Notices. Confirmation of regulations

26,481 words·~120 min read·/register/2007/01/16/07-121

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 9 Tuesday, January 16, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 929 [Docket No. AMS-FV-06-0172; FV06-929-610 Review] Cranberries Grown in the States of Massachusetts, et al.; Section 610 Review AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Confirmation of regulations. SUMMARY: This action summarizes the results under the criteria contained in section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), of an Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)review of Marketing Order No. 929 regulating the handling of cranberries grown in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York. ADDRESSES: Interested persons may obtain a copy of the review. Requests for copies should be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax:(202) 720-8938; E-mail: *moab.docketclerk@usda.gov* or Internet: *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia A. Petrella or Kenneth G. Johnson, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Unit 155, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 20737; Telephone:

(301)734-5243, Fax:

(301)734-5275, or E-mail: *Patricia.Petrella@usda.gov* or *Kenneth.Johnson@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Marketing Order 929, as amended (7 CFR part 929), regulates the handling of cranberries grown in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York. The marketing order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (Act), as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674). The Cranberry Marketing Committee (Committee) is established under the marketing order and works with AMS in overseeing program operations. The Committee consists of 13 grower members and 9 grower alternate members representing four districts. Membership is allocated among producers representing the cooperative marketing association and independent producers (those not affiliated with the cooperative marketing association). The cooperative marketing association nominates its representatives, while independent member representatives are nominated and elected through a mail balloting process. Currently, there are approximately 1,250 cranberry growers and approximately 50 handlers. The majority of the growers and handlers may be classified as small entities. The regulations implemented under the orders are applied uniformly to all size entities, and are designed to benefit all entities, regardless of size. AMS published in the **Federal Register** (64 FR 8014; February 18, 1999), its plan to review certain regulations, including Marketing Order 929, under criteria contained in section 610 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601-612). An updated plan was published in the **Federal Register** on January 4, 2002 (67 FR 525), and again on August 14, 2003 (68 FR 48574). Accordingly, AMS published a notice of review and request for written comments on the cranberry marketing order in the July 12, 2005, issue of the **Federal Register** (70 FR 39987). The deadline for comments ended September 12, 2005. Numerous comments were received and they are discussed later in this document. The review was undertaken to determine whether the cranberry marketing order should be continued without change, amended, or rescinded to minimize the impacts of small entities. In conducting this review, AMS considered the following factors:

(1)The continued need for the marketing order;

(2)the nature of complaints or comments received from the public concerning the marketing order;

(3)the complexity of the marketing order;

(4)the extent to which the marketing order overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules; and

(5)the length of time since the marketing order has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the marketing order. The marketing order authorizes the following activities: Volume control to help stabilize cranberry supplies and prices, and strengthen market conditions; generic promotion programs to increase demand in domestic and foreign markets; and reporting requirements used by the Committee to obtain production, shipment, and other marketing information used by the industry in making sound marketing decisions, and in furthering marketing order goals. Funds to administer the marketing order are obtained from handler assessments. Based on the potential benefits of the marketing order to producers, handlers, and consumers, AMS has determined that the order should continue without change. In regard to complaints or comments received from the public concerning the marketing order, USDA has received 23 comments from cranberry growers and other interested parties. Six comments were in favor of the continuation of the marketing order. Several made suggestions for changes to the order or its operations, and others considered the marketing order to be a very valuable tool. The commenters suggested the following changes to the order. The suggestions include:

(1)Enlarging the production area by adding the States of Maine and Delaware, and the entire State of New York. This issue was considered during the most recent amendment proceeding. It was not supported by the evidence of record and was not adopted by USDA;

(2)Support for the redistricting and reallocation of members on the Committee and appointment of a subcommittee to investigate this issue. The order authorizes redistricting and reallocation of members. A subcommittee on this issue was appointed in 2005. At this time, no recommendations have been made or approved by the Committee to redistrict or reallocate membership; and

(3)Urging USDA to make more timely decisions on volume control recommendations made by the Committee to help growers and handlers plan accordingly. The rulemaking process requires USDA to provide adequate notice to interested parties and opportunity for comment. Steps are taken to complete this process efficiently. Seventeen comments were received in opposition. Some of the commenters expressed the belief that the portions of the production area where cranberry production has not dramatically changed over the past ten years should not be subject to volume controls, when implemented. Also, they believe that handlers who can sell all of the fruit they acquire should be exempted from volume controls. The commenters believe that only handlers with an oversupply of cranberries should be regulated. Similar opposing comments were from growers in the State of Oregon. Most urged that volume regulation not be invoked and, if it is, producers in Oregon should be exempt. The commenters believe that Oregon growers suffered financially when volume regulations were implemented in 2000-01 and 2001-02 because Oregon cranberry farms are small and do not significantly impact the overall supply. In addition, they would like the marketing order rescinded to end the negative impacts on production for small producers in small production areas. Modifications to the volume regulation provisions were considered during the most recent cranberry amendment proceeding. Many changes were made to improve the process to the benefit of producers and handlers and were supported in a producer referendum. Any additional modifications, including providing exemptions, would require further amendment to the order. Marketing order issues and programs are discussed at public meetings, and all interested persons are allowed to express their views. All comments are considered in the decision making process by the Committee and USDA before any program changes are implemented. In considering the order's complexity, AMS has determined that the marketing order is not unduly complex. During the review, the order was also checked for duplication and overlap with other regulations. AMS did not identify any relevant Federal rules, or State and local regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the marketing order for cranberries. As stated previously, the order was established in 1962. During this time, AMS and the cranberry industry have continuously monitored marketing operations. Changes in regulations have been implemented to reflect current industry operating practices, and to solve marketing problems as they occur. The goal of these evaluations is to assure that the marketing order and the regulations implemented under it fit the needs of the industry and are consistent with the Act. The Committee meets whenever needed, but at least bi-annually, to discuss the marketing order and the various regulations issued thereunder, and to determine if, or what, changes may be necessary to reflect current industry practices. As a result, regulatory changes have been made numerous times over the years to address industry operation changes and to improve program administration. In 2002, the Committee made several recommendations to improve the order's volume control provisions. Amendment hearings were held in several parts of the cranberry production area to receive evidence regarding the Committee's recommendations. A referendum was held in December 2004 to determine producer and processor support for the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments were favored by both producers and processors voting in the referendum. Accordingly, AMS has determined that the cranberry marketing order should be continued. The marketing order was established to help the cranberry industry work with USDA to solve marketing problems. The marketing order regulations on volume control, research and promotional activities, and reporting requirements continue to be beneficial to producers, handlers, and consumers. AMS will continue to work with the cranberry industry in maintaining an effective program. Dated: January 9, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-424 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 929 [Docket No. AMS-FV-06-0174; FV06-929-1 PR] Cranberries Grown in the States of Massachusetts, et al.; Increased Assessment Rate AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Cranberry Marketing Committee (Committee) for the 2006-2007 fiscal year and subsequent fiscal years from $0.18 to $0.28 per barrel. Authorization to assess cranberry handlers enables the Committee to incur expenses that are reasonable and necessary to administer the program. The Committee locally administers the marketing order which regulates the handling of cranberries grown in the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York. The fiscal year began September 1, 2006, and ends August 31, 2007. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated. DATES: Comments must be received by February 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this action. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax:

(202)720-8938, E-mail: *moabdocket.clerk@usda.gov;* or Internet: *http://www.regulations.gov* . All comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be made available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours or can be viewed at: *http://www.ams/usda.gov/fv/moab/html* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia A. Petrella or Kenneth G. Johnson, DC Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Unit 155, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, Maryland 20737; telephone:

(301)734-5243, Fax:

