fresh Tangerines: Production, Supply and Distribution in Selected Countries,” *http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdDownload.aspx.* 6 The proportion of domestic fresh consumption attributed to U.S. production is production less exports and processed utilization. Data Source: USDA ERS Briefing Room, Fruit and Tree Nut Yearbook, 2005. 7 USDA, ERS Briefing Room, *Fruit and Tree Nut Yearbook,* 2005. 8 Florida Agricultural Statistic Service (FASS), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), USDA, “Citrus Summary 2004-05,” February 2006. U.S. tangerine production, imports, and domestic supplies are shown on table 2. Net imports were 20 percent of domestic supply in 2004 to 2005. Table 2.—U.S. Fresh Tangerine Production and Importation, Seasons 1999-00 Through 2004-05 Year Production a Net imports G b Supply G c Metric tons 1999-00 298,464 68,185 366,649 2000-01 266,712 85,728 352,440 2001-02 296,649 37,261 333,910 2002-03 289,392 69,164 358,556 2003-04 295,742 72,753 368,495 2004-05 254,919 63,944 318,863 Data Source: USDA/ERS Briefing Room, *Fruit and Tree Nut Yearbook,* 2005. a Excludes processed fruit. b Net imports are imports minus exports. c U.S. production (excluding processed utilization) plus net imports. The small business size standard for tangerine groves, as identified by the Small Business Administration
(SBA)based upon the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 111320, is $750,000 or less in annual receipts. 9 9 Based upon 2002 Census of Agriculture, State Data and the “Small Business Size Standards by NAICS Industry,” Code of Federal Regulations, Title 13, Chapter 1. While available data do not provide the size distribution of U.S. tangerine farms by annual receipts, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of the operations are small businesses by SBA standards. 10 According to the *2002 Census of Agriculture* data, there were a total of 1,731 tangerine operations in the United States in 2002. 11 It is estimated that approximately 93 percent of all citrus-producing farms had annual sales in 2002 of $500,000 or less. 10 Based upon 2002 Census of Agriculture, State Data. 11 The number of tangerine farms in the United States, as reported by the 2002 *Census of Agriculture,* includes operations that produced tangerines for processed utilization. If Unshu oranges and U.S.-grown mandarin varieties were close substitutes, then U.S. entities could be affected to the extent that Unshu orange imports from Korea would displace sales in Alaska of the U.S.-grown mandarin varieties. Small entities would be affected, since they comprise a substantial number of the producers of mandarin varieties, as indicated by the data on tangerine operations. However, even if all Unshu orange imports from Korea were to directly replace consumption of U.S.-grown tangerines in Alaska, the effect on U.S. producers would be very minor. Under such a scenario, annual imports of Unshu oranges from Korea of 2,000 metric tons (the upper limit of the projected range of imports), would displace less than 1 percent of fresh tangerines produced by U.S. operations in 2004-05. We emphasize that even a small impact for U.S. producers such as this is highly unlikely. We expect that any product displacement that may occur as a result of the proposed changes would be borne by other foreign suppliers of Unshu oranges, in particular Japan's exporters. However, we do not expect any significant product displacement as a result of Korean supplies. Alaska's Unshu orange consumers may benefit to the extent that the competition results in price declines. Based on the information we have at this time, we expect the benefits of allowing the importation of Unshu oranges from South Korea into Alaska would outweigh any expected costs to domestic small entities. We welcome public comment that would improve our understanding of possible effects of the proposed rule for U.S. small entities. An alternative to this proposed rule would be to continue with the 2002 administrative suspension of the importation of Unshu oranges from Korea into all parts of the United States, including Alaska. Continuing the suspension of Korean Unshu orange imports into Alaska is not a satisfactory alternative to the proposed rule. Specified mitigation measures would ensure a low risk of introduction of citrus canker and Diaspidad scale into the United States. Resumption of imports would reestablish competition with Japanese suppliers, benefitting U.S. consumers but with little if any expected effect on U.S. producers. Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule would allow fresh Unshu oranges to be imported into the United States from South Korea. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh Unshu oranges imported under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0133. Please send a copy of your comments to:
(1)Docket No. APHIS-2006-0133, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and
(2)Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this proposed rule. APHIS is proposing to amend the regulations governing the importation of citrus fruit to allow fresh Unshu oranges from the Republic of Korea to be imported into the State of Alaska under certain conditions. As a condition of entry, the oranges would have to be prepared for shipping using packinghouse procedures that include culling of damaged or diseased fruit and washing in a water bath. In addition, the oranges would have to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the oranges were inspected and found free from *Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *citri* and *Unaspis yanonensis.* The individual cartons or boxes in which the Unshu oranges are shipped would also have to be stamped or printed with a statement restricting their importation and distribution to the State of Alaska. This action would allow for the importation of Unshu oranges from the Republic of Korea into Alaska while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of quarantine pests. APHIS is asking Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve its use of this information collection activity, associated with its efforts to prevent the spread of plant pests and plant diseases into the United States. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning this information collection activity. APHIS needs this outside input to help accomplish the following: We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1)Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses). *Estimate of burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.0056932 hours per response. *Respondents:* Importers of Unshu Oranges, NPPO's. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 10. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 544.5. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 5,445. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 31 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. E-Government Act Compliance The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. List of Subjects in 7 CFR 319 Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables. Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows: PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 would continue to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 2. Section 319.28 would be amended as follows: a. By redesignating paragraphs
(c)through
(i)as paragraphs
(d)through (j), respectively. b. By adding a new paragraph
(c)to read as set forth below. c. By revising newly redesignated paragraph
(f)to read as set forth below. § 319.28 Notice of quarantine.
(c)The prohibition does not apply to Unshu oranges ( *Citrus reticulata* Blanco var. *unshu* , Swingle [ *Citrus unshiu* Marcovitch, Tanaka]), also known as Satsuma mandarin, grown in the Republic of Korea and imported under permit into the State of Alaska under the following conditions:
(1)The Unshu oranges must be prepared for shipping using packinghouse procedures that include culling damaged or diseased fruit and washing in a water bath.
(2)Each shipment of Unshu oranges must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate from the national plant protection organization of the Republic of Korea bearing the following additional declaration: “These oranges were inspected and are considered to be free from citrus canker ( *Xanthomonas* *axonopodis* pv. *citri* ) and arrowhead scale ( *Unaspis yanonensis* ).
(3)The individual boxes in which the oranges are shipped must be stamped or printed with the following: “These oranges may not be shipped to any State other than Alaska.”
(f)Importations allowed in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and
(e)of this section shall be subject to the permit and other requirements under the regulations in Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables §§ 319.56 through 319.56-8). Done in Washington, DC, this 28th day of November 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-20422 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs 25 CFR Part 292 RIN 1076-AE81 Gaming on Trust Lands Acquired After October 17, 1988 AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period and correction. SUMMARY: This document extends the comment period for the proposed rule published on Thursday, October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58769), which establishes procedures that an Indian tribe must follow in seeking to conduct gaming on lands acquired after October 17, 1988. This document also contains corrections to the proposed rule. The regulation relates to gaming on trust lands acquired after October 17, 1988. DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 19, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the number 1076-AE-81, by any of the following methods: • *Federal rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-273-3153. • *Mail:* Mr. George Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming Management, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, 1849 C Street, NW., Mail Stop 3657-MIB, Washington, DC 20240. • *Hand delivery:* Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, 1849 C Street, NW., Room 3657-MIB, Washington, DC, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Comments on the information collection in this rule are separate from comments on the rule. If you wish to comment on the information collection, you may send a facsimile to
(202)395-6566. You may also e-mail comments to: *OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming Management,
(202)219-4066. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bureau of Indian Affairs proposes to establish procedures that an Indian tribe must follow in seeking to conduct gaming on lands acquired after October 17, 1988. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act allows Indian tribes to conduct class II and class III gaming activities on land acquired after October 17, 1988, only if the land meets certain exceptions. This proposed rule establishes a process for submitting and considering applications from Indian tribes seeking to conduct class II or class III gaming activities on lands acquired in trust after October 17, 1988. Correction In the issue of October 5, 2006, on page 58773, in the second column, paragraphs (a)(2) and
(b)introductory text of § 292.5 are corrected to read as follows: § 292.5 What must be demonstrated to meet the “settlement of a land claim” exception?
(a)* * *
(2)Is included on the Department's list of potential pre-1966 claims published under the Indian Claims Limitation Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-394, 28 U.S.C. 2415).
(b)To be eligible under this section, land must be covered by a settlement that either: Dated: November 29, 2006. Michael D. Olsen, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. [FR Doc. E6-20494 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 301 [REG-103039-05] RIN 1545-BE26 AJCA Modifications to the Section 6111 Regulations; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations that were published in the **Federal Register** on Thursday, November 2, 2006 (71 FR 64496) relating to the disclosure of reportable transactions by material advisors. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara P. Volungis or Charles Wien, 202-622-3070 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-103039-05) that is the subject of this correction is under sections 6111 and 6112 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-103039-05) contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-103039-05) that was the subject of FR Doc. E6-18321 is corrected as follows: § 301.6111-3 [Corrected] On page 64499, column 1, § 301.6111-3(b)(2)(ii)(B), first paragraph of the column, lines 4 and 5, the language “disclosure of the tax structure or tax aspects of the transaction is limited in” is corrected to read “disclosure of the tax treatment or tax structure of the transaction is limited in”. La Nita VanDyke, Branch Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E6-20382 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 33 CFR Part 401 [Docket No. SLSDC 2006-26397] RIN 2135-AA24 Seaway Regulations and Rules: Periodic Update, Various Categories AGENCY: Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC is amending the joint regulations by updating the Seaway Regulations and Rules in various categories. The proposed changes will update the following sections of the Regulation and Rules: Condition of Vessels; Preclearance and Security for Tolls; Seaway Navigation; Dangerous Cargo; and, General. These proposed amendments are necessary to take account of updated procedures and will enhance the safety of transits through the Seaway. Several of the proposed amendments are merely editorial or for clarification of existing requirements. DATES: Any party wishing to present views on the proposed amendment may file comments with the Corporation on or before January 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number SLSDC 2006-26397] by any of the following methods: • *Web site:* *http://dms.dot.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number
(RIN)for this rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under *Regulatory Notices* . *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig H. Middlebrook, Acting Chief Counsel, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590,
(202)366-0091. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC is proposing to amend the joint regulations by updating the Regulations and Rules in various categories. The proposed changes would update the following sections of the Regulations and Rules: Condition of Vessels; Preclearance and Security for Tolls; Seaway Navigation; Dangerous Cargo; and, General. These updates are necessary to take account of updated procedures which will enhance the safety of transits through the Seaway. Many of these proposed changes are to clarify existing requirements in the regulations. Where new requirements or regulations are being proposed, an explanation for such a change is provided below. *Regulatory Notices:* *Privacy Act:* Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . The SLSDC is proposing to make one clarification to the Interpretation section of the joint Seaway regulations. Under Section 401.2, “Interpretation', after the definition of Seaway station, the SLSDC is proposing to add a reference to section 401.62, “Seaway stations” for a list and location of the specific Seaway stations. In terms of Notice and Arrival requirements for vessels transiting the Seaway pursuant to section 401.79, “Advance notice of arrival, vessels requiring inspection”, there has been some confusion regarding the location of the nearest Seaway station. Inserting a reference to the list of Seaway Stations in the definition would aid in clarifying the location to which a vessel must provide its 96 hours notice of arrival. The SLSDC is proposing to make two amendments to the joint regulations pertaining to the Condition of Vessels. Under section 401.8, “Landing booms”, the SLSDC is proposing to require vessels that are equipped with landing booms, but not using them, to use the Seaway's tie-up service at approach walls. This proposed amendment will clarify which vessels are required to use the Seaway's tie-up service. Under section 401.12, “Minimum requirements—mooring lines and fairleads”, the SLSDC is proposing to provide flexibility to Seaway ship inspectors' ability to require an alternate mooring arrangement when a vessel cannot comply with the Seaway regulation due to design or other factors. Two amendments to the joint regulations regarding Preclearance and Security for Tolls are proposed. The proposed amendment to section 401.22, “Preclearance of vessels”, would provide flexibility to an officer to preclear a vessel, such as a large private yacht or “Tall Ship” that would not be able to moor at the pleasure craft docks because of its unusual design and requirements for inspection. Section 401.24, “Application for Preclearance”, is being revised to eliminate the requirement that a representative of a vessel must submit 3 copies of a preclearance form since the Manager no longer issues 3 copies of the form. The SLSDC is proposing two amendments to the joint regulations pertaining to Seaway Navigation. Under section 401.40, “Entering a lock”, the SLSDC is proposing to rename the section and add language to make it clear that no vessel shall exit a lock in a manner that results in the stern passing the stop symbol on the lock wall nearest the closed gates. There have been instances in which vessels, when required to maintain position in a lock or upon entering or departing a lock, have drifted astern resulting in damage to Seaway property. This amendment would require a vessel entering, exiting or maintaining its position in a lock to adhere to firmly established Seaway procedures. Under section 401.58, “Pleasure craft scheduling”, language is proposed to clarify that the requirement to use the automated ticket dispensers only applies to vessels transiting Canadian locks since there are no automated ticket dispensers at the U.S. locks. The SLSDC is proposing to make several clarifying/editorial changes in the joint Seaway regulations pertaining to Dangerous Cargo. Proposed language throughout the following sections: 401.68, “Explosives Permission Letter”; 401.70, “Fendering—explosive and hazardous cargo vessels”; and, 401.72, “Reporting—explosive and hazardous cargo vessels”, would clarify that the Seaway(s) issue Seaway Explosives Permission Letters rather than permits. In the regulations pertaining to general requirements, the SLSDC proposes one amendment. Under section 401.93, “Access to Seaway property,” the word “swim “ would be removed in order to clarify that a person may not enter any Seaway canal or lock area regardless of the method of entry. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and therefore Executive Order 12866 does not apply and evaluation under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures is not required. Regulatory Flexibility Act Determination I certify this proposed regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules primarily relate to commercial users of the Seaway, the vast majority of whom are foreign vessel operators. Therefore, any resulting costs will be borne mostly by foreign vessels. Environmental Impact This proposed regulation does not require an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (49 U.S.C. 4321, *et reg.* ) because it is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Federalism The Corporation has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and has determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant a Federalism Assessment. Unfunded Mandates The Corporation has analyzed this proposed rule under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) and determined that it does not impose unfunded mandates on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector requiring a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed regulation has been analyzed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Office of Management and Budget review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 401 Hazardous materials transportation, Navigation (water), Penalties, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Waterways. Accordingly, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation proposes to amend 33 CFR Part 401, Regulations and Rules, as follows: PART 401—SEAWAY REGULATIONS AND RULES Subpart A—Regulations 1. The authority citation for subpart A of part 401 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 983(a) and 984(a)(4), as amended; 49 CFR 1.52, unless otherwise noted. 2. In § 401.2 paragraph
(k)would be revised to read as follows: § 401.2 Interpretation.
(k)*Seaway Station* means a radio station operated by the Corporation or the Manager. ( *See* 401.62. Seaway Stations for the list and location of stations). 3. In § 401.8 paragraph
(c)would be revised to read as follows: § 401.8 Landing booms.
(c)Vessels not equipped with or not using landing booms must use the Seaway's tie-up service at approach walls. 4. Section 401.12 paragraph
(a)introductory text would be revised to read as follows: § 401.12 Minimum requirements—mooring lines and fairleads.
(a)Minimum requirements in respect of mooring lines, which shall be available for securing on either side of the vessel, winches, and the location of fairleads on vessels are as follows unless otherwise permitted by the officer: 5. In § 401.22 paragraph
(c)would be revised to read as follows: § 401.22 Preclearance of vessels.
(c)A non-commercial vessel of 300 gross registered tonnage or less cannot apply for preclearance status and must transit as a pleasure craft unless otherwise permitted by an officer. 6. § 401.24 will be revised as follows: § 401.24 Application for preclearance. The representative of a vessel may, on a preclearance form obtained from the Manager, St. Lambert, Quebec, or downloaded from the St. Lawrence Seaway Web site at *http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com* , apply for preclearance, giving particulars of the ownership, liability insurance and physical characteristics of the vessel and guaranteeing payment of the fees that may be incurred by the vessel. 7. In § 401.40 the section heading will be revised, paragraphs
(b)and
(c)will be redesignated as paragraphs
(c)and (d), respectively, and a new paragraph
(b)will be added to read as follows: § 401.40 Entering, Exiting or Position in a Lock.
(b)No vessel shall depart a lock in such a manner that the stern passes the stop symbol on the lock wall nearest the closed gates. 8. In § 401.58 paragraph
(b)is revised to read as follows: § 401.58 Pleasure craft scheduling.
(b)Every pleasure craft seeking to transit Canadian Locks shall stop at a pleasure craft dock and arrange for transit by contacting the lock personnel using the direct-line phone and make the lockage fee payment by purchasing a ticket using the automated ticket dispensers. 9. In § 401.68, the section heading and paragraphs
(a)introductory text, (b), (c), and
(d)are revised to read as follows: § 401.68 Explosives Permission Letter.
(a)A Seaway Explosives Permission Letter is required for an explosive vessel in the following cases:
(b)When an explosive vessel is carrying quantities of explosives above the maximum mentioned in paragraph (a), no Seaway Explosives Permission Letter shall be granted and the vessel shall not transit.
(c)A written application for a Seaway Explosives Permission Letter certifying that the cargo is packed, marked, and stowed in accordance with the Canadian Regulations respecting the Carriage of Dangerous Goods, the United States Regulations under the Dangerous Cargo Act and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code may be made to the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, P.O. Box 520, Massena, New York 13662 or to the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, 202 Pitt Street, Cornwall, Ontario, K6J 3P7.
(d)A signed copy of a Seaway Explosives Permission Letter and a true copy of any certificate as to the loading of dangerous cargo shall be kept on board every explosive vessel in transit and shall be made available to any officer requiring production of such copies. 10. § 401.70 will be revised to read as follows: § 401.70 Fendering—explosive and hazardous cargo vessels. All explosive vessels requiring a Seaway Explosives Permission Letter in accordance with § 401.68 and all tankers carrying cargo with a flashpoint of up to 61 °C, except those carrying such cargo in center tanks with gas free wing tanks, shall be equipped with a sufficient number of non-metallic fenders on each side to prevent any metallic part of the vessel from touching the side of a dock or lock wall. 11. In § 401.72 paragraph
(b)will be revised to read as follows: § 401.72 Reporting—explosive and hazardous cargo vessels.
(b)Every explosive vessel requiring a Seaway Explosives Permission Letter shall, when reporting in, give the number of its Seaway Explosives Permission Letter. 12. In § 401.93 paragraph
(b)will be revised to read as follows: § 401.93 Access to Seaway property.
(b)Except as authorized by an officer or by the Seaway Property Regulations or its successors, no person shall enter upon any land or structure of the Manager or the Corporation or in any Seaway canal or lock area. Issued at Washington, DC on November 27, 2006. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. Collister, Johnson, Jr., Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-20371 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-61-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0883; FRL-8251-1] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the state of Missouri for the inclusion of revisions to the Construction Permit Exemptions rule. The Construction Permit Exemptions rule lists specific construction or modification projects that are not required to obtain permits to construct under the Construction Permits Required rule. Revisions to this rule include updating the insignificance levels used for construction permit exemptions, adding a new exemption for manufacturing operations, which produce insignificant emissions, clarifying the grain handling facilities exemption, and restructuring of the record keeping portion of the rule. Missouri developed the revisions to this rule under two separate state rulemaking processes. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by January 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0883 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail:* *algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail:* Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at
(913)551-7942, or by e-mail at *algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: November 17, 2006. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. E6-20434 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0925; FRL-8250-8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the state of Missouri. This revision pertains to Grossman Iron and Steel's Source Registration Permit, number SR00.045A. This permit, issued by the City of St. Louis, will control particulate matter (PM <sup>10</sup> ) emissions from Grossman Iron and Steel Company. This proposed approval will make the permit Federally enforceable. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by January 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0925 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail:* *algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail:* Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at
(913)551-7942, or by e-mail at *algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: November 24, 2006. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. E6-20432 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 229 [Docket No. 061106290-6290-01, I.D. 101706C] RIN 0648-AV01 List of Fisheries for 2007 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)is publishing its proposed List of Fisheries
(LOF)for 2007, as required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The proposed LOF for 2007 reflects new information on interactions between commercial fisheries and marine mammals. NMFS must categorize each commercial fishery on the LOF into one of three categories under the MMPA based upon the level of serious injury and mortality of marine mammals that occurs incidental to each fishery. The categorization of a fishery in the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery are subject to certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan requirements. DATES: Comments must be received by January 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation Division, Attn: List of Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Comments may also be sent via email to *2007LOF.comments@noaa.gov* or to the Federal eRulemaking portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* (follow instructions for submitting comments). Comments regarding the burden-hour estimates, or any other aspect of the collection of information requirements contained in this proposed rule, should be submitted in writing to Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and to David Rostker, OMB, by fax to 202-395-7285 or by email to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for a listing of all Regional offices. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Andersen, Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-2322; David Gouveia, Northeast Region, 978-281-9328; Laura Engleby, Southeast Region, 727-824-5312; Elizabeth Petras, Southwest Region, 562-980-3238; Brent Norberg, Northwest Region, 206-526-6733; Bridget Mansfield, Alaska Region, 907-586-7642; Alecia Van Atta, Pacific Islands Region, 808-973-2937. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the hearing impaired may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Availability of Published Materials Information regarding the LOF and the Marine Mammal Authorization Program, including registration procedures and forms, current and past LOFs, observer requirements, and marine mammal injury/mortality reporting forms and submittal procedures, may be obtained at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/mmap* , or from any NMFS Regional Office at the addresses listed below. Regional Offices NMFS, Northeast Region, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298, Attn: Marcia Hobbs; NMFS, Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, Attn: Teletha Mincey; NMFS, Southwest Region, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, Attn: Lyle Enriquez; NMFS, Northwest Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115, Attn: Permits Office; NMFS, Alaska Region, Protected Resources, P.O. Box 22668, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK 99802; or NMFS, Pacific Islands Region, Protected Resources, 1601 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 1100, Honolulu, HI, 96814-4700. What is the List of Fisheries? Section 118 of the MMPA requires NMFS to place all U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three categories based on the level of incidental serious injury and mortality of marine mammals occurring in each fishery (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(1)). The categorization of a fishery in the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery may be required to comply with certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan requirements. NMFS must reexamine the LOF annually, considering new information in the Stock Assessment Reports and other relevant sources and publish in the **Federal Register** any necessary changes to the LOF after notice and opportunity for public comment (16 U.S.C. 1387 (c)(1)(c)). How Does NMFS Determine in which Category a Fishery is Placed? The definitions for the fishery classification criteria can be found in the implementing regulations for section 118 of the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2). The criteria are also summarized here. Fishery Classification Criteria The fishery classification criteria consist of a two-tiered, stock-specific approach that first addresses the total impact of all fisheries on each marine mammal stock, and then addresses the impact of individual fisheries on each stock. This approach is based on consideration of the rate, in numbers of animals per year, of incidental mortalities and serious injuries of marine mammals due to commercial fishing operations relative to the potential biological removal
(PBR)level for each marine mammal stock. The MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362 (20)) defines the PBR level as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population. This definition can also be found in the implementing regulations for section 118 of the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2). *Tier 1:* If the total annual mortality and serious injury of a marine mammal stock, across all fisheries, is less than or equal to 10 percent of the PBR level of the stock, all fisheries interacting with the stock would be placed in Category III (unless those fisheries interact with other stock(s) in which total annual mortality and serious injury is greater than 10 percent of PBR). Otherwise, these fisheries are subject to the next tier (Tier 2) of analysis to determine their classification. *Tier 2, Category I:* Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than or equal to 50 percent of the PBR level. *Tier 2, Category II:* Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent of the PBR level. *Tier 2, Category III:* Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is less than or equal to 1 percent of the PBR level. While Tier 1 considers the cumulative fishery mortality and serious injury for a particular stock, Tier 2 considers fishery-specific mortality and serious injury for a particular stock. Additional details regarding how the categories were determined are provided in the preamble to the final rule implementing section 118 of the MMPA (60 FR 45086, August 30, 1995). Since fisheries are categorized on a per-stock basis, a fishery may qualify as one Category for one marine mammal stock and another Category for a different marine mammal stock. A fishery is typically categorized on the LOF at its highest level of classification (e.g., a fishery qualifying for Category III for one marine mammal stock and for Category II for another marine mammal stock will be listed under Category II). Other Criteria That May Be Considered In the absence of reliable information indicating the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals by a commercial fishery, NMFS will determine whether the incidental serious injury or mortality qualifies for Category II by evaluating other factors such as fishing techniques, gear used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports, stranding data, and the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area, or at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (50 CFR 229.2). How Does NMFS Determine which Species or Stocks are Included as Incidentally Killed or Seriously Injured in a Fishery? The LOF includes a list of marine mammal species or stocks incidentally killed or seriously injured in each commercial fishery, based on the level of serious injury or mortality in each fishery relative to the PBR level for each stock. To determine which species or stocks are included as incidentally killed or seriously injured in a fishery, NMFS annually reviews the information presented in the current marine mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SARs). The SARs are based upon the best available scientific information and provide the most current and inclusive information on each stock′s PBR level and level of mortality or serious injury incidental to commercial fishing operations. NMFS also reviews other sources of new information, including observer data, stranding data and fisher self-reports. In the absence of reliable information on the level of mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal stock, or insufficient observer data, NMFS will determine whether a species or stock should be added to, or deleted from, the