(301)734-5275, or E-mail at *Patricia.Petrella@usda.gov* or *Kenneth.Johnson@usda.gov* . Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; telephone:

(202)720-2491, Fax:

(202)720-8938, or e-mail: *Jay.Guerber@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 929, as amended (7 CFR part 929), regulating the handling of cranberries produced in the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Department of Agriculture

(USDA)is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, cranberries are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as proposed herein would be applicable to all assessable cranberries beginning September 1, 2006, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing the USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. This rule would increase the assessment rate established for the 2006-2007 and subsequent fiscal years from $0.18 to $0.28 per pound of cranberries. The cranberry marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of cranberries. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input. Authority to fix the rate of assessment to be paid by each handler and to collect such assessment appears in § 929.41 of the order. In addition, § 929.45 of the order provides that the Committee, with the approval of the USDA, may establish or provide for the establishment of production research, marketing research, and market development projects designed to assist, improve, or promote the marketing, distribution, consumption, or efficient production of cranberries. The expense of such projects is paid from funds collected pursuant to § 929.41 (Assessments), or from such other funds as approved by the USDA. For the 2001-2002 fiscal year, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate of $0.18 per barrel of cranberries handled that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA. The Committee met on August 28, 2006, and recommended 2006-2007 expenditures of $3,522,062 and an assessment rate of $0.28 per pound of cranberries. The Committee passed the assessment rate increase by a vote of 12 to 2. Those not supporting the recommendation wanted a lesser increase. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenses were $2,612,265. The assessment rate of $0.28 is $0.10 higher than the rate currently in effect. The Committee recommended the $0.10 per barrel increase to cover increased costs. The Committee has expanded its contributions to the export market development program from $50,000 in 1999 to $480,000 in 2006. The Committee has increased funding of the export market development program as target markets have expanded from two in 1999 (Japan and Germany), to five in 2006 (Japan, Germany, Mexico, France and Australia) with contingency plans to expand activities regionally within Europe and in South Korea. According to the Committee, cranberries and cranberry products going into export markets have steadily increased from 10 percent of the annual cranberry production during the 1999-2000 fiscal period to approximately 24 percent of the annual production in the 2005-2006 fiscal period. In order to expand and maintain activities within the target markets, the Committee has used funds from its reserve account to meet the costs of educating consumers and the trade industry. Since the last increase published in the **Federal Register** on February 14, 2002, at 67 FR 6843, the assessment rate has not been increased to compensate for increases in the costs of goods and services, costs contributable to increasing the Committee membership and to pay back funds taken from the reserve for the expanding export market development program. As a result, the reserve has continued to decrease until it is at a point where the Committee is unable to meet the order's reserve funding requirements or balance its budget without an increase in assessments and/or cutback in program activities. The Committee recommended the assessment rate increase to continue to expand the generic export market development program and have sufficient funding to meet its operational expenses. Without this increase, the Committee would have to curtail expansion of the export market development program. All cranberry handlers regulated under the marketing order would pay the proposed assessment rate. However, certain organic handlers may be exempt from paying assessments for market promotion activities pursuant to 7 CFR 900.700. The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2006-2007 fiscal year include $500,000 for domestic promotion, $480,000 for export promotion, $154,116 for personnel, $103,500 for meetings, and $107,527 for administrative expenses. Budgeted expenses for major items in 2005-2006 were $488,225 for domestic promotion, $147,420 for personnel, $105,500 for meetings, and $116,542 for administrative expenses. The Committee recommended an increased assessment rate to generate larger revenue to meet its operational and export promotion expenses and keep its reserves at an acceptable level. In deriving the recommended assessment rate, the Committee determined assessable cranberry production for the upcoming fiscal period at 6,506,000 barrels. Therefore, total assessment income for the 2006-2007 fiscal year is estimated at $1,821,680 (6,506,000 barrels × $0.28). This amount plus $1,767,600 from USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service's Market Access Program and adequate funds in the reserve and interest income would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (approximately $541,122) would be kept within the approximately one fiscal period's expenses as recommended by the Committee consistent with § 929.42(a) of the order. The assessment rate established in this rule would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and other information submitted by the Committee or other available information. Although the assessment rate would be effective for an indefinite period, the Committee would continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or the USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2006-2007 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by the USDA. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service

(1)The 2006-2007 fiscal period began September 1, 2006, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal year apply to all assessable cranberries handled during such period;

(2)the Committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses which are incurred on a continuous basis; and

(3)handlers are aware of this action which was recommended by the Committee at a public meeting. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 929 Cranberries, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 929 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 929—CRANBERRIES GROWN IN THE STATES OF MASSACHUSETTS, RHODE ISLAND, CONNECTICUT, NEW JERSEY, WISCONSIN, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, OREGON, WASHINGTON, AND LONG ISLAND IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 929 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674. 2. Section 929.236 is revised to read as follows: § 929.236 Assessment rate. On and after September 1, 2006, an assessment rate of $.28 per barrel is established for cranberries. Dated: January 10, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-428 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 930 [Docket No. AMS-FV-06-00187; FV07-930-1 PR] Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, et al.; Final Free and Restricted Percentages for the 2006-2007 Crop Year for Tart Cherries AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This rule invites comments on the establishment of final free and restricted percentages for the 2006-2007 crop year. The percentages are 55 percent free and 45 percent restricted and will establish the proportion of cherries from the 2006 crop which may be handled in commercial outlets. The percentages are intended to stabilize supplies and prices, and strengthen market conditions. The percentages were recommended by the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (Board), the body that locally administers the marketing order. The marketing order regulates the handling of tart cherries grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. DATES: Comments must be received by February 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax:

(202)720-8938, or *E-mail: moabdocket.clerk@usda.gov* ; or *Internet: http://www.regulations.gov.* Comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours or can be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia A. Petrella or Kenneth G. Johnson, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Unit 155, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 20737; Telephone:

(301)734-5243, or Fax:

(301)734-5275, or E-mail at *Patricia.Petrella@usda.gov* or *Kenneth.Johnson@usda.gov.* Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation, or obtain a guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone:

(202)720-2491, Fax:

(202)720-8938, or *E-mail: Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 930 (7 CFR part 930), regulating the handling of tart cherries produced in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order provisions now in effect, final free and restricted percentages may be established for tart cherries handled by handlers during the crop year. This rule establishes final free and restricted percentages for tart cherries for the 2006-2007 crop year, beginning July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempt therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. The order prescribes procedures for computing an optimum supply and preliminary and final percentages that establish the amount of tart cherries that can be marketed throughout the season. The regulations apply to all handlers of tart cherries that are in the regulated districts. Tart cherries in the free percentage category may be shipped immediately to any market, while restricted percentage tart cherries must be held by handlers in a primary or secondary reserve, or be diverted in accordance with § 930.59 of the order and § 930.159 of the regulations, or used for exempt purposes (to obtain diversion credit) under § 930.62 of the order and § 930.162 of the regulations. The regulated Districts for this season are: District one—Northern Michigan; District two—Central Michigan; District three—Southwest Michigan; District four—New York; District seven—Utah; and District eight—Washington. Districts five, six and nine (Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, respectively) will not be regulated for the 2006-2007 season. The order prescribes under § 930.52 that those districts to be regulated shall be those districts in which the average annual production of cherries over the prior three years has exceeded six million pounds. A district not meeting the six million-pound requirement shall not be regulated in such crop year. Because this requirement was not met in the Districts of Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, handlers in those districts would not be subject to volume regulation during the 2006-2007 crop year. Demand for tart cherries at the farm level is derived from the demand for tart cherry products at retail. Demand for tart cherries and tart cherry products tends to be relatively stable from year to year. The supply of tart cherries, by contrast, varies greatly from crop year to crop year. The magnitude of annual fluctuations in tart cherry supplies is one of the most pronounced for any agricultural commodity in the United States. In addition, because tart cherries are processed either into cans or frozen, they can be stored and carried over from crop year to crop year. This creates substantial coordination and marketing problems. The supply and demand for tart cherries is rarely balanced. The primary purpose of setting free and restricted percentages is to balance supply with demand and reduce large surpluses that may occur. Section 930.50(a) of the order prescribes procedures for computing an optimum supply for each crop year. The Board must meet on or about July 1 of each crop year, to review sales data, inventory data, current crop forecasts and market conditions. The optimum supply volume shall be calculated as 100 percent of the average sales of the prior three years to which is added a desirable carryout inventory not to exceed 20 million pounds or such other amount as may be established with the approval of the Secretary. The optimum supply represents the desirable volume of tart cherries that should be available for sale in the coming crop year before new crop supplies are available for marketing. The order also provides that on or about July 1 of each crop year, the Board is required to establish preliminary free and restricted percentages. These percentages are computed by deducting the actual carryin inventory from the optimum supply figure (adjusted to raw product equivalent—the actual weight of cherries handled to process into cherry products) and subtracting that figure from the current year's USDA crop forecast. If the resulting number is positive, this represents the estimated over-production, which would be the restricted percentage tonnage. The restricted percentage tonnage is then divided by the sum of the USDA crop forecast or by an average of such other crop estimates for the regulated districts to obtain percentages for the regulated districts. The Board is required to establish a preliminary restricted percentage equal to the quotient, rounded to the nearest whole number, with the complement being the preliminary free tonnage percentage. If the tonnage requirements for the year are more than the USDA crop forecast, the Board is required to establish a preliminary free tonnage percentage of 100 percent and a preliminary restricted percentage of zero. The Board is required to announce the preliminary percentages in accordance with paragraph

(h)of § 930.50. The Board met on June 22, 2006, and computed, for the 2006-2007 crop year, an optimum supply of 182 million pounds. The Board recommended that the desirable carryout figure be zero pounds. Desirable carryout is the amount of fruit required to be carried into the succeeding crop year and is set by the Board after considering market circumstances and needs. This figure can range from zero to a maximum of 20 million pounds, or such other amount, as the Board with the approval of the Secretary, may establish. The Board calculated preliminary free and restricted percentages as follows: The USDA estimate of the crop for the entire production area was 256 million pounds; a 25 million pound carryin (based on Board estimates) was subtracted from the optimum supply of 182 million pounds which resulted in 2006-2007 tonnage requirements (adjusted optimum supply) of 157 million pounds. The carryin figure reflects the amount of cherries that handlers actually had in inventory at the beginning of the 2006-2007 crop year. Subtracting the adjusted optimum supply of 157 million pounds from the USDA crop estimate (256 million pounds) results in a surplus of 99 million pounds of tart cherries. The surplus was divided by the production in the regulated districts (249 million pounds) and resulted in a restricted percentage of 40 percent for the 2006-2007 crop year. The free percentage was 60 percent (100 percent minus 40 percent). The Board established these percentages and announced them to the industry as required by the order. The preliminary percentages were based on the USDA production estimate and the following supply and demand information available at the June meeting for the 2006-2007 year: Millions of pounds Optimum Supply Formula:

(1)Average sales of the prior three years 182

(2)Plus desirable carryout 0

(3)Optimum supply calculated by the Board at the June meeting 182 Preliminary Percentages:

(4)USDA crop estimate 256

(5)Carryin held by handlers as of July 1, 2006 25

(6)Adjusted optimum supply for current crop year (Item 3 minus Item 5) 157

(7)Surplus (Item 4 minus Item 6) 99

(8)USDA crop estimate for regulated districts 249 Free Restricted

(9)Preliminary percentages (item 7 divided by item 8 × 100 equals restricted percentage; 100 minus restricted percentage equals free percentage) 60 40 Between July 1 and September 15 of each crop year, the Board may modify the preliminary free and restricted percentages by announcing interim free and restricted percentages to adjust to the actual pack occurring in the industry. USDA establishes final free and restricted percentages through the informal rulemaking process. These percentages would make available the tart cherries necessary to achieve the optimum supply figure calculated by the Board. The difference between any final free percentage designated by USDA and 100 percent is the final restricted percentage. The Board met on September 9, 2006, to recommend final free and restricted percentages. The actual production reported by the Board was 263 million pounds, which is a 7 million pound increase from the USDA crop estimate of 256 million pounds. A 31 million pound carryin (based on handler reports) was subtracted from the Board's optimum supply of 182 million pounds, yielding an adjusted optimum supply for the current crop year of 151 million pounds. The adjusted optimum supply of 151 million pounds was subtracted from the actual production of 263 million pounds, which resulted in a 112 million pound surplus. The total surplus of 112 million pounds is divided by the 251 million-pound volume of tart cherries produced in the regulated districts. This results in a 45 percent restricted percentage and a corresponding 55 percent free percentage for the regulated districts. The final percentages are based on the Board's reported production figures and the following supply and demand information available in September for the 2006-2007 crop year: Millions of pounds Optimum Supply Formula:

(1)Average sales of the prior three years 182

(2)Plus desirable carryout 0

(3)Optimum supply calculated by the Board 182 Final Percentages:

(4)Board reported production 263

(5)Plus carryin held by handlers as of July 1, 2006 31

(6)Adjusted optimum supply (Item 3 minus Item 5) available for current crop year 151