list by considering other factors such as: changes in gear types used, increases or decreases in fishing effort, increases or decreases in the level of observer coverage, and/or changes in fishery management that are expected to lead to decreases in interactions with a given marine mammal stock (such as a Fishery Management Plan [FMP] or a Take Reduction Plan [TRP]). NMFS will provide case specific justification in the LOF for changes to the list of species or stocks incidentally killed or seriously injured. How do I Determine the Level of Observer Coverage in a Fishery? Data obtained from observers and the level of observer coverage are important tools in estimating the level of marine mammal mortality and serious injury in commercial fishing operations. The best available information on the level of observer coverage, and the spatial and temporal distribution of observed marine mammal interactions, is presented in the SARs. Starting in 2005, each SAR includes an appendix with detailed descriptions of each Category I and II fishery on the LOF. The SARs generally do not provide detailed information on observer coverage in Category III fisheries because Category III fisheries are not required to accommodate observers aboard vessels due to the remote likelihood of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. Information presented in the SARs′ appendices include: level of observer coverage, target species, levels of fishing effort, spatial and temporal distribution of fishing effort, gear characteristics, management and regulations, and protected species interactions. NMFS refers readers to the SARs for the most current information on the level of observer coverage for each fishery. Copies of the SARs are available on the NMFS Office of Protected Resource's Web site at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/* . Additional information on observer coverage in commercial fisheries can be found on the National Observer Program's website: *http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st4/nop/* . How Do I Find Out if a Specific Fishery is in Category I, II, or III? This proposed rule includes two tables that list all U.S. commercial fisheries by LOF Category. Table 1 lists all of the fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (including Alaska). Table 2 lists all of the fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. Am I Required to Register Under the MMPA? Owners of vessels or gear engaging in a Category I or II fishery are required under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(2)), as described in 50 CFR 229.4, to register with NMFS and obtain a marine mammal authorization from NMFS in order to lawfully incidentally take a marine mammal in a commercial fishery. Owners of vessels or gear engaged in a Category III fishery are not required to register with NMFS or obtain a marine mammal authorization. How Do I Register? Vessel or gear owners must register with the Marine Mammal Authorization Program
(MMAP)by contacting the relevant NMFS Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ) unless they participate in a fishery that has an integrated registration program (described below). Upon receipt of a completed registration, NMFS will issue vessel or gear owners an authorization certificate. The authorization certificate, or a copy, must be on board the vessel while it is operating in a Category I or II fishery, or for non-vessel fisheries, in the possession of the person in charge of the fishing operation (50 CFR 229.4(e)). What is the Process for Registering in an Integrated Fishery? For some fisheries, NMFS has integrated the MMPA registration process with existing state and Federal fishery license, registration, or permit systems. Participants in these fisheries are automatically registered under the MMPA and are not required to submit registration or renewal materials or pay the $25 registration fee. The following section indicates which fisheries are integrated fisheries and has a summary of the integration process for each Region. Vessel or gear owners who operate in an integrated fishery and have not received an authorization certificate by January 1 of each new year or with renewed state fishing licenses (as in Washington and Oregon) must contact their NMFS Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ). Although efforts are made to limit the issuance of authorization certificates to only those vessel or gear owners that participate in Category I or II fisheries, not all state and Federal permit systems distinguish between fisheries as classified by the LOF. Therefore, some vessel or gear owners in Category III fisheries may receive authorization certificates even though they are not required for Category III fisheries. Individuals fishing in Category I and II fisheries for which no state or Federal permit is required must register with NMFS by contacting their appropriate Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ). Which Fisheries Have Integrated Registration Programs? The following fisheries have integrated registration programs under the MMPA: 1. All Alaska Category II fisheries; 2. All Washington and Oregon Category II fisheries; 3. Northeast Regional fisheries for which a state or Federal permit is required; 4. All Southeast Regional fisheries for which a Federal permit is required, as well as fisheries permitted by the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; and 5. The Hawaii Swordfish, Tuna, Billfish, Mahi Mahi, Wahoo, Oceanic Sharks Longline/Set line Fishery. How Do I Renew My Registration Under the MMPA? Vessel or gear owners that participate in fisheries that have integrated registration programs (described above) are automatically renewed and should receive an authorization certificate by January 1 of each new year, with the exception of Washington and Oregon Category II fisheries. Washington and Oregon fishers receive authorization with each renewed state fishing license, the timing of which varies based on target species. Vessel or gear owners who participate in an integrated fishery and have not received authorization certificates by January 1 or with renewed fishing licenses (Washington and Oregon) must contact the appropriate NMFS Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ). Vessel or gear owners that participate in fisheries that do not have integrated registration programs and that have previously registered in a Category I or II fishery will receive a renewal packet from the appropriate NMFS Regional Office at least 30 days prior to January 1 of each new year. It is the responsibility of the vessel or gear owner in these fisheries to complete their renewal form and return it to the appropriate NMFS Regional Office at least 30 days in advance of fishing. Individuals who have not received a renewal packet by January 1 or are registering for the first time must request a registration form from the appropriate Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ). Am I Required to Submit Reports When I Injure or Kill a Marine Mammal During the Course of Commercial Fishing Operations? In accordance with the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(e)) and 50 CFR 229.6, any vessel owner or operator, or gear owner or operator (in the case of non-vessel fisheries), participating in a Category I, II, or III fishery must report to NMFS all incidental injuries and mortalities of marine mammals that occur during commercial fishing operations. “Injury” is defined in 50 CFR 229.2 as a wound or other physical harm. In addition, any animal that ingests fishing gear or any animal that is released with fishing gear entangling, trailing, or perforating any part of the body is considered injured, regardless of the presence of any wound or other evidence of injury, and must be reported. Injury/mortality report forms and instructions for submitting forms to NMFS can be downloaded from: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/interactions/mmap_reporting_form.pdf* . Reporting requirements and procedures can be found in 50 CFR 229.6. Am I Required to Take an Observer Aboard My Vessel? Fishers participating in a Category I or II fishery are required to accommodate an observer aboard vessel(s) upon request. Observer requirements can be found in 50 CFR 229.7. Am I Required to Comply With Any Take Reduction Plan Regulations? Fishers participating in a Category I or II fishery are required to comply with any applicable take reduction plans. Take reduction plan requirements can be found at 50 CFR 229.30-34. Sources of Information Reviewed for the Proposed 2007 LOF NMFS reviewed the marine mammal incidental serious injury and mortality information presented in the SARs for all observed fisheries to determine whether changes in fishery classification were warranted. NMFS′ SARs are based on the best scientific information available at the time of preparation, including the level of serious injury and mortality of marine mammals that occurs incidental to commercial fisheries and the PBR levels of marine mammal stocks. The information contained in the SARs is reviewed by regional Scientific Review Groups
(SRGs)representing Alaska, the Pacific (including Hawaii), and the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. The SRGs were created by the MMPA to review the science that informs the SARs, and to advise NMFS on population status and trends, stock structure, uncertainties in the science, research needs, and other issues. NMFS also reviewed other sources of new information, including marine mammal stranding data, observer program data, fisher self-reports, and other information that may not be included in the SARs. The LOF for 2007 was based, among other things, on information provided in the final SARs for 1996 (63 FR 60, January 2, 1998), the final SARs for 2001 (67 FR 10671, March 8, 2002), the final SARs for 2002 (68 FR 17920, April 14, 2003), the final SARs for 2003 (69 FR 54262, September 8, 2004), the final SARs for 2004 (70 FR 35397, June 20, 2005), the final SARs for 2005 (71 FR 26340, May 4, 2006), and the draft SARs for 2006 (71 FR 42815, July 28. 2006). All SARs are available at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/* . Summary of Changes to the LOF for 2007 The following summarizes changes to the LOF in 2007 in fishery classification, fisheries listed on the LOF, the number of participants in a particular fishery, and the species and/or stocks that are incidentally killed or seriously injured in a particular fishery. The placement and definition of U.S. commercial fisheries for 2007 are identical to those provided in the LOF for 2006 with the following exceptions. Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean Fishery Classification AK Cook Inlet Salmon Set Gillnet Fishery NMFS proposes to elevate the “AK Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet fishery” from Category III to Category II based on a documented serious injury/mortality of a Central North Pacific
(CNP)humpback whale from entanglement in 2005. From 2001-2005, 17 documented serious injuries and mortalities of CNP humpback whales were directly attributable to commercial U.S. fisheries under state or Federal management. Therefore, annual average serious injury and mortality of this stock is 3.4 animals per year for the same period, or 26.36 percent of the PBR (PBR = 12.9). The single serious injury/mortality in the AK Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet fishery translates to an annual average mortality and serious injury of 0.2 animals per year, or 1.55 percent of the stock′s PBR (PBR= 12.9). Category II classification is necessary based on the mean serious injury and mortality of humpback whale
(CNP)exceeding 1 percent of its PBR. Consequently, NMFS proposes to elevate the AK Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet fishery to Category II. Addition of Fisheries to the LOF WA, OR Sardine Purse Seine Fishery NMFS proposes to add the “WA, OR sardine purse seine fishery” as a Category III fishery. This fishery has 42 participants. The 2006 LOF contains the California portion of the fishery in the Category II “CA sardine purse seine fishery” (proposed to be merged with the anchovy and mackerel portion of the “CA anchovy, mackerel, tuna purse seine fishery” to create the “CA anchovy, mackerel, sardine purse seine fishery” on the 2007 LOF). The Washington and Oregon portion of the sardine purse seine fishery should be listed separately because incidental taking of marine mammals in the this fishery has not been documented. Initially the coastwide sardine harvest guideline, distributed across the entire west coast Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), had separate allocations between the Federally managed limited entry fishery off California and the state regulated fisheries off Oregon and Washington. Observations made under the divided allocation indicated that the California portion of the fishery warranted listing as a Category II fishery, owing to rare incidental taking of California sea lions and by analogy with other Category II purse seine fisheries. However, no incidental take of marine mammals was observed in the northern portion of the fishery off Oregon and Washington. Harvest allocations for the two areas were combined in 2005, however fishing effort in the northern state-managed fishery is expected to remain limited in timing and area and the fishery should be listed separately to reflect that no incidental take has been documented. Oregon and Washington issued 26 and 16 permits, respectively, for the fishery in 2004 and the fishery is managed as a limited entry fishery. Observer coverage in the sardine purse seine fishery in the Pacific Northwest, ranging from 4 to 27 percent between 2000-2004, documented no incidental take of marine mammals off Oregon and Washington. The absence of observed serious injuries or mortalities indicates there is a remote likelihood of serious injuries or mortalities in this fishery. Therefore, NMFS proposes to add this fishery to the LOF in Category III. CA Halibut Bottom Trawl Fishery NMFS proposes to add the “CA halibut bottom trawl fishery” as a Category III fishery. There has not been a Federal observer program initiated for this fishery and there are no documented marine mammal serious injury or mortalities incidental to this fishery. The “CA halibut bottom trawl fishery” is currently an open-access fishery operating primarily outside state waters. This fishery is not part of the Federal Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), or any other FMP, and is therefore managed by the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG)in both state and Federal waters. There is limited fishing allowed between one and three miles offshore within the halibut fishing grounds between Point Arguello and Point Mugu, California. In 2006, the CDFG implemented a permit program for this fishery. Approximately 125 vessels meet the minimum criteria established by CDFG for permit but only 53 permits have been issued. CA Tuna Purse Seine Fishery See discussion below under “CA purse seine fisheries”. AK Cook Inlet Salmon Purse Seine Fishery NMFS proposes to add the “AK Cook Inlet salmon purse seine fishery” as a Category II based on a documented mortality of a Central North Pacific