(7)Surplus (Item 4 minus Item 6) 112

(8)Production in regulated districts 251 Percentages Free Restricted

(9)Final Percentages (item 7 divided by item 8 × 100 equals restricted percentage; 100 minus restricted percentage equals free percentage) 55 45 USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” specify that 110 percent of recent years' sales should be made available to primary markets each season before recommendations for volume regulation are approved. This goal would be met by this action which releases 100 percent of the optimum supply and the additional release of tart cherries provided under § 930.50(g). This release of tonnage, equal to 10 percent of the average sales of the prior three years sales, is made available to handlers each season. The Board recommended that such release should be made available to handlers the first week of December and the first week of May. Handlers can decide how much of the 10 percent release they would like to receive on the December and May release dates. Once released, such cherries are released for free use by such handler. Approximately 18 million pounds would be made available to handlers this season in accordance with USDA Guidelines. This release would be made available to every handler and released to such handler in proportion to the handler's percentage of the total regulated crop handled. If a handler does not take his/her proportionate amount, such amount remains in the inventory reserve. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility. There are approximately 40 handlers of tart cherries who are subject to regulation under the tart cherry marketing order and approximately 900 producers of tart cherries in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms, which includes handlers, have been defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $6,500,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000. A majority of the producers and handlers are considered small entities under SBA's standards. The principal demand for tart cherries is in the form of processed products. Tart cherries are dried, frozen, canned, juiced, and pureed. During the period 2001/2002 through 2005/2006, approximately 93.8 percent of the U.S. tart cherry crop, or 214.3 million pounds, was processed annually. Of the 214.3 million pounds of tart cherries processed, 62 percent was frozen, 26 percent was canned, and 12 percent was utilized for juice and other products. Based on National Agricultural Statistics Service data, acreage in the United States devoted to tart cherry production has been trending downward. Bearing acreage has declined from a high of 50,050 acres in 1987/88 to 37,050 acres in 2005/2006. This represents a 26 percent decrease in total bearing acres. Michigan leads the nation in tart cherry acreage with 73 percent of the total and produces about 70 percent of the U.S. tart cherry crop each year. The 2006/2007 crop is moderate in size at 263 million pounds. The largest crop occurred in 1995 with production in the regulated districts reaching a record 395.6 million pounds. The price per pound received by tart cherry growers ranged from a low of 7.3 cents in 1987 to a high of 46.4 cents in 1991. These problems of wide supply and price fluctuations in the tart cherry industry are national in scope and impact. Growers testified during the order promulgation process that the prices they received often did not come close to covering the costs of production. The industry demonstrated a need for an order during the promulgation process of the marketing order because large variations in annual tart cherry supplies tend to lead to fluctuations in prices and disorderly marketing. As a result of these fluctuations in supply and price, growers realize less income. The industry chose a volume control marketing order to even out these wide variations in supply and improve returns to growers. During the promulgation process, proponents testified that small growers and processors would have the most to gain from implementation of a marketing order because many such growers and handlers had been going out of business due to low tart cherry prices. They also testified that, since an order would help increase grower returns, this should increase the buffer between business success and failure because small growers and handlers tend to be less capitalized than larger growers and handlers. Aggregate demand for tart cherries and tart cherry products tends to be relatively stable from year-to-year. Similarly, prices at the retail level show minimal variation. Consumer prices in grocery stores, and particularly in food service markets, largely do not reflect fluctuations in cherry supplies. Retail demand is assumed to be highly inelastic which indicates that price reductions do not result in large increases in the quantity demanded. Most tart cherries are sold to food service outlets and to consumers as pie filling; frozen cherries are sold as an ingredient to manufacturers of pies and cherry desserts. Juice and dried cherries are expanding market outlets for tart cherries. Demand for tart cherries at the farm level is derived from the demand for tart cherry products at retail. In general, the farm-level demand for a commodity consists of the demand at retail or food service outlets minus per-unit processing and distribution costs incurred in transforming the raw farm commodity into a product available to consumers. These costs comprise what is known as the “marketing margin.” The supply of tart cherries, by contrast, varies greatly. The magnitude of annual fluctuations in tart cherry supplies is one of the most pronounced for any agricultural commodity in the United States. In addition, because tart cherries are processed either into cans or frozen, they can be stored and carried over from year-to-year. This creates substantial coordination and marketing problems. The supply and demand for tart cherries is rarely in equilibrium. As a result, grower prices fluctuate widely, reflecting the large swings in annual supplies. In an effort to stabilize prices, the tart cherry industry uses the volume control mechanisms under the authority of the Federal marketing order. This authority allows the industry to set free and restricted percentages. These restricted percentages are only applied to states or districts with a 3-year average of production greater than six million pounds, and to states or districts in which the production is 50 percent or more of the previous 5-year processed production average. The primary purpose of setting restricted percentages is an attempt to bring supply and demand into balance. If the primary market is over-supplied with cherries, grower prices decline substantially. The tart cherry sector uses an industry-wide storage program as a supplemental coordinating mechanism under the Federal marketing order. The primary purpose of the storage program is to warehouse supplies in large crop years in order to supplement supplies in short crop years. The storage approach is feasible because the increase in price—when moving from a large crop to a short crop year—more than offsets the costs for storage, interest, and handling of the stored cherries. The price that growers receive for their crop is largely determined by the total production and carryin inventories. The Federal marketing order permits the industry to exercise supply control provisions, which allow for the establishment of free and restricted percentages for the primary market, and a storage program. The establishment of restricted percentages impacts the production to be marketed in the primary market, while the storage program has an impact on the volume of unsold inventories. The volume control mechanism used by the cherry industry results in decreased shipments to primary markets. Without volume control the primary markets (domestic) would likely be over-supplied, resulting in lower grower prices. To assess the impact that volume control has on the prices growers receive for their product, an econometric model has been developed. The econometric model provides a way to see what impacts volume control may have on grower prices. The three districts in Michigan, along with the districts in Utah, New York, and Washington are the restricted areas for this crop year and their combined total production is 251 million pounds. A free percentage of 55 percent results in 138 million pounds is available to be shipped to primary markets from these four states. Production levels of 3.4 million pounds for Oregon, 4.5 million pounds for Pennsylvania, and 4.3 million pounds for Wisconsin (the unregulated areas in 2006-2007), result in an additional 12.2 million pounds available for primary market shipments. In addition, USDA requires a 10 percent release from reserves as a market growth factor. This results in an additional 18 million pounds being available for the primary market. The 138 million pounds from Michigan, Utah, Washington, and New York, the 12.2 million pounds from the other producing states, the 18 million pound release, and the 31 million pound carryin inventory gives a total of 199.2 million pounds being available for the primary markets. The econometric model is used to estimate the difference between grower prices with and without restrictions. With volume controls, grower prices are estimated to be approximately $0.025 per pound higher than without volume controls. The use of volume controls is estimated to have a positive impact on grower's total revenues. With restrictions, revenues are estimated to be $6.0 million higher than without restrictions. The without restrictions scenario assumes that all tart cherries produced would be delivered to processors for payments. It is concluded that the 45 percent volume control would not unduly burden producers, particularly smaller growers. The 45 percent restriction would be applied to the growers in Michigan, New York, Utah, and Washington. The growers in the other three States covered under the marketing order will benefit from this restriction. Recent grower prices have been as high as $0.44 per pound in 2002-03 when there was a crop failure. Prices in the last two crop years have been $0.33 in 2004 and $0.24 per pound in 2005. At current production levels, yield is estimated at approximately 7,112 pounds per acre. At this level of yield, the cost of production is estimated to be $0.31 per pound (Cost of Production Tart Cherries in Northwestern Michigan, Nugent, Kole, Thornton, Bardenhagen). Thus, this year's grower price even with regulation is estimated to be below the cost of production. The use of volume controls is believed to have little or no effect on consumer prices and will not result in fewer retail sales or sales to food service outlets. Without the use of volume controls, the industry could be expected to start to build large amounts of unwanted inventories. These inventories have a depressing effect on grower prices. The econometric model shows for every 1 million-pound increase in carryin inventories, a decrease in grower prices of $0.0039 per pound occurs. The use of volume controls allows the industry to supply the primary markets while avoiding the disastrous results of over-supplying these markets. In addition, through volume control, the industry has an additional supply of cherries that can be used to develop secondary markets such as exports and the development of new products. The use of reserve cherries in the production shortened 2002-2003 crop year proved to be very useful and beneficial to growers and packers. In discussing the possibility of marketing percentages for the 2006-2007 crop year, the Board considered the following factors contained in the marketing policy:

(1)The estimated total production of tart cherries;

(2)the estimated size of the crop to be handled;

(3)the expected general quality of such cherry production;

(4)the expected carryover as of July 1 of canned and frozen cherries and other cherry products;

(5)the expected demand conditions for cherries in different market segments;

(6)supplies of competing commodities;

(7)an analysis of economic factors having a bearing on the marketing of cherries;

(8)the estimated tonnage held by handlers in primary or secondary inventory reserves; and