(CNP)humpback whale in this fishery. The LOF has never included this fishery, although it has existed under state management for many years. This fishery has 82 participants. This oversight is likely the result of an incomplete inclusion in the LOF of AK state-managed fisheries, as well as a lack of documented serious injuries or moralities in this fishery. NMFS assumes that this humpback whale belongs to the CNP stock based on the known distribution of the this stock, and because there is no known overlap of this fishery with the Western Central North Pacific stock of humpback whales. From 2001-2005, 17 documented serious injuries and mortalities of CNP humpback whales were directly attributable to commercial U.S. fisheries under state or Federal management. Therefore, annual average serious injury and mortality of this stock is 3.4 animals per year for the same time period, or 26.36 percent of the PBR (PBR = 12.9). The single mortality in the AK Cook Inlet salmon purse seine fishery translates to an annual average mortality and serious injury of 0.2 animals per year, or 1.55 percent of the stock′s PBR. Category II classification is necessary based on the mean serious injury and mortality of CNP humpback whales exceeding 1 percent of PBR. Consequently, NMFS proposes to add the AK Cook Inlet salmon purse seine fishery to the LOF as a Category II. AK Kodiak Salmon Purse Seine Fishery NMFS proposes to add the “AK Kodiak salmon purse seine fishery” as a Category II based on a documented mortality of a CNP humpback whale in this fishery. The LOF has never included this fishery, although it has existed under state management for many years. This fishery has 370 participants. This oversight is likely the result of an incomplete inclusion in the LOF of AK state-managed fisheries, as well as a lack of documented serious injuries or moralities in this fishery. NMFS assumes that this humpback whale belongs to the CNP stock based on the known distribution of the this stock, and because there is no known overlap of this fishery with the Western Central North Pacific stock of humpback whales. From 2001-2005, 17 documented serious injuries and mortalities of CNP humpback whales were directly attributable to commercial U.S. fisheries under state or Federal management. Therefore, annual average serious injury and mortality of this stock is 3.4 animals per year for the same time period, or 26.36 percent of the PBR (PBR = 12.9). The single mortality in the AK Kodiak salmon purse seine fishery translates to an annual average mortality and serious injury of 0.2 animals per year, or 1.55 percent of the stock's PBR (PBR = 12.9). Category II classification is necessary based on the mean serious injury and mortality of CNP humpback whales exceeding 1 percent of PBR. Consequently, NMFS proposes to add the AK Kodiak salmon purse seine fishery to the LOF as a Category II. Removal of Fisheries from the LOF CA Sardine Purse Seine Fishery See discussion for “CA purse seine fisheries” under Fishery Name and Organizational Changes and Clarifications. CA Herring Purse Seine Fishery NMFS proposes to remove the “CA herring purse seine fishery”. This fishery was phased out by CDFG for biological and economic reasons. The fishery was eliminated in 1998. Fishery Name and Organizational Changes and Clarifications NMFS proposes to modify the definition of superscript
(1)in “Table 1- List of Fisheries Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean” from ”...1 fishery classified based on serious injuries and mortalities of this stock are greater than 1 percent, but less than 50 percent of the stock's PBR” to read ”... 1 fishery classified based on serious injuries and mortalities of this stock are greater than 1 percent of the stock's PBR.” The current definition only defines a stock influencing the elevation of a fishery to Category II, and not to Category I, where annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than or equal to 50 percent of the stock's PBR (August 30, 1995; 60 FR 45088). Modifying the definition by deleting ”...but less than 50 percent” allows marine mammal stocks responsible for all Category I and II fishery classifications to be evident. Hawaii Inshore Gillnet Fishery NMFS proposes to modify the name of the “Hawaii gillnet fishery” to the “Hawaii inshore gillnet fishery” to reflect the location of effort in this fishery. Hawaii Inshore Purse Seine Fishery NMFS proposes to modify the name of the “Hawaii purse seine fishery” to the “Hawaii inshore purse seine fishery” to reflect the location of effort in this fishery. CA Yellowtail, Barracuda, and White Seabass Drift Gillnet (mesh size >3.5 inches and <14 inches) Fishery NMFS proposes to modify the name of the “CA yellowtail, barracuda, white seabass, and tuna drift gillnet (mesh size >3.5 inches and <14 inches) fishery” to delete “tuna” from the title. Thus, the name should be “CA yellowtail, barracuda, and white seabass drift gillnet (mesh size >3.5 inches and <14 inches) fishery”. Targeting tuna with this type of drift gillnet was effectively prohibited with the adoption of the Highly Migratory Species
(HMS)FMP in April, 2004. The HMS FMP allows vessels with drift gillnet of less than 14 inches to land no more than 10 HMS species (including tuna and excluding swordfish) per trip. CA Purse Seine Fisheries NMFS proposes to reorganize the “CA anchovy, mackerel, tuna purse seine fishery” and the “CA sardine purse seine fishery” by moving the tuna portion into a separate fishery and combining the sardine, anchovy, and mackerel portions into one fishery. The end result is to create the “CA anchovy, mackerel, sardine purse seine fishery” and the “CA tuna purse seine fishery”. The purse seine gear used, fishing methods and areas fished to target anchovy, mackerel, and sardine are similar, and all three fish species may be taken by vessels in this fishery. Harvest of anchovy, mackerel, and sardine is managed jointly by the state of California and NMFS under the Coastal Pelagic Species
(CPS)FMP. The current fleet in the CA anchovy, mackerel, sardine purse seine fishery is approximately 100 vessels, with 61 permits issued to fish sardine. The gear used and areas fished for tuna are different than for the other three species. Harvest of tuna is managed under the Highly Migratory Species FMP. Approximately 10 vessels made tuna landings using this gear in 2005. There are no documented marine mammal mortality or serious injuries in this fishery; however, NMFS proposes to retain the CA tuna purse seine fishery as Category II by analogy with other CA purse seine fisheries. The Category II “CA squid purse seine fishery” will remain as currently listed. Although this fishery, like other fisheries targeting coastal pelagic species, is jointly managed by the state of California and NMFS under the CPS FMP, the methods used to target squid differ from those used to target other coastal pelagic species (i.e., gear is set at night with the aid of lights). Number of Vessels/Persons NMFS proposes to update the estimated number of participants in the “Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands tuna troll fishery” from 50 to 88. NMFS proposes to update the estimated number of participants in the “Guam tuna troll fishery” from 50 to 401. NMFS proposes to update the estimated number of participants in the “American Samoa longline fishery” from 138 to 60. NMFS proposes to update the estimated number of participants in the “Guam bottomfish fishery” from <50 to 200. NMFS proposes to update the estimated number of participants in the “HI Main Hawaiian Islands, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands deep sea bottomfish fishery” from 387 to 300. The waters surrounding the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), out to a distance of approximately 50 nmi from the islands, have been designated as part of the NWHI Marine National Monument by Proclamation 8031 (June 15, 2006). Proclamation 8031 limits the number of bottomfish fishery participants in the Monument to 8 commercial fishermen permitted at the time of designation to fish for certain species within particular zones in the Monument. Commercial fishing in the Monument may continue until June 15, 2011. List of Species That are Incidentally Injured or Killed CA/OR Swordfish/Thresher Shark Drift Gillnet Fishery NMFS proposes to remove the following marine mammals from the list of marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed or seriously injured in the CA/OR swordfish/thresher shark drift gillnet fishery: Baird's beaked whale (CA/OR/WA stock), bottlenose dolphin (CA/OR/WA offshore stock), Cuvier's beaked whale (CA/OR/WA stock), killer whale (Eastern North Pacific offshore stock), Mesoplodont beaked whale (CA/OR/WA stock), northern fur seal (San Miguel Island stock), pygmy sperm whale (CA/OR/WA stock), Steller sea lion (Eastern U.S. stock), and striped dolphin (CA/OR/WA stock). None of these species have been observed taken in the fishery since October 30, 1997, when regulations were published implementing the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (POCTRP). The POCTRP requires pingers (acoustic deterrent devices) be placed on drift gillnets and extenders (buoy lines) be at least 36 feet long. In addition, following notification from NMFS, vessel captains must attend skipper education workshops provided by NMFS Southwest Regional Office. Since implementation of the POCTRP, marine mammal bycatch in this fishery has declined and the species listed above have not been observed killed or seriously injured in this fishery. NMFS also proposes to change name of the humpback whale stock from “CA/OR/WA-Mexico” to “Eastern North Pacific”. The title for this stock was changed in the 2001 SAR to be consistent with stock names of other Pacific species. Due to a technical error, this change was not made to the humpback whale stock under this fishery. CA Lobster, Prawn, Shrimp, Rock Crab, Fish Pot Fishery NMFS proposes to add the humpback whale (Eastern North Pacific stock), gray whale (Eastern North Pacific stock), and harbor seal (CA stock) to the list of marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed or seriously injured in the “CA lobster, prawn, shrimp, rock crab, fish pot fishery” based upon data from the NMFS Southwest Regional Office stranding and entanglement databases. Between 2000-2005, there were 14 sightings of free swimming humpback whales, gray whales, or unidentified whales entangled in fishing gear identified as pot or trap gear. Of these sightings, 11 entanglements were identified as crab pot gear and 3 were identified as other gear types (lobster and spot prawn). In addition, the stranding database has recorded one dead gray whale, one dead harbor seal, and one dead unidentified pinniped entangled or trapped in pot or fish trap gear. Currently there are insufficient data to elevate this fishery to Category II, but NMFS will continue to monitor marine mammal interactions with pot/trap gear and revisit the fishery's classification in future LOFs. WA, OR, CA Crab Pot Fishery NMFS proposes to add the humpback whale (Eastern North Pacific) to the list of marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed or seriously injured in the “WA, OR, CA crab pot fishery” based upon data from the NMFS Southwest Regional Office stranding and entanglement databases. Between 2000-2005, there were 14 sightings of free swimming humpback whales, gray whales, or unidentified whales entangled in fishing gear identified as pot or trap gear. Of these sightings, 11 entanglements were identified as crab pot gear and 3 were identified as other gear types (lobster and spot prawn). In addition, the stranding database has recorded one dead gray whale, one dead harbor seal, and one dead unidentified pinniped entangled or trapped in pot or fish trap gear. Currently there are insufficient data to elevate this fishery to Category II, but NMFS will continue to monitor marine mammal interactions with pot/trap gear and revisit the fishery's classification in future LOFs. AK Prince William Sound Salmon Drift Gillnet Due to a typographical error in the 2006 LOF, the South Central AK stock of sea otters was inadvertently removed from the list of stocks incidentally killed or seriously injured in the “AK Prince William Sound salmon drift gillnet fishery.” NMFS proposes to correct this error and place the stock back on the list of species and stocks incidentally killed or seriously injured in this fishery. Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Fishery Classification Mid-Atlantic Mid-Water Trawl (Including Pair Trawl) Fishery NMFS proposes to downgrade the “mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl (including pair trawl) fishery” from Category I to Category II based on data presented in the draft 2006 SAR. This fishery was elevated to Category I on the 2001 LOF based on the estimated incidental serious injury and mortality of the western north Atlantic
(WNA)stock of common dolphins exceeding 50 percent of the stock's PBR during the period from 1996-1998. Based on the most recent data presented in the draft 2006 SAR, the mean serious injury and mortality of common dolphins
(WNA)in the mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl (including pair trawl) fishery was 0, or 0 percent of PBR (PBR= 1000) while the mean serious injury and mortality of white sided dolphins
(WNA)was 4.3 percent of PBR (PBR= 379). As a result, NMFS has determined that a Category I classification for the mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl fishery is no longer warranted. However, a Category II classification is necessary based on the mean serious injury and mortality of white sided dolphins
(WNA)exceeding 1 percent of its PBR. Consequently, NMFS proposes to downgrade the mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl (including pair trawl) fishery from Category I to Category II. NMFS also proposes to remove the superscript
(1)from common dolphins (WNA), long-finned pilot whales (WNA), and short-finned pilot whales
(WNA)in Table 2. The mean mortality and serious injury levels presented in the draft 2006 LOF for common dolphins
(WNA)was 0 percent of PBR, and for short-finned and long-finned pilot whales
(WNA)was 0.3 percent of PBR; therefore, serious injury and mortality of common dolphins
(WNA)and long-finned and short-finned pilot whales
(WNA)is no longer driving the categorization of this fishery. The serious injury and mortality of white-sided dolphins
(WNA)continues to drive the classification of this fishery as a Category II. Addition of Fisheries to the LOF Mid-Atlantic Flynet Fishery NMFS proposes to add the “Mid-Atlantic flynet” fishery as Category II. The flynet fishery currently operates from the Oregon Inlet to Cape Hatteras, NC between October and April, and operates in both Federal and state waters. Flynet fishing gear is characterized by high profile trawls that fish just off the bottom, targeting summer flounder, croaker, and weakfish. Flynets range from 8-12 ft (24 to 36 m) across, with wing mesh sizes of 16-64 in. (41-163 cm). Mesh size is smaller closer to the tailbag, where the mesh size is 3.5 in (9 cm) square hung. Flynet fishing is no longer permitted south of Cape Hatteras in order to protect weakfish stocks. As of 2002, there were 21 vessels utilizing flynet fishing gear. This is largely an opportunistic fishery, meaning that fishermen may have flynets on their vessels as well as other gear, and generally use them to harvest large schools of target fish. NMFS has placed observers on a voluntary basis on flynet vessels operating out of Wanchese, NC, and approximately 12 trips have been observed. Although no marine mammals have been observed incidentally seriously injured or killed, the similarity of this gear to other Category II bottom trawl fisheries warrants its classification as a Category II fishery by analogy. Fishery Name and Organizational Changes and Clarifications NMFS proposes to modify the definition of superscript (1)in Table 2, “List of Fisheries Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean” from ”...1 fishery classified based on serious injuries and mortalities of this stock are greater than 1 percent, but less than 50 percent of the stock′s PBR” to read ”...1 fishery classified based on serious injuries and mortalities of this stock are greater than 1 percent of the stock's PBR.” The current definition only defines a stock influencing the elevation of a fishery to Category II, and not to Category I, where annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery are greater than or equal to 50 percent of the stock′s PBR (60 FR 45088, August 30, 1995). Modifying the definition by deleting ”...but less than 50 percent” allows marine mammal stocks responsible for all Category I and II fishery classifications to be evident. Southeastern U.S. Atlantic Shark Gillnet Fishery NMFS proposes to clarify that fishermen in the “Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet” fishery include those using gillnets set in a sink, stab, set, strike, or drift fashion to target sharks. Traditionally, the 6 vessels considered to comprise this fishery used gillnets in either a drift or strikenet configuration. However, observers placed on various gillnet vessels in the Southeast have also documented the use of sink, stab, and set gillnets to target sharks by fishermen with a directed shark permit issued by NMFS under the FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (50 CFR 635). A more accurate estimate of the number of vessels currently targeting sharks in the Southeast using gillnets is up to 30 vessels, although the fishery is dynamic with vessels configuring their gear to target a variety of other species as well. Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico Large Pelagics Longline Fishery NMFS proposes to clarify the target species in the “Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline fishery” to also include fishermen using pelagic longlines to target or land dolphin and wahoo. Fishing for dolphin and wahoo using longline gear involves shortening the gangions (the lines that serve to attach the hook to the mainline) so that they fish closer to the surface. Observers have noted that fishermen generally modify only sections of the pelagic longline gear set to target dolphin or wahoo, with the rest of the gear configured to target swordfish, tuna, and/or sharks. The number of vessels that regularly modify sections of their gear to target dolphin and wahoo is unknown, and there is no record of any observed vessel modifying their gear to fish only for dolphin and wahoo. Although fishermen using longlines to catch dolphin or wahoo are required to be permitted under the NMFS FMP for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic in order to land these species, because they are only modifying a section of the gear to target dolphin or wahoo, they must also have a permit issued by NMFS under the FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (50 CFR 635) to land pelagic species caught on unmodified sections of the gear. For these reasons, fishing for dolphin or wahoo using pelagic longline gear is considered part of the “Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline fishery”. Northeast Sink Gillnet Fishery, Northeast Anchored Float Gillnet Fishery, and Northeast Drift Gillnet Fishery NMFS proposes to change the language defining the “Northeast sink gillnet”, the “Northeast anchored float gillnet”, and the “Northeast drift gillnet” fisheries by removing ”...from the Maine/Canada border through the waters east of 72° 30′W...” (62 FR 33, January 2, 1997) from all three fisheries descriptions and replacing this with ”...from the U.S./Canada border to Long Island, NY, at 72° 30′W. long. South to 36° 33.03′N. lat. And east to the eastern edge of the EEZ...”. This wording is more consistent with proposed management area boundaries for gillnet fisheries under the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) regulations. As the ALWTRP management areas for gillnet fisheries consider the LOF definitions, consistency between the two boundaries may reduce confusion. Northeast Sink Gillnet Fishery NMFS proposes to expand the list of target species associated with the “Northeast sink gillnet fishery”. Upon the classification of sturgeon as a prohibited species in state and Federal waters, NMFS removed the “Gulf of Maine, Southeast U.S. Atlantic coastal shad, sturgeon gillnet fishery” from the LOF. Gillnet fishing for shad in the Northeast was reorganized and recategorized into the “Northeast sink gillnet fishery”, “Northeast anchored float gillnet fishery”, and/or the “Northeast drift gillnet fishery” depending on the type of gear used (66 FR 6545, January 22, 2001). The “Offshore monkfish gillnet fishery” was also removed from the LOF in 1997 (62 FR 33, January 2, 1997) and monkfish were to be integrated into either the “Northeast sink gillnet fishery” or the “U.S. mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery” depending on where the fish were targeted. Monkfish gillnetting in the Gulf of Maine was already considered to be an extension of the “Northeast sink gillnet fishery” (60 FR 67063, December 28, 1995). NMFS has recently become aware of additional species being targeted and, therefore, proposes to expand the list of fish species to include, but not be limited to: all species defined in the Northeast Multispecies FMP (American plaice, Atlantic cod, Atlantic halibut, haddock, ocean pout, offshore hake, pollock, red hake [ling], redfish, silver hake [whiting], white hake, windowpane flounder, winter flounder, witch flounder and yellowtail flounder), as well as spiny dogfish, monkfish, shad, skate and mackerel. Northeast Anchored Float Gillnet Fishery NMFS proposes to expand the list of target species associated with the “Northeast anchored float gillnet fishery” to include, but not be limited to: shad, herring, mackerel and menhaden. NMFS proposed the 2001 reclassification of the “Gulf of Maine small pelagics surface gillnet fishery” to the “Northeast anchored pelagic gillnet fishery” (66 FR 6545, January 22, 2001) to incorporate fishing effort in other Northeast areas and to include catch other than small pelagics. However, due to changes in recording gillnet fishing effort and the need to better distinguish Atlantic gillnet fisheries by gear type, the fishery was classified as the “Northeast anchored float gillnet” (66 FR 42780, August 15, 2001). Upon the classification of sturgeon as a prohibited species in state and Federal waters, NMFS removed the “Gulf of Maine, Southeast U.S. Atlantic coastal shad, sturgeon gillnet fishery” from the LOF. Gillnet fishing for shad in the Northeast was reorganized and recategorized into the “Northeast sink gillnet fishery”, “Northeast anchored float gillnet fishery”, and/or the “Northeast drift gillnet fishery depending on the type of gear used (66 FR 6545, January 22, 2001). Northeast Drift Gillnet Fishery NMFS proposes to clarify the list of target species associated with the “Northeast drift gillnet fishery”. Upon the classification of sturgeon as a prohibited species in state and Federal waters, NMFS removed the “Gulf of Maine, Southeast U.S. Atlantic coastal shad, sturgeon gillnet fishery” from the LOF. Gillnet fishing for shad in the Northeast is included in the “Northeast sink gillnet fishery”, “Northeast anchored float gillnet fishery”, and/or the “Northeast drift gillnet fishery” depending on the type of gear used. NMFS therefore proposes to expand the list of target species in the Northeast drift gillnet to include, but not be limited to, shad, herring, mackerel and menhaden. Mid-Atlantic Gillnet Fishery NMFS proposes to expand the list of target species associated with the “Mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery” to include, but not be limited to: Atlantic croaker, mackerel, black drum, bluefish, herring, menhaden, scup, shad, striped bass, weakfish, white perch, yellow perch, shark (large and small coastal shark, dogfish), and monkfish. This fishery includes recently expanded gillnet effort for large and small coastal shark in the mid-Atlantic. Atlantic sturgeon are listed as a species of concern under the Endangered Species Act, and a moratorium on possession and harvest of this species currently exists throughout the U.S. East Coast. In addition, NMFS proposes to clarify the type of gear associated with this fishery to include gillnets set in a sink, stab, set, strike, or drift fashion. This fishery includes any residual large pelagic driftnet effort in the mid-Atlantic. NMFS also proposes to change language defining the mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery by removing ”...west of 72° 30′W. and north of a line extending due east from the North Carolina/South Carolina border...” (62 FR 33, January 2, 1997) and replacing this with ”...west of a line drawn at 72° 30′W. long south to 36° 33.03′N. lat. and east to the eastern edge of the EEZ and north of the North Carolina/South Carolina border...”. This wording is more consistent with proposed management area boundaries for gillnet fisheries under the ALWTRP regulations. As the ALWTRP management areas for gillnet fisheries consider the LOF definitions, consistency between the two boundaries may reduce confusion. Atlantic Mixed Species Trap/Pot Fishery NMFS proposes to expand the list of target species associated with the “Atlantic mixed species trap/pot fishery”. NMFS added the category II “Atlantic mixed species trap/pot fishery” to the 2003 LOF to encompass the “Northeast trap/pot fishery”, the “mid-Atlantic mixed species trap/pot fishery”, the “U.S. mid-Atlantic and Southeast U.S. Atlantic black sea bass trap/pot” fisheries and any other trap/pot fisheries otherwise not identified in the LOF, based on the use of similar gear and the potential for marine mammal entanglements. NMFS has recently become aware of additional species being targeted in this fishery. Therefore, NMFS proposes to expand the list of target species to include, but not be limited to: hagfish, shrimp, conch/whelk, red crab, Jonah crab, rock crab, black sea bass, scup, tautog, cod, haddock, pollock, redfish (ocean perch), white hake, spot, skate, catfish and American eel (not included in the LOF's “U.S. mid-Atlantic eel trap/pot fishery” description). Number of Vessels/Persons NMFS proposes to update the number of participants in the “Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet fishery” from 6 to 30. NMFS proposes to update the number of participants in the “Mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery” from >655 to >670 to include the 15 participants targeting shark (e.g., large and small coastal shark, dogfish) in this fishery. List of Species That are Incidentally Seriously Injured or Killed Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico Large Pelagics Longline Fishery NMFS proposes to add Northern bottlenose whales (Western North Atlantic stock) to the list of species and stocks incidentally killed or seriously injured in the “Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline fishery”. A bottlenose whale was observed to be entangled and seriously injured in this fishery in 2001. NMFS has reviewed the other species listed as incidentally killed or seriously injured in this fishery. Although some species have not been observed to have been seriously injured or killed within the most recent 5-year timeframe for which estimates of marine mammal bycatch are made, the fishery still operates in the same general areas and uses the same type of gear, with the exception of the requirement for fishermen to now use circle hooks. The impacts of the use of circle hooks on reducing marine mammal incidental serious injury and mortality are still being analyzed. Therefore, NMFS has determined that no other changes to the list of species killed or seriously injured in this fishery is warranted at this time. NMFS will reassess the list of species incidentally seriously injured or killed in this fishery as more information becomes available. Mid-Atlantic Haul/Beach Seine Fishery NMFS proposes to remove harbor porpoise (Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock) from the list of species or stocks incidentally killed or seriously injured in the “Mid-Atlantic haul/beach seine fishery”. The most recent SAR
(2005)highlights the most recent 5-years of data (from 1999-2003), as well as anecdotal or historical information, as records of interaction. There is no current evidence to indicate harbor porpoises are killed or seriously injured in the Mid-Atlantic haul/beach seine fishery. Gulf of Maine Atlantic Herring Purse Seine Fishery NMFS proposes to remove harbor porpoise (Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock) from the list of species or stocks incidentally killed or seriously injured in the “Gulf of Maine Atlantic herring purse seine fishery”. The most recent SAR
(2005)highlights the most recent 5-years of data (from 1999-2003), as well as anecdotal or historical information, as records of interaction. There is no current evidence to indicate harbor porpoises are killed or seriously injured in the Gulf of Maine Atlantic herring purse seine fishery. Mid-Atlantic Gillnet Fishery NMFS proposes to remove the superscript
(1)from bottlenose dolphin (Western North Atlantic offshore stock) and minke whale (Canadian east coast stock) on the list of stocks incidentally killed or seriously injured in the “Mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery”. In 1996 the mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery was elevated from category III to category II based on a tier analysis focused on the incidental mortality and serious injury of harbor porpoise, coastal bottlenose dolphin, and humpback whales (60 FR 67081, December 28, 1995). For re-classification to a category I fishery in the 2002 LOF, the tier analysis was based on the incidental mortality and serious injury of coastal bottlenose dolphins (68 FR 1422, January 10, 2003). Though offshore bottlenose dolphins and minke whales have the potential to interact with the mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery, these species have not influenced the fishery classification or its elevation; therefore, NMFS proposes to remove the superscript (1). Northeast Bottom Trawl NMFS proposes to correct a typographical error in the 2006 LOF, Table 2, by removing the superscript
(1)after harp seals
(WNA)in the “Northeast bottom trawl fishery”. Mortality and serious injury of harp seals
(WNA)does not drive the categorization of this fishery. List of Fisheries The following two tables list U.S. commercial fisheries according to their assigned categories under section 118 of the MMPA. The estimated number of vessels/participants is expressed in terms of the number of active participants in the fishery, when possible. If this information is not available, the estimated number of vessels or persons licensed for a particular fishery is provided. If no recent information is available on the number of participants in a fishery, the number from the most recent LOF is used. The tables also list the marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed or injured in each fishery based on observer data, logbook data, stranding reports, and fisher reports. This list includes all species or stocks known to experience mortality or injury in a given fishery, but also includes species or stocks for which there are anecdotal records of interaction. Additionally, species identified by logbook entries may not be verified. Not all species or stocks identified are the reason for a fishery's placement in a given category. NMFS has designated those stocks that are responsible for a current fishery's classification by a “ 1 ”. There are several fisheries classified in Category II that have no recently documented interactions with marine mammals, or interactions that did not result in a serious injury or mortality. Justifications for placement of these fisheries, which are greater than 1 percent of a stock's PBR level, are by analogy to other gear types that are known to cause mortality or serious injury of marine mammals, as discussed in the final LOF for 1996 (60 FR 67063, December 28, 1995), and according to factors listed in the definition of a “Category II fishery” in 50 CFR 229.2. NMFS has designated those fisheries originally listed by analogy in Tables 1 and 2 by a “2” after the fishery′s name. Table 1 lists commercial fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (including Alaska); Table 2 lists commercial fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. Table 1 - List of Fisheries Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean Fishery Description Estimated # of vessels/persons Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed/injured Category I GILLNET FISHERIES: CA angel shark/halibut and other species set gillnet (> 3.5 in. mesh) 58 California sea lion, U.S. Harbor seal, CA Harbor porpoise, Central CA 1 Long-beaked common dolphin, CA Northern elephant seal, CA breeding Sea otter, CA Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet (≥ 14 in. mesh) 85 California sea lion, U.S. Dall's porpoise, CA/OR/WA Fin whale, CA/OR/WA Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific Humpback whale, Eastern North Pacific Long-beaked common dolphin, CA Northern elephant seal, CA breeding Northern right-whale dolphin, CA/OR/WA Pacific white-sided dolphin, CA/OR/WA Risso's dolphin, CA/OR/WA Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA Short-finned pilot whale, CA/OR/WA 1 Sperm whale, CA/OR/WA LONGLINE/SET LINE FISHERIES: HI swordfish, tuna, billfish, mahi mahi, wahoo, oceanic sharks longline/set line 140 Blainville's beaked whale, HI Bottlenose dolphin, HI False killer whale, HI 1 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific Pantropical spotted dolphin, HI Risso's dolphin, HI Short-finned pilot whale, HI Spinner dolphin, HI Sperm whale, HI Category II GILLNET FISHERIES: AK Bristol Bay salmon drift gillnet 2 1,903 Beluga whale, Bristol Bay Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific Harbor seal, Bering Sea Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific Spotted seal, AK Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 1 AK Bristol Bay salmon set gillnet 2 1,014 Beluga whale, Bristol Bay Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific Harbor seal, Bering Sea Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific Spotted seal, AK AK Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet 745 Beluga whale, Cook Inlet Dall's porpoise, AK Harbor porpoise, GOA Harbor seal, GOA Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 1 Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Cook Inlet salmon drift gillnet 576 Beluga whale, Cook Inlet Dall's porpoise, AK Harbor porpoise, GOA 1 Harbor seal, GOA Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Kodiak salmon set gillnet 188 Harbor porpoise, GOA 1 Harbor seal, GOA Sea otter, Southwest AK Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Metlakatla/Annette Island salmon drift gillnet 2 60 None documented AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon drift gillnet 2 164 Dall's porpoise, AK Harbor porpoise, GOA Harbor seal, GOA Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon set gillnet 2 116 Harbor porpoise, Bering Sea Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Prince William Sound salmon drift gillnet 541 Dall's porpoise, AK Harbor porpoise, GOA 1 Harbor seal, GOA Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 1 AK Southeast salmon drift gillnet 481 Dall's porpoise, AK Harbor porpoise, Southeast AK Harbor seal, Southeast AK Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 1 Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S. AK Yakutat salmon set gillnet 2 170 Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific Harbor seal, Southeast AK Humpback whale, Central North Pacific (Southeast AK) CA yellowtail, barracuda, and white seabass drift gillnet fishery (mesh size > 3.5 inches and < 14 inches) 2 24 California sea lion, U.S. Long-beaked common dolphin, CA Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA WA Puget Sound Region salmon drift gillnet (includes all inland waters south of US-Canada border and eastward of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line-Treaty Indian fishing is excluded) 210 Dall's porpoise, CA/OR/WA Harbor porpoise, inland WA 1 Harbor seal, WA inland PURSE SEINE FISHERIES: AK Southeast salmon purse seine 416 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 1 AK Kodiak salmon purse seine 370 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 1 CA anchovy, mackerel, tuna purse seine 110 Bottlenose dolphin, CA/OR/WA offshore1 California sea lion, U.S. Harbor seal, CA CA squid purse seine 65 Common dolphin, unknown Short-finned pilot whale, CA/OR/WA 1 CA tuna purse seine 2 10 Common dolphin, unknown None documented TRAWL FISHERIES: AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl 26 Bearded seal, AK Harbor porpoise, Bering Sea Harbor seal, Bering Sea Killer whale, AK resident 1 Northern fur seal, Eastern North Pacific Spotted seal, AK Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 1 Walrus, AK AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl 120 Dall's porpoise, AK Harbor seal, AK Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 1 Humpback whale, Western North Pacific 1 Killer whale, Eastern North Pacific, GOA, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient 1 Minke whale, AK Ribbon seal, AK Spotted seal, AK Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 1 LONGLINE/SET LINE FISHERIES: AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod longline 114 Killer whale, AK resident 1 Killer whale, Eastern North Pacific, GOA, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient 1 Ribbon seal, AK Steller sea lion, Western U.S. CA pelagic longline 2 6 California sea lion, U.S. Risso's dolphin, CA/OR/WA OR swordfish floating longline 2 0 None documented OR blue shark floating longline 2 1 None documented POT, RING NET, AND TRAP FISHERIES: AK Bering Sea sablefish pot 6 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 1 Humpback whale, Western North Pacific 1 Category III GILLNET FISHERIES: AK Kuskokwim, Yukon, Norton Sound, Kotzebue salmon gillnet 1,922 Harbor porpoise, Bering Sea AK miscellaneous finfish set gillnet 3 Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Prince William Sound salmon set gillnet 30 Harbor seal, GOA Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK roe herring and food/bait herring gillnet 2,034 None documented CA set and drift gillnet fisheries that use a stretched mesh size of 3.5 in or less 341 None documented Hawaii inshore gillnet 35 Bottlenose dolphin, HI Spinner dolphin, HI WA Grays Harbor salmon drift gillnet (excluding treaty Tribal fishing) 24 Harbor seal, OR/WA coast WA, OR herring, smelt, shad, sturgeon, bottom fish, mullet, perch, rockfish gillnet 913 None documented WA, OR lower Columbia River (includes tributaries) drift gillnet 110 California sea lion, U.S.Harbor seal, OR/WA coast WA Willapa Bay drift gillnet 82 Harbor seal, OR/WA coast Northern elephant seal, CA breeding PURSE SEINE, BEACH SEINE, ROUND HAUL AND THROW NET FISHERIES: AK Metlakatla salmon purse seine 10 None documented AK miscellaneous finfish beach seine 1 None documented AK miscellaneous finfish purse seine 3 None documented AK octopus/squid purse seine 2 None documented AK roe herring and food/bait herring beach seine 8 None documented AK roe herring and food/bait herring purse seine 624 None documented AK salmon beach seine 34 None documented AK salmon purse seine (except Southeast Alaska, which is in Category II) 953 Harbor seal, GOA WA, OR sardine purse seine 42 None documented HI Kona crab loop net 42 None documented HI opelu/akule net 12 None documented HI inshore purse seine 23 None documented HI throw net, cast net 14 None documented WA (all species) beach seine or drag seine 235 None documented WA, OR herring, smelt, squid purse seine or lampara 130 None documented WA salmon purse seine 440 None documented WA salmon reef net 53 None documented DIP NET FISHERIES: CA squid dip net 115 None documented WA, OR smelt, herring dip net 119 None documented MARINE AQUACULTURE FISHERIES: CA marine shellfish aquaculture unknown None documented CA salmon enhancement rearing pen >1 None documented CA white seabass enhancement net pens 13 California sea lion, U.S. HI offshore pen culture 2 None documented OR salmon ranch 1 None documented WA, OR salmon net pens 14 California sea lion, U.S. Harbor seal, WA inland waters TROLL FISHERIES: AK North Pacific halibut, AK bottom fish, WA, OR, CA albacore, groundfish, bottom fish, CA halibut non-salmonid troll fisheries 1,530 (330 AK) None documented AK salmon troll 2,335 Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S. Steller sea lion, Western U.S. American Samoa tuna troll > 50 None documented CA/OR/WA salmon troll 4,300 None documented Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands tuna troll 88 None documented Guam tuna troll 401 None documented HI trolling, rod and reel 1,321 None documented LONGLINE/SET LINE FISHERIES: AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Greenland turbot longline 12 Killer whale, AK resident Killer whale, Eastern North Pacific, GOA, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands rockfish longline 17 None documented AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands sablefish longline 63 None documented AK Gulf of Alaska halibut longline 1,302 None documented AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod longline 440 None documented AK Gulf of Alaska rockfish longline 421 None documented AK Gulf of Alaska sablefish longline 412 Sperm whale, North Pacific Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S. AK halibut longline/set line (State and Federal waters) 3,079 Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK octopus/squid longline 7 None documented AK state-managed waters groundfish longline/setline (including sablefish, rockfish, and miscellaneous finfish) 731 None documented American Samoa longline 60 None documented WA, OR, CA groundfish, bottomfish longline/set line 367 None documented WA, OR North Pacific halibut longline/set line 350 None documented TRAWL FISHERIES: AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Atka mackerel trawl 8 Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod trawl 87 Harbor seal, Bering Sea Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands rockfish trawl 9 None documented AK Gulf of Alaska flatfish trawl 52 None documented AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod trawl 101 Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Gulf of Alaska pollock trawl 83 Fin whale, Northeast Pacific Northern elephant seal, North Pacific Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Gulf of Alaska rockfish trawl 45 None documented AK food/bait herring trawl 3 None documented AK miscellaneous finfish otter or beam trawl 6 None documented AK shrimp otter trawl and beam trawl (statewide and Cook Inlet) 58 None documented AK state-managed waters of Cook Inlet, Kachemak Bay, Prince William Sound, Southeast AK groundfish trawl 2 None documented CA halibut bottom trawl 53 None documented WA, OR, CA groundfish trawl 585 California sea lion, U.S. Dall's porpoise, CA/OR/WA Harbor seal, OR/WA coast Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific Pacific white-sided dolphin, CA/OR/WA Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S. WA, OR, CA shrimp trawl 300 None documented POT, RING NET, AND TRAP FISHERIES: AK Aleutian Islands sablefish pot 8 None documented AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod pot 76 None documented AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands crab pot 329 None documented AK Gulf of Alaska crab pot unknown None documented AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod pot 154 Harbor seal, GOA AK Southeast Alaska crab pot unknown Humpback whale, Central North Pacific (Southeast AK) AK Southeast Alaska shrimp pot unknown Humpback whale, Central North Pacific (Southeast AK) AK octopus/squid pot 72 None documented AK snail pot 2 None documented CA lobster, prawn, shrimp, rock crab, fish pot 608 Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific Harbor seal, CA Humpback whale, Eastern North Pacific Sea otter, CA OR, CA hagfish pot or trap 25 None documented WA, OR, CA crab pot 1,478 Humpback whale, Eastern North Pacific Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific WA, OR, CA sablefish pot 176 None documented WA, OR shrimp pot/trap 254 None documented HI crab trap 22 None documented HI fish trap 19 None documented HI lobster trap 0 Hawaiian monk seal HI shrimp trap 5 None documented HANDLINE AND JIG FISHERIES: AK miscellaneous finfish handline and mechanical jig 100 None documented AK North Pacific halibut handline and mechanical jig 93 None documented AK octopus/squid handline 2 None documented American Samoa bottomfish <50 None documented Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands bottomfish <50 None documented Guam bottomfish 200 None documented HI aku boat, pole and line 4 None documented HI Main Hawaiian Islands, Northwest Hawaiian Islands deep sea bottomfish 300 Hawaiian monk seal HI inshore handline 307 None documented HI tuna handline 298 Hawaiian monk seal WA groundfish, bottomfish jig 679 None documented Western Pacific squid jig 6 None documented HARPOON FISHERIES: CA swordfish harpoon 30 None documented POUND NET/WEIR FISHERIES: AK herring spawn on kelp pound net 452 None documented AK Southeast herring roe/food/bait pound net 3 None documented WA herring brush weir 1 None documented BAIT PENS: WA/OR/CA bait pens 13 California sea lion, U.S. DREDGE FISHERIES: Coastwide scallop dredge 108 (12 AK) None documented DIVE, HAND/MECHANICAL COLLECTION FISHERIES: AK abalone 1 None documented AK clam 156 None documented WA herring spawn on kelp 4 None documented AK dungeness crab 3 None documented AK herring spawn on kelp 363 None documented AK urchin and other fish/shellfish 471 None documented CA abalone 111 None documented CA sea urchin 583 None documented HI black coral diving 1 None documented HI fish pond N/A None documented HI handpick 37 None documented HI lobster diving 19 None documented HI squiding, spear 91 None documented WA, CA kelp 4 None documented WA/OR sea urchin, other clam, octopus, oyster, sea cucumber, scallop, ghost shrimp hand, dive, or mechanical collection 637 None documented WA shellfish aquaculture 684 None documented COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FISHING VESSEL (CHARTER BOAT) FISHERIES: AK, WA, OR, CA commercial passenger fishing vessel >7,000 (1,107 AK) Killer whale, stock unknown Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S. Steller sea lion, Western U.S. HI charter vessel 114 None documented LIVE FINFISH/SHELLFISH FISHERIES: CA finfish and shellfish live trap/hook-and-line 93 None documented List of Abbreviations and Symbols Used in Table 1: AK - Alaska; CA - California; GOA - Gulf of Alaska; HI - Hawaii; OR - Oregon; WA - Washington; 1 - Fishery classified based on serious injuries and mortalities of this stock are greater than 1 percent of the stock's PBR; 2 - Fishery classified by analogy. Table 2 - List of Fisheries Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Fishery Description Estimated # of vessels/persons Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed/injured Category I GILLNET FISHERIES: Mid-Atlantic gillnet >670 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal 1 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore Common dolphin, WNA Gray seal, WNA Harbor porpoise, GME/BF 1 Harbor seal, WNA Harp seal, WNA Humpback whale, Gulf of Maine 1 Long-finned pilot whale, WNA Minke whale, Canadian east coast Short-finned pilot whale, WNA White-sided dolphin, WNA Northeast sink gillnet 341 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore Common dolphin, WNA Fin whale, WNA Gray seal, WNA Harbor porpoise, GME/BF 1 Harbor seal, WNA Harp sea l , WNA Hooded seal, WNA Humpback whale, WNA 1 Minke whale, Canadian east coast 1 North Atlantic right whale, WNA 1 Risso's dolphin, WNA White-sided dolphin, WNA LONGLINE FISHERIES: Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline 94 Atlantic spotted dolphin, Northern GMX Atlantic spotted dolphin, WNA Bottlenose dolphin, GMX outer continental shelf Bottlenose dolphin, GMX, continental shelf edge and slope Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore Common dolphin, WNA Cuvier's beaked whale, WNA Long-finned pilot whale, WNA 1 Mesoplodon beaked whale, WNA Northern bottlenose whale, WNA Pantropical spotted dolphin, Northern GMX Pantropical spotted dolphin, WNA Pygmy sperm whale, WNA 1 Risso's dolphin, Northern GMX Risso's dolphin, WNA Short-finned pilot whale, Northern GMX Short-finned pilot whale, WNA 1 TRAP/POT FISHERIES: Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American lobster trap/pot 13,000 Fin whale, WNA Harbor seal, WNA Humpback whale, WNA 1 Minke whale, Canadian east coast 1 North Atlantic right whale, WNA 1 Category II GILLNET FISHERIES: Chesapeake Bay inshore gillnet 2 45 None documented Gulf of Mexico gillnet 2 724 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, GMX bay, sound, and estuarine Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal North Carolina inshore gillnet 94 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal 1 Northeast anchored float gillnet 2 133 Harbor seal, WNA Humpback whale, WNA White-sided dolphin, WNA Northeast drift gillnet 2 unknown None documented Southeast Atlantic gillnet 2 779 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet 30 Atlantic spotted dolphin, WNA Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal 1 North Atlantic right whale, WNA TRAWL FISHERIES: Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl (including pair trawl) 620 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore Common dolphin, WNA Long-finned pilot whale, WNA Risso's dolphin, WNA Short-finned pilot whale, WNA White-sided dolphin, WNA 1 Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl >1,000 Common dolphin, WNA 1 Long-finned pilot whale, WNA 1 Short-finned pilot whale, WNA 1 Mid-Atlantic flynet 2 21 None documented Northeast mid-water trawl (including pair trawl) 17 Harbor seal, WNA Long-finned pilot whale, WNA 1 Short-finned pilot whale, WNA 1 White-sided dolphin, WNA Northeast bottom trawl 1,052 Common dolphin, WNA Harbor porpoise, GME/BF Harp seal, WNA 1 Long-finned pilot whale, WNA Short-finned pilot whale, WNA White-sided dolphin, WNA 1 TRAP/POT FISHERIES: Atlantic blue crab trap/pot >16,000 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal 1 West Indian manatee, FL 1 Atlantic mixed species trap/pot 2 unknown Fin whale, WNA Humpback whale, Gulf of Maine PURSE SEINE FISHERIES: Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine 50 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, GMX bay, sound, estuarine Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal 1 Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal Mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine 2 22 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal HAUL/BEACH SEINE FISHERIES: Mid-Atlantic haul/beach seine 25 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal 1 North Carolina long haul seine 33 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal 1 STOP NET FISHERIES: North Carolina roe mullet stop net 13 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal 1 POUND NET FISHERIES: Virginia pound net 187 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal 1 Category III GILLNET FISHERIES: Caribbean gillnet >991 Dwarf sperm whale, WNA West Indian manatee, Antillean Delaware River inshore gillnet 60 None documented Long Island Sound inshore gillnet 20 None documented Rhode Island, southern Massachusetts (to Monomoy Island), and New York Bight (Raritan and Lower New York Bays) inshore gillnet 32 None documented Southeast Atlantic inshore gillnet unknown None documented TRAWL FISHERIES: Atlantic shellfish bottom trawl 972 None documented Gulf of Mexico butterfish trawl 2 Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX outer continental shelf Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX continental shelf edge and slope Gulf of Mexico mixed species trawl 20 None documented Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl >18,000 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, GMX bay, sound, estuarine West Indian Manatee, FL MARINE AQUACULTURE FISHERIES: Finfish aquaculture 48 Harbor seal, WNA Shellfish aquaculture unknown None documented PURSE SEINE FISHERIES: Gulf of Maine Atlantic herring purse seine 30 Harbor seal, WNA Gray seal, WNA Gulf of Maine menhaden purse seine 50 None documented Florida west coast sardine purse seine 10 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal U.S. Atlantic tuna purse seine 5 Long-finned pilot whale, WNA Short-finned pilot whale, WNA U.S. Mid-Atlantic hand seine >250 None documented LONGLINE/HOOK-AND-LINE FISHERIES: Northeast/Mid-Atlantic bottom longline/hook-and-line 46 None documented Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid-Atlantic tuna, shark swordfish hook-and-line/harpoon 26,223 Humpback whale, WNA Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean snapper-grouper and other reef fish bottom longline/hook-and-line >5,000 None documented Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shark bottom longline/hook-and-line <125 None documented Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean pelagic hook-and-line/harpoon 1,446 None documented TRAP/POT FISHERIES Caribbean mixed species trap/pot >501 None documented Caribbean spiny lobster trap/pot >197 None documented Florida spiny lobster trap/pot 2,145 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal Gulf of Mexico blue crab trap/pot 4,113 Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, GMX Bay, Sound, & Estuarine West Indian manatee, FL Gulf of Mexico mixed species trap/pot unknown None documented Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico golden crab trap/pot 10 None documented Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico stone crab trap/pot 4,453 None documented U.S. Mid-Atlantic eel trap/pot >700 None documented STOP SEINE/WEIR/POUND NET FISHERIES: Gulf of Maine herring and Atlantic mackerel stop seine/weir 50 Gray seal, Northwest North Atlantic Harbor porpoise, GME/BF Harbor seal, WNA Minke whale, Canadian east coast White-sided dolphin, WNA U.S. Mid-Atlantic crab stop seine/weir 2,600 None documented U.S. Mid-Atlantic mixed species stop seine/weir/pound net (except the North Carolina roe mullet stop net) 751 None documented DREDGE FISHERIES: Gulf of Maine mussel >50 None documented Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid-Atlantic sea scallop dredge 233 None documented U.S. Mid-Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico oyster 7,000 None documented U.S. Mid-Atlantic offshore surf clam and quahog dredge 100 None documented HAUL/BEACH SEINE FISHERIES: Caribbean haul/beach seine 15 West Indian manatee, Antillean Gulf of Mexico haul/beach seine unknown None documented Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, haul/beach seine 25 None documented DIVE, HAND/MECHANICAL COLLECTION FISHERIES: Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean shellfish dive, hand/mechanical collection 20,000 None documented Gulf of Maine urchin dive, hand/mechanical collection >50 None documented Gulf of Mexico, Southeast Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and Caribbean cast net unknown None documented COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FISHING VESSEL (CHARTER BOAT) FISHERIES: Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean commercial passenger fishing vessel 4,000 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal List of Abbreviations and Symbols Used in Table 2: FL - Florida; GA - Georgia; GME/BF - Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy; GMX - Gulf of Mexico; NC - North Carolina; SC - South Carolina; TX - Texas; WNA - Western North Atlantic; 1 - Fishery classified based on serious injuries and mortalities of this stock are greater than 1 percent of the stock's PBR; 2 - Fishery classified by analogy. Classification The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For convenience, the factual basis leading to the certification is repeated below. Under existing regulations, all fishers participating in Category I or II fisheries must register under the MMPA, obtain an Authorization Certificate, and pay a fee of $25 (with the exception of those in regions with a registration integrated with existing state and Federal permitting processes). Additionally, fishers may be subject to a take reduction plan and requested to carry an observer. The Authorization Certificate authorizes the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. NMFS has estimated that approximately 42,000 fishing vessels, most of which are small entities, operate in Category I or II fisheries, and therefore, are required to register. However, registration has been integrated with existing state or Federal registration programs for the majority of these fisheries so that the majority of fishers do not need to register separately under the MMPA. Currently, less than 360 fishers register directly with NMFS under the MMPA authorization program. Though this proposed rule would affect less than 360 small entities, the $25 registration fee, with respect to anticipated revenues, is not considered a significant economic impact. If a vessel is requested to carry an observer, fishers will not incur any economic costs associated with carrying that observer. As a result of this certification, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared. In the event that reclassification of a fishery to Category I or II results in a take reduction plan, economic analyses of the effects of that plan will be summarized in subsequent rulemaking actions. This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The collection of information for the registration of fishers under the MMPA has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under OMB control number 0648-0293 (0.15 hours per report for new registrants and 0.09 hours per report for renewals). The requirement for reporting marine mammal injuries or mortalities has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 0648-0292 (0.15 hours per report). These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding these reporting burden estimates or any other aspect of the collections of information, including suggestions for reducing burden, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. An environmental assessment
(EA)was prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)for regulations to implement section 118 of the MMPA (1995 EA). NMFS revised that EA relative to classifying U.S. commercial fisheries on the LOF in December 2005. Both the 1995 EA and the 2005 EA concluded that implementation of MMPA section 118 regulations would not have a significant impact on the human environment. This proposed rule would not make any significant change in the management of reclassified fisheries, and therefore, this proposed rule is not expected to change the analysis or conclusion of the 2005 EA. If NMFS takes a management action, for example, through the development of a Take Reduction Plan (TRP), NMFS will first prepare an environmental document, as required under NEPA, specific to that action. This proposed rule would not affect species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA)or their associated critical habitat. The impacts of numerous fisheries have been analyzed in various biological opinions, and this rule will not affect the conclusions of those opinions. The classification of fisheries on the LOF is not considered to be a management action that would adversely affect threatened or endangered species. If NMFS takes a management action, for example, through the development of a TRP, NMFS would conduct consultation under ESA section 7 for that action. This proposed rule would have no adverse impacts on marine mammals and may have a positive impact on marine mammals by improving knowledge of marine mammals and the fisheries interacting with marine mammals through information collected from observer programs, stranding and sighting data, or take reduction teams. This proposed rule would not affect the land or water uses or natural resources of the coastal zone, as specified under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Dated: November 27, 2006. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-20448 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 232 Monday, December 4, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request November 29, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Food and Nutrition Service *Title:* Generic Clearance to Conduct Formative Research. *OMB Control Number:* 0584-0524. *Summary of Collection:* Diet has a significant impact on the health of citizens and is linked to four leading causes of disease, which can reduce the quality of life and cause premature death. While these diet-related problems affect all Americans, they have a greater impact on the disadvantaged populations reached by many of the Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS)programs. One of FNS' goals includes improving the nutrition of children and low-income families by providing access to program benefits and nutrition education. The basis of FNS' approach rests on the philosophies that all health communications and social marketing activities must be science-based, theoretically grounded, audience-driven, and results-oriented. FNS will collect information through formative research methods that will include focus groups, interviews (dyad, triad, telephone, etc.), surveys and web-based information gathering tools. The formative research is essential to advancing “Eat Smart Play Hard” Campaign as well as other FNS nutrition education and outreach efforts. *Need and Use of the Information:* FNS will collect information to provide formative input and feedback on how best to reach and motivate the targeted population. The collected information will provide input regarding the potential use of materials and products during both the developmental and testing stages. FNS will also collect information regarding effective nutrition education and outreach initiatives being implemented by State agencies that administer nutrition assistance programs to address critical nutrition program access issues. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Number of Respondents:* 10,000. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Other (one-time). *Total Burden Hours:* 7,008. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-20423 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0140] Bayer CropScience; Extension of Determination of Nonregulated Status to Rice Genetically Engineered for Glufosinate Herbicide Tolerance AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public of our decision to extend a determination of nonregulated status to a rice line developed by Bayer CropScience, which has been genetically engineered to be tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate. Therefore, APHIS no longer considers the rice line to be a regulated article under Agency regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms. Our decision is based on our evaluation of data submitted by Bayer CropScience in its request for an extension of a determination of nonregulated status, an analysis of other scientific data, and comments received from the public in response to a previous notice and preliminary determination. This notice also announces the availability of our written determination, final environmental assessment, and our finding of no significant impact. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may read the extension request, the final environmental assessment, finding of no significant impact, the comments we received on our previous notice, and our responses to those comments in our reading room or on the Internet. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. To view those documents on the Internet, go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* click on the “Advanced Search” tab, and select “Docket Search.” In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS-2006-0140, then click “Submit.” Clicking on the Docket ID link in the search results page will produce a list of all documents in the docket. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Neil Hoffman, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;
(301)734-6331, *neil.e.hoffman@aphis.usda.gov.* To obtain copies of the extension request or the environmental assessment
(EA)and finding of no significant impact (FONSI), contact Mr. Steve Bennett at
(301)734-5672; e-mail: *steven.m.bennett@aphis.usda.gov.* The extension request, final EA, response to comments, and FONSI are also available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/06_23401p.pdf* and *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/06_23401p_ea.pdf.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.” The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Further, the regulations in § 340.6(e)(2) provide that a person may request that APHIS extend a determination of nonregulated status to other organisms. Such a request must include information to establish the similarity of the antecedent organism and the regulated article in question. Background On August 18, 2006, APHIS received a request for an extension of a determination of nonregulated status (APHIS No. 06-234-01p) from Bayer CropScience (Bayer) of Research Triangle Park, NC, for rice ( *Oryza sativa* L.) designated as Liberty Link® Transformation Event LLRICE601, which has been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate. Bayer requested an extension of a determination of nonregulated status issued in response to APHIS petition number 98-329-01p for glufosinate-tolerant rice transformation events LLRICE06 and LLRICE62, the antecedent organisms (See 64 FR 22595, published April 27, 1999, Docket No. 98-126-2). Based on the similarity of the antecedent rice lines LLRICE06 and LLRICE62 and rice line LLRICE601, Bayer CropScience requested a determination that rice line LLRICE601 does not present a plant pest risk and, therefore, is not a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340. On July 31, 2006, Bayer CropScience notified APHIS that trace levels of LLRICE601 were detected in long grain commercial rice. Subsequently, Bayer CropScience supplied APHIS and the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)with information about the molecular characterization and agronomic performance of LLRICE601. APHIS completed a preliminary risk assessment and determined that LLRICE601 did not pose any plant pest or environmental concerns. This risk assessment is attached as appendix I to the final environmental assessment (EA). On September 8, 2006, APHIS published a notice in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 53076-53077, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0140) announcing that an EA and a preliminary decision for the Bayer extension request had been prepared and was available for public comment. The analysis upon which APHIS based its preliminary decision was also published within that notice. APHIS received 15,871 comments on the subject EA and preliminary decision during the designated 30-day public comment period, which ended October 10, 2006. Of the 15,871 comments, 15,517 opposed the extension request. Respondents opposing the extension request were 12 public interest groups, academic professionals, organic food producers, and individuals. Of these comments, 10,500 nearly identical comments were submitted by members of 1 public interest group and 4,796 nearly identical comments were submitted by members of another public interest group. There were 354 comments supporting the extension of nonregulated status to LLRICE601. Respondents supporting the petition were rice growers, millers (or from related industries), rice industry groups, academia, a commodity company, a State government agency, and individuals. APHIS has addressed the issues raised during the comment period and has provided responses to these comments as attachments to the finding of no significant impact (FONSI). Decision Based on an analysis of the data submitted by Bayer and a review of other scientific data, APHIS has determined that rice transformation event LLRICE601 is very similar to the antecedent organisms in APHIS petition number 98-329-01p and poses no more potential for plant pest risk than the antecedent organisms. Therefore, APHIS has concluded that rice line LLRICE601 and any progeny derived from crosses with other rice varieties will be as safe to grow as rice that is not subject to regulation under 7 CFR part 340. Because APHIS has determined that the subject rice line does not present a plant pest risk based on its similarity to the antecedent organisms, Bayer rice line LLRICE601 will no longer be considered a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340. Therefore, the requirements pertaining to regulated articles under those regulations no longer apply to the field testing, importation, or interstate movement of LLRICE601 or its progeny. National Environmental Policy Act To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the extension of a determination of nonregulated status for LLRICE601, an EA was prepared. The EA was prepared in accordance with
(1)The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ),
(2)regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),
(3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and
(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Based on that EA, APHIS has reached a FONSI with regard to the determination that Bayer rice line LLRICE601 and lines developed from it are no longer regulated articles under its regulations in 7 CFR part 340. Copies of the EA and FONSI are available as indicated in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of November 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-20516 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-893] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On July 6, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine Resources Co., Ltd. (“Zhanjiang Regal”). *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,* 71 FR 38368 (July 6, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the *Preliminary Results.* No party submitted a case brief in the instant review and we made no changes to the *Preliminary Results.* Therefore, we continue to find that Zhanjiang Regal did not sell subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (“POR”) July 16, 2004, through July 31, 2005. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 4, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2243. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History Subsequent to the *Preliminary Results,* on August 18, 2006, the Department implemented the temporary suspension of the new shipper bonding provision in this review, in accordance with the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-280, Sec. 1632, 120 Stat. 780 (2006), which was signed into law on August 17, 2006. The legislation suspended the ability of a U.S. importer to satisfy the antidumping duty deposit requirements by posting a bond or other security deposit in lieu of a cash deposit with U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)during the period of April 1, 2006 to June 30, 2009. On September 20, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice extending the deadline for the final results. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of the 2004/2005 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,* 71 FR 54978 (September 20, 2006). On September 22, 2006, we placed additional entry documents on the record in which an importer listed Zhanjiang Regal as the producer of shrimp exported to the United States. 1 On September 22, 2006, we issued Zhanjiang Regal a supplemental questionnaire. On September 29, 2006, Zhanjiang Regal submitted its response to this questionnaire. No party submitted case briefs. 1 Although these additional entries were not reported during the course of the review, there is nothing on the record demonstrating that Zhanjiang Regal knew or had reason to believe that these additional entries were destined for the United States. Scope of the Order The scope of this order includes certain warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether frozen, wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off (including the telson and the uropods), deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the *penaiedae* family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp ( *penaeus vannemei* ), banana prawn ( *penaeus merguiensis* ), fleshy prawn ( *penaeus chinensis* ), giant river prawn ( *macrobrachium rosenbergii* ), giant tiger prawn ( *penaeus monodon* ), redspotted shrimp ( *penaeus brasiliensis* ), southern brown shrimp ( *penaeus subtilis* ), southern pink shrimp ( *penaeus notialis* ), southern rough shrimp ( *trachypenaeus curvirostris* ), southern white shrimp ( *penaeus schmitti* ), blue shrimp ( *penaeus stylirostris* ), western white shrimp ( *penaeus occidentalis* ), and indian white prawn ( *penaeus indicus* ). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food preparations, which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of this order. Excluded from the scope are:
(1)Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.20);
(2)shrimp and prawns generally classified in the pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing;
(3)fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40);
(4)shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.05.10);
(5)dried shrimp and prawns;
(6)Lee Kum Kee's shrimp sauce;
(7)canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.40);
(8)certain dusted shrimp; and
(9)certain battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product:
(1)That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp;
(2)to which a “dusting” layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied;
(3)with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour;
(4)with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and ten percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen;
(5)that is subjected to individually quick frozen
(IQF)freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products covered by this order are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for Customs purposes only and are dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Final Results of Review We made no changes to the *Preliminary Results* ; thus, we continue to find the following margin exists during the period July 16, 2004, through July 31, 2005: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the PRC Exporter/manufacturer Weighted- average margin (percent) Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine Resources Co., Ltd. 0.00 Assessment Rates The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) for Zhanjiang Regal within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis.* Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these results of the new shipper review for all shipments of subject merchandise from Zhanjiang Regal entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date:
(1)For subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Zhanjiang Regal, no cash deposit will be required;
(2)for subject merchandise exported by Zhanjiang Regal but not manufactured by itself, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate, ( *i.e.,* 112.81 percent); and
(3)for subject merchandise produced by Zhanjiang Regal, but not exported by Zhanjiang Regal, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporters. These requirements will remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Reimbursement of Duties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(h). Dated: November 20, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary, for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 06-9463 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 26
Traces to 26 documents
41 references not yet in our index
  • 5 CFR 3201
  • Pub. L. 108-198
  • 5 CFR 3201.102
  • 5 CFR 3201.103
  • 5 CFR 3201.101
  • 5 CFR 2635.403(a)
  • 5 CFR 2635
  • 5 CFR 3201.103(b)
  • 12 CFR 336
  • Pub. L. 106-102
  • 113 Stat. 1338
  • Pub. L. 105-277
  • 5 CFR 2635.105
  • 5 CFR 2634
  • 5 CFR 2635.403(b)
  • 7 CFR 319
  • 7 CFR 319.28
  • 7 CFR 2.22
  • 25 CFR 292
  • Pub. L. 97-394
  • 26 CFR 301
  • 33 CFR 401
  • 49 USC 4321
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 109 Stat. 48
  • 49 CFR 1.52
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 50 CFR 229
  • 50 CFR 229.2
  • 50 CFR 229.4
  • 50 CFR 229.4(e)
  • 50 CFR 229.6
  • 50 CFR 229.7
  • 50 CFR 229.30-34
  • 50 CFR 635
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 7 CFR 340
  • 7 CFR 1
  • 7 CFR 372
  • Pub. L. 109-280
+ 1 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of proposed rulemaking
U.S.C.§ 212
U.S.C.§ 213
U.S.C.§ 603
U.S.C.§ 605
U.S.C.§ 3501
Pub. L.Public Law 118-137
U.S.C.§ 7301
U.S.C.§ 1819
U.S.C.§ 1043
Cite5 CFR 3201
Pub. L.Pub. L. 108-198
Cite5 CFR 3201.102
Cites 67 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.