(9)any estimated release of primary or secondary inventory reserve cherries during the crop year. The Board's review of the factors resulted in the computation and announcement in September 2006 of the free and restricted percentages proposed to be established by this rule (55 percent free and 45 percent restricted). One alternative to this action would be not to have volume regulation this season. Board members stated that no volume regulation would be detrimental to the tart cherry industry due to the size of the 2006-2007 crop. Returns to growers would not cover their costs of production for this season which might cause some to go out of business. As mentioned earlier, USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” specify that 110 percent of recent years' sales should be made available to primary markets each season before recommendations for volume regulation are approved. The quantity available under this rule is 110 percent of the quantity shipped in the prior three years. The free and restricted percentages established by this rule release the optimum supply and apply uniformly to all regulated handlers in the industry, regardless of size. There are no known additional costs incurred by small handlers that are not incurred by large handlers. The stabilizing effects of the percentages impact all handlers positively by helping them maintain and expand markets, despite seasonal supply fluctuations. Likewise, price stability positively impacts all producers by allowing them to better anticipate the revenues their tart cherries will generate. While the benefits resulting from this rulemaking are difficult to quantify, the stabilizing effects of the volume regulations impact both small and large handlers positively by helping them maintain markets even though tart cherry supplies fluctuate widely from season to season. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this regulation. In addition, the Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout the tart cherry industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the September 9, 2006, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses. In compliance with Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)regulations (5 CFR part 1320) which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements under the tart cherry marketing order have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB Number 0581-0177. Reporting and recordkeeping burdens are necessary for compliance purposes and for developing statistical data for maintenance of the program. The forms require information which is readily available from handler records and which can be provided without data processing equipment or trained statistical staff. As with other, similar marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically studied to reduce or eliminate duplicate information collection burdens by industry and public sector agencies. This rule does not change those requirements. AMS is committed to complying with 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. A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.* Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed appropriate because this rule would need to be in place as soon as possible since handlers are already shipping tart cherries from the 2006-2007 crop. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 930 Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tart cherries . For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 930 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 930—TART CHERRIES GROWN IN THE STATES OF MICHIGAN, NEW YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WISCONSIN 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 930 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674. 2. Section 930.255 is added to read as follows: Note: This section will not appear in the annual Code of Federal Regulations. § 930.255 Final free and restricted percentages for the 2006-2007 crop year. The final percentages for tart cherries handled by handlers during the crop year beginning on July 1, 2006, which shall be free and restricted, respectively, are designated as follows: Free percentage, 55 percent and restricted percentage, 45 percent. Dated: January 9, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-423 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 946 [Docket No. AMS-FV-06-0177; FV06-946-1 PR] Irish Potatoes Grown in Washington; Modification of Administrative Rules Governing Committee Representation AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This rule invites comments on modifications to the administrative rules governing committee representation under the Washington potato marketing order. The marketing order regulates the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Washington, and is administered locally by the State of Washington Potato Committee (Committee). This rule would reestablish districts within the production area, reestablish the Committee with fewer members, and reapportion members among districts. These changes would result in more efficient administration of the program while providing for more effective representation of the Washington fresh potato industry on the Committee. DATES: Comments must be received by March 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax:

(202)720-8938; E-mail: *moab.docketclerk@usda.gov* ; or Internet: *http://www.regulations.gov.* All comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be made available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresa Hutchinson or Gary Olson, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone:

(503)326-2724, Fax:

(503)326-7440, or E-Mail: *Teresa.Hutchinson@usda.gov* or *GaryD.Olson@usda.gov.* Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone:

(202)720-2491, Fax:

(202)720-8938, or E-mail: *Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal is issued under Marketing Order No. 946, as amended (7 CFR part 946), regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Department of Agriculture

(USDA)is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This proposal will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. This rule invites comments on proposed modifications to the administrative rules governing committee representation under the Washington potato marketing order. This rule would reestablish districts within the production area, reestablish the Committee with fewer members, and reapportion members among the new districts. Specifically, this rule would reestablish the order's five districts as three districts; decrease Committee membership from fifteen members and fifteen alternate members to nine members and nine alternate members; and reapportion the members such that one handler member and alternate member, and two producer members and their respective alternate members would be elected from each of the three reestablished districts. These changes would result in more efficient administration of the program while providing for more effective representation of the fresh potato industry on the Committee. The Committee unanimously recommended these changes at a meeting held on June 6, 2006, with a request that they be made effective on July 1, 2007. The order provides in § 946.22 that USDA, upon recommendation of the Committee, may reestablish districts, may reapportion members among districts, may change the number of members and alternate members, and may change the composition by changing the ratio of members, including their alternates. In recommending any such changes, the order requires that the Committee consider the following:

(1)Shifts in acreage within districts and within the production area during recent years;

(2)the importance of new production in its relation to existing districts;

(3)the equitable relationship between Committee apportionment and districts; and

(4)other relevant factors. As previously noted, the Committee currently has fifteen members, with membership apportioned among five districts. Sections 946.31 and 946.103 currently define the districts as follows: District No. 1—The counties of Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Whitman, and Lincoln, plus the East Irrigation District of the Columbia Basin Project, plus the area of Grant County not included in either the Quincy or South Irrigation Districts which lies east of township vertical line R27E, plus the area of Adams County not included in either of the South or Quincy Irrigation Districts. District No. 2—The counties of Kittitas, Douglas, Chelan, and Okanogan, plus the Quincy Irrigation District of the Columbia Basin Project, plus the area of Grant County not included in the East or South Irrigation Districts which lies west of township line R28E. District No. 3—The counties of Benton, Klickitat, and Yakima. District No. 4—The counties of Walla Walla, Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin, plus the South Irrigation District of the Columbia Basin Project, plus the area of Franklin County not included in the South District. District No. 5—All of the remaining counties in the State of Washington not included in Districts No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this section. Further, §§ 946.25 and 946.104 currently provide in part that each of the five districts are represented as follows: District No. 1: Three producer members and one handler member; District No. 2: Two producer members and one handler member; District No. 3: Two producer members and one handler member; District No. 4: Two producer members and one handler member; District No. 5: One producer member and one handler member. The Committee's districts were last reestablished on July 1, 1975, largely due to changes in the production area brought about by the Columbia Basin Project (CBP). The CBP is a large scale irrigation project administered by the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Interior. The CBP is comprised of three irrigation districts centered in Grant County, Washington. The Committee's districts were originally established using county boundaries, whereas the 1975 redistricting process reestablished the districts by utilizing existing county and township lines, as well as the three irrigation districts formed under the CBP. As a consequence, the Committee utilized the CBP irrigation district boundaries in redistricting. At the time, the boundaries of the three irrigation districts were well known to producers in the area. However, as more producers installed wells to irrigate their potatoes, the CBP irrigation district boundaries became less relevant. Also, the Committee reports that it is having difficulty recruiting members. This recruitment issue is largely due to a decreasing number of qualified individuals willing to take the time away from their families and farms to serve on the Committee. Finally, the Washington State Potato Commission (Commission), an agency of the State of Washington, has recently reestablished its production area into three districts. The Committee recommended reestablishing the order's districts to align with the Commission's new districts. After comparing current acreage and production statistics, as well as the current number of fresh potato producers in each of the order's five districts to statistics for the Commission's three new districts, the Committee found that reestablishment of its districts from five to three would not only be feasible, but could enhance the Committee's administration of the order. In considering the trend towards less industry participation on the Committee, as well as the decreasing relative size of the fresh potato producer population (the 5 year average fresh production is 13% of the total Washington potato production), the Committee also determined that it could more effectively serve the industry if it were to reestablish with as few as nine members. The Committee currently is comprised of ten producer members and five handler members and their respective alternates. The Committee felt that this ratio—two producer members to each handler member—should also be used in reestablishing and reapportioning the Committee. Based on statistical information available from USDA, the Committee therefore determined that the reestablished Committee should be comprised of nine members—six producer members and three handler members—with two producer members and respective alternates, and one handler member and respective alternate representing each of the three new districts. In determining how to appropriately divide the production area into three districts, as well as the correct apportionment of nine members in three new districts, the Committee reviewed the relative differences in fresh production and acreage estimates in Washington's various potato producing counties. Using data from the USDA's National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS), the Committee's research indicated that proposed District No. 1 would have 41 percent of the fresh potato producers, 36 percent of the fresh potato production, and 32 percent of the fresh potato acreage in the order's production area. Proposed District No. 2 would have 31 percent of the producers, 43 percent of the production, and 36 percent of the acreage. Finally, proposed District No. 3 would have 28 percent of the producers, 21 percent of the production, and 32 percent of the acreage. Although these statistics show that the number of fresh potato farms and the related production figures are not evenly divided among the proposed districts, acreage figures are nearly equal. Additionally, the Committee reports that there are widely variable yields among the various table-stock potato varieties produced in Washington's diverse production areas. In equitably apportioning the proposed nine members among the three districts, the Committee chose not to provide districts that predominately produce a lower yielding variety of potato with less representation on the Committee. As previously noted, the Committee's recommendation therefore includes provision that two producer members and one handler member, as well as their respective alternates, would represent each district. The proposed districts would provide consistency in the Washington potato industry. All of Grant County would be located in the reestablished District No. 1 instead of being divided between Districts No. 1, 2 and 4, as is currently the case. As proposed in this rule, District No. 1 would consist of the counties of Douglas, Chelan, Okanogan, Grant, Adams, Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Whitman, and Lincoln. District No. 2 would consist of the counties of Kittitas, Yakima, Klickitat, Benton, Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin. Finally, District No. 3 would consist of all the remaining counties in the State of Washington not included in Districts No. 1 and 2 (essentially all of the counties west of the Cascade Mountains). Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service

(a)District No. 1—the counties of Douglas, Chelan, Okanogan, Grant, Adams, Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Whitman, and Lincoln.

(b)District No. 2—the counties of Kittitas, Yakima, Klickitat, Benton, Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin.

(c)District No. 3—all of the remaining counties in the State of Washington, not included in Districts No. 1 and No. 2 of this paragraph. 3. Section 946.104 is revised to read as follows: § 946.104 Reestablishment and Reapportionment of committee.

(a)Pursuant to § 946.22, on and after July 1, 2007, the State of Washington Potato Committee consisting of nine members, of whom six shall be producers and three shall be handlers, is hereby reestablished. For each member of the committee there shall be an alternate who shall have the same qualifications as the member.

(b)Pursuant to § 946.22, on and after July 1, 2007, membership representation of the State of Washington Potato Committee shall be reapportioned among the districts of the production area so as to provide that each of the three districts as defined in § 946.103 are represented by two producer members and one handler member and their respective alternates. Dated: January 9, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-425 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1207 [Docket No. AMS-FV-06-0219; FV-05-711] Potato Research and Promotion Plan; Section 610 Review AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Confirmation of regulations. SUMMARY: This document summarizes the results of an Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)review of the Potato Research and Promotion Program, under the criteria contained in Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Based upon its review, AMS has determined that the Potato Research and Promotion Plan should be continued without change. ADDRESSES: Interested persons may obtain a copy of the review. Requests for copies should be sent to the Docket Clerk, Research and Promotion Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs (FV), Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), USDA, Stop 0244, Room 0634-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone

(202)720-9915; Fax

(202)205-2800; or e-mail: *Daniel.Manzoni@usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sonia N. Jimenez, Research and Promotion Branch, FV, AMS, USDA, Stop 0244, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 0634-S, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone:

(888)720-9917; fax:

(202)205-2800; or e-mail: *Sonia.Jimenez@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Potato Research and Promotion Act of 1971, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 2611 *et seq.* ) authorized the Potato Research and Promotion Program which is industry operated and funded, with oversight by USDA. The Program's objective is to carry out an effective and continuous coordinated program of research, development, advertising, and promotion designed to strengthen potatoes' competitive position, and to maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets for potatoes and potato products. The Program became effective on March 9, 1972, and was implemented on September 15, 1972, when the Potato Research and Promotion Plan

(Plan)(7 CFR part 1207) was issued. The plan was amended in May 1984, to increase the maximum assessment rate from 1 cent per hundredweight to 0.5 percent of the previous 10-year average price received by growers. The Plan was amended again on March 8, 2006, to increase the assessment rate from 2 cents per hundredweight to 2.5 cents per hundredweight. Assessments under this Program are used to fund promotional campaigns and to conduct research in the areas of U.S. marketing, and international marketing and to enable the Potato Board (Board) to exercise its duties in accordance with the Plan. The Plan is administered by the Board, which is composed of producer members, importer members, and one public member appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture from nominations submitted by eligible groups. Producer membership on the Board is based upon potato production within each State. Importer members, limited to five, are based upon the amount of potatoes, potato products, and seed potatoes imported into the U.S. All members serve terms of three years. AMS published in the **Federal Register** (63 FR 8014; February 18, 1999) its plan to review certain regulations, including the Potato Research and Promotion Plan, (conducted under the Potato Research and Promotion Act), under criteria contained in Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601-612). The Plan to review certain regulations was updated in the **Federal Register** on August 14, 2003 (68 FR 48574), and updated again on March 24, 2006 (71 FR 14827). AMS published a notice of review and request for written comments in the **Federal Register** on December 14, 2005 (70 FR 73945). The comment period ended on February 13, 2006. AMS received three written comments. One commenter encouraged the Board to place more emphasis on the nutritional benefits of potatoes. The Board routinely conducts research into the nutritional benefits of potatoes and uses that information to promote the benefits of potatoes. A second commenter questioned why potato research is needed and suggested that the program be terminated. However, the Board does not conduct production research. The Board establishes and carries out research and development projects and studies in order to encourage, expand, improve or more efficiently market and utilize potatoes. The third commenter merely sent their organizational structure and did not provide any substantive comment. The review was undertaken to determine whether the Potato Research and Promotion Plan should be continued without change, amended, or rescinded (consistent with the objectives of the Potato Research and Promotion Act of 1971) to minimize the impacts on small entities. In conducting this review, AMS considered the following factors:

(1)The continued need for the Potato Research and Promotion Plan;

(2)the nature of complaints or comments received from the public concerning the Potato Research and Promotion Plan;

(3)the complexity of the Potato Research and Promotion Plan;

(4)the extent to which the Potato Research and Promotion Plan overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local regulations; and

(5)the length of time since the Potato Research and Promotion Plan has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the Potato Research and Promotion Plan. Currently, there are approximately 1,353 handlers, 5,223 producers, and 300 importers of potatoes and potato products who are subject to the provisions of the Plan. Producers of less than 5 acres of potatoes are exempt from assessment. AMS provides Federal oversight of the Potato Research and Promotion Plan. The Plan is not unduly complex, and AMS has not identified any Federal rules, or State and local regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the Plan. Over the years, regulation changes have been made to address industry operation changes and to improve program administration. The goal of these evaluations is to assure that the Plan and the regulations implemented under it fit the needs of the industry and are consistent with the Act. Based upon its review, AMS has determined that the Plan should be continued without change. AMS plans to continue working with the potato industry in maintaining an effective program. Dated: January 10, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-426 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 229 [Docket No. 060928250-6250-01; I.D. 092506A] RIN 0648-AU90 Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period. SUMMARY: On November 15, 2006, NMFS proposed to revise the regulations implementing the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) by expanding the southeast U.S. restricted area to include waters out to 35 nautical miles from the South Carolina coast and modifying regulations pertaining to gillnetting within the southeast U.S. restricted area. The proposed action was determined to be necessary to protect northern right whales from serious injury or mortality from entanglement in gillnet gear in their calving area in Atlantic Ocean waters off the Southeastern U.S. With this notice, NMFS is reopening the public comment period for 15 days beginning January 16, 2007. DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received by 5 p.m. EST on January 31, 2007. Comments received between the close of the first comment period on December 15, 2006, and the reopening of the comment period on January 16, 2007 will be considered timely received. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be identified by the Regulatory Information Number

(RIN)“0648-AU90” and submitted by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *sewhalerule.comments@noaa.gov* . Include RIN 0648-AU90 in the subject line of the message. • Mail: Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. • Facsimile

(fax)to: 727-824-5309, Attn: Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources, NMFS. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this proposed rulemaking. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Engleby, 727-824-5312, or Barb Zoodsma, 904-321-2806. Individuals who use telecommunications devices for the deaf

(TDD)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. *Electronic Access:* Regulations and background documents for the ALWTRP can be downloaded from the ALWTRP web site at *http://www.nero.noaa.gov/whaletrp/* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 15, 2006, NMFS published a proposed rule to revise the regulations implementing the ALWTRP by expanding the southeast U.S. restricted area and modifying regulations pertaining to gillnetting within the southeast U.S. restricted area (71 FR 66482). That proposed rule allowed for a NMFS' 30-day public comment period, which ended on December 15, 2006. NMFS subsequently received requests from the State of North Carolina and the Marine Mammal Commission

(MMC)to extend the comment period. These requests stated that more time is necessary for the North Carolina public and members of the MMC to more fully review and provide comments on the proposed rule. Therefore, NMFS is reopening the public comment period for 15 additional days to allow additional time for these requesters and other interested parties to provide comments while ensuring permanent protections are in place for right whales before the end of the calving season. In this notice, NMFS is reopening the public comment period for 15 days from January 16, 2007 until January 31, 2007. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ; § 229.32(f) also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* Dated: Januaary 8, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-367 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 300 [Docket No. 061229343-6343-01; I.D. 121406A] RIN 0648-AV03 Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to approve and implement changes to the Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan

(Plan)for the International Pacific Halibut Commission′s (IPHC or Commission) regulatory Area 2A off Washington, Oregon, and California (Area 2A). NMFS proposes to implement the portions of the Plan and management measures that are not implemented through the IPHC, which includes the sport fishery management measures for Area 2A. NMFS also proposes to revise the Area 2A non-treaty commercial fishery closed areas, codified at 50 CFR part 300, subpart E. These actions are intended to enhance the conservation of Pacific halibut, to provide greater angler opportunity where available, to protect yelloweye rockfish and other overfished groundfish species from incidental catch in the halibut fisheries, and to ensure consistency between Federal groundfish and halibut regulations and between State and Federal regulations. DATES: Comments on the proposed changes to the Plan and on the proposed domestic Area 2A halibut management measures must be received no later than 5 p.m., local time on February 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Copies of the Plan, Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and/or Categorical Exclusion

(CE)are available from D. Robert Lohn, Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070. Electronic copies of the Plan, including proposed changes for 2007, and of the CE and draft RIR/IRFA are also available at the NMFS Northwest Region website: *http://www.nwr.noaa.gov* , click on “Groundfish & Halibut.” You may submit comments on the proposed Plan and domestic Area 2A halibut management measures or supporting documents, identified by I.D. 121406A, by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *PHalibut2007.nwr@noaa.gov* . Include the I.D. number 121406A in the subject line of the message. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, Attn: Jamie Goen, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070. • Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Jamie Goen. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamie Goen or Yvonne deReynier (Northwest Region, NMFS), phone: 206-526-6150, fax: 206-526-6736 or e-mail: *jamie.goen@noaa.gov* or *yvonne.dereynier@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Northern Pacific Halibut Act (Halibut Act) of 1982, at 16 U.S.C. 773c, gives the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) general responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Halibut Convention between the United States and Canada (Halibut Convention). It requires the Secretary to adopt regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Halibut Convention and the Halibut Act. Section 773c of the Halibut Act authorizes the regional fishery management councils to develop regulations governing the Pacific halibut catch in their corresponding U.S. Convention waters that are in addition to, but not in conflict with, regulations of the IPHC. Each year between 1988 and 1995, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) had developed a catch sharing plan in accordance with the Halibut Act to allocate the total allowable catch

(TAC)of Pacific halibut between treaty Indian and non-treaty harvesters and among non-treaty commercial and sport fisheries in Area 2A. In 1995, NMFS implemented the Pacific Council-recommended long-term Plan (60 FR 14651, March 20, 1995). In each of the intervening years between 1995 and the present, minor revisions to the Plan have been made to adjust for the changing needs of the fisheries. The Plan allocates 35 percent of the Area 2A TAC plus 25,000 lb (11.3 mt) to Washington treaty Indian tribes in Subarea 2A-1 and 65 percent minus 25,000 lb (11.3 mt) to non-Indian fisheries in Area 2A. The annual shift of 25,000 lb (11.3 mt) from the non-tribal to the tribal fisheries has been made in response to a court order; 2007 is the final year that this shift must be made. The allocation to non-Indian fisheries is divided into three shares, with the Washington sport fishery (north of the Columbia River) receiving 36.6 percent, the Oregon/California sport fishery receiving 31.7 percent, and the commercial fishery receiving 31.7 percent. The commercial fishery is further divided into a directed commercial fishery that is allocated 85 percent of the commercial allocation and an incidental catch in the salmon troll fishery that is allocated 15 percent of the commercial allocation. The directed commercial fishery in Area 2A is confined to southern Washington (south of 46°53.30′ N. lat.), Oregon, and California. North of 46°53.30′ N. lat. (Pt. Chehalis), the Plan allows for incidental halibut retention in the primary limited entry longline sablefish fishery when the overall Area 2A TAC is above 900,000 lb (408.2 mt). The Plan also divides the sport fisheries into seven geographic subareas, each with separate allocations, seasons, and bag limits. The Area 2A TAC will be set by the IPHC at its annual meeting on January 16-19, 2007, in Victoria, BC. NMFS requests public comments on the Pacific Council′s recommended modifications to the Plan and the proposed domestic fishing regulations by February 2, 2007. This allows the public the opportunity to consider the final Area 2A TAC before submitting comments on the proposed rule. The States of Washington and Oregon will conduct public workshops shortly after the IPHC meeting to obtain input on the sport season dates. After the Area 2A TAC is known and after NMFS reviews public comments and comments from the states, NMFS will issue a final rule for the Area 2A Pacific halibut fisheries concurrent with the IPHC regulations for the 2007 Pacific halibut fisheries. Pacific Council Recommended Changes to the Plan and Domestic Fishing Regulations Each year, the states (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

(WDFW)and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)) and tribes consider whether changes to the Plan are needed or desired by their fishery participants. Fishery managers from the states hold public meetings before both the September and November Pacific Council meetings to get public input on revisions to the Plan. At the September 2006 Pacific Council meeting, WDFW recommended several changes to the Plan and ODFW and the tribes announced that they had no proposals for revising the Plan in 2007. Following the meeting, the states again reviewed their proposals with the public and drafted their recommended revisions for review by the Pacific Council. At its November 13-17, 2006, meeting in Del Mar, CA, the Pacific Council considered the results of state-sponsored workshops on the proposed changes to the Plan, NMFS-proposed changes to the Plan, and public comments, and made final recommendations for modifications to the Plan as follows:

(1)Constrain the Washington North Coast subarea June fishery to two specific nearshore areas on the first Tuesday and Thursday following June 17;

(2)Reopen the Washington North Coast subarea June fishery in the entire north coast subarea on the first Saturday following June 17;

(3)If sufficient quota remains, reopen the entire Washington North Coast subarea for one day on the first Thursday following June 24, otherwise, reopen the nearshore areas on the first Thursday following June 24 for up to four days per week (Thursday-Sunday) until the quota is taken;

(4)Set aside 5 percent of the Washington South Coast subarea quota for the nearshore fishery once the primary fishery has closed;

(5)Set the Washington South Coast subarea nearshore fishery as a 2-day per week fishery, open Fridays and Saturdays;

(6)Implement additional closed areas (Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Areas, or YRCAs) off the coast of Washington that would affect commercial and sport halibut fisheries;

(7)Remove latitude/longitude coordinates from the Plan but refer to the regulations in which they are published to reduce duplication;

(8)Remove language referring to salmon troll fishery July-September season;

(9)Add a definition of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line; and

(10)Decrease the California possession limit on land from two daily limits to one daily limit statewide to conform with state regulation. Proposed Changes to the Plan NMFS is proposing to approve the Pacific Council recommendations and to implement the above-described changes by making the following changes to the Plan: In section

(e)of the Plan, Non-Indian Commercial Fisheries, revise the last sentence of paragraph

(1)to read as follows: The secondary management objective is to harvest the remaining troll quota as an incidental catch during the remainder of the salmon troll fishery. In section

(e)of the Plan, Non-Indian Commercial Fisheries, revise paragraph (1)(iii) to read as follows: If the overall quota for the non-Indian, incidental commercial troll fishery has not been harvested by salmon trollers during the May/June fishery, additional landings of halibut caught incidentally during salmon troll fisheries will be allowed in July and will continue until the amount of halibut that was initially available as quota for the troll fishery is taken or until the end of the season date for commercial halibut fishing determined by the IPHC and implemented in IPHC regulation. Landing restrictions implemented for the May/June salmon troll fishery will apply for as long as this fishery is open. Notice of the July opening of this fishery will be announced on the NMFS hotline

(206)526-6667 or

(800)662-9825. Halibut retention in the salmon troll fishery will be allowed after June only if the opening has been announced on the NMFS hotline. In section

(e)of the Plan, Non-Indian Commercial Fisheries, add paragraph (1)(v) to read as follows: Under the Pacific Coast groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.383, fishing with salmon troll gear is prohibited within the Salmon Troll Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA). The Salmon Troll YRCA is an area off the northern Washington coast and is defined by straight lines connecting latitude and longitude coordinates. Coordinates for the Salmon Troll YRCA are specified in groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.390 and in salmon regulations at 50 CFR 660.405. In section

(e)of the Plan, Non-Indian Commercial Fisheries, revise the fourth sentence of paragraph

(2)to read as follows: Any such closed areas will be described annually in Federal halibut regulations published in the **Federal Register** and specifically defined at 50 CFR 300.63(e). In section

(e)of the Plan, Non-Indian Commercial Fisheries, add a third paragraph to paragraph

(3)to read as follows: Under Pacific Coast groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.382, fishing with limited entry fixed gear is prohibited within the North Coast Commercial Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area

(YRCA)and the Non-Trawl Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA). The North Coast Commercial YRCA is an area off the northern Washington coast, overlapping the northern part of the North Coast Recreational YRCA. The Non-Trawl RCA is an area off the Washington coast. These closed areas are defined by straight lines connecting latitude and longitude coordinates. Coordinates for the North Coast Commercial YRCA are specified in groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.390. Coordinates for the Non-Trawl RCA are specified in groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.393. In section

(f)of the Plan, Sport Fisheries, revise the sixth sentence through the remainder of paragraph (1)(ii) to read as follows: The fishery will then reopen for two days on the first Tuesday and Thursday following June 17, in the following nearshore areas only: A. WDFW Marine Catch Area 4B, which is all waters west of the Sekiu River mouth, as defined by a line extending from 48°17.30′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long. north to 48°24.10′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long., to the Bonilla-Tatoosh line, as defined by a line connecting the light on Tatoosh Island, WA, with the light on Bonilla Point on Vancouver Island, British Columbia (at 48°35.73′ N. lat., 124°43.00′ W. long.) south of the International Boundary between the U.S. and Canada (at 48°29.62′ N. lat., 124°43.55′ W. long.), and north of the point where that line intersects with the boundary of the U.S. territorial sea. B. Shoreward of the recreational halibut 30-fm boundary line, a modified line approximating the 30-fm depth contour from the Bonilla-Tatoosh line south to the Queets River. Coordinates for the closed area will be specifically defined annually in federal halibut regulations published in the **Federal Register** . The fishery will reopen for one day on the first Saturday following June 17 in the entire north coast subarea. If sufficient quota remains, the fishery would reopen, as a first priority, in the entire north coast subarea for one day on the first Thursday following June 24. If there is insufficient quota remaining to reopen the entire north coast subarea for another day, then the nearshore areas described above would reopen on the first Thursday following June 24, up to four days per week (Thursday-Sunday), until the remaining subarea quota is projected to be taken. No sport fishing for halibut is allowed after September 30. If the fishery is closed prior to September 30, and there is insufficient quota remaining to reopen the nearshore areas for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be transferred inseason to another Washington coastal subarea by NMFS via an update to the recreational halibut hotline. The daily bag limit in all fisheries is one halibut per person with no size limit. Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the North Coast Recreational Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA). The North Coast Recreational YRCA is a C-shaped area off the northern Washington coast and is defined by straight lines connecting latitude and longitude coordinates. Coordinates for the North Coast Recreational YRCA are specified in groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.390 and will be specifically defined annually in federal halibut regulations published in the **Federal Register** . In section

(f)of the Plan, Sport Fisheries, revise the fifth sentence through the remainder of paragraph (1)(iii) to read as follows: The south coast subarea quota will be allocated as follows: 95 percent for the primary fishery, and 5 percent for the nearshore fishery, once the primary fishery has closed. The fishery will open on May 1. If May 1 falls on a Friday or Saturday, the fishery will open on the following Sunday. The primary fishery will be open Sunday through Thursday in all areas, except where prohibited, and the nearshore fishery will be open 7 days per week in the area from 47°25.00′ N. lat. south to 46°58.00′ N. lat. and east of 124°30.00′ W. long. The primary fishery will continue until September 30, or until 95% of the quota is achieved, whichever is earlier. Subsequent to this closure, if there is insufficient quota remaining to reopen the primary fishery for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be used to accommodate incidental catch in the nearshore area from 47°25.00′ N. lat. south to 46°58.00′ N. lat. and east of 124°30.00′ W. long. on Fridays, and Saturdays, until the remaining quota is projected to be taken. If the fishery is closed prior to September 30, and there is insufficient quota remaining to reopen the nearshore areas for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be transferred inseason to another Washington coastal subarea by NMFS via an update to the recreational halibut hotline. The daily bag limit is one halibut per person, with no size limit. Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the South Coast Recreational YRCA. The South Coast Recreational YRCA is an area off the southern Washington coast and is defined by straight lines connecting latitude and longitude coordinates. Coordinates for the South Coast Recreational YRCA are specified in groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.390 and will be specifically defined annually in Federal halibut regulations published in the **Federal Register** . In section

(f)of the Plan, Sport Fisheries, replace the eighth sentence of paragraph (1)(v), including the coordinates, to read as follows: Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the Stonewall Bank YRCA. The Stonewall Bank YRCA is an area off central Oregon, near Stonewall Bank, and is defined by straight lines connecting latitude and longitude coordinates. Coordinates for the Stonewall Bank YRCA are specified in groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.390 and will be specifically defined annually in federal halibut regulations published in the **Federal Register** . In section

(f)of the Plan, Sport Fisheries, revise paragraph

(3)to read as follows: Possession limits. The sport possession limit on land in Washington is two daily bag limits, regardless of condition, but only one daily bag limit may be possessed on the vessel. The sport possession limit on land in Oregon is three daily bag limits, regardless of condition, but only one daily bag limit may be possessed on the vessel. The sport possession limit on land in California and on the vessel is one daily bag limit, regardless of condition. Proposed 2007 Sport Fishery Management Measures NMFS is proposing sport fishery management measures that are necessary to implement the Plan in 2007. The 2007 TAC for Area 2A will be determined by the IPHC at its annual meeting on January 16-19, 2007, in Victoria, BC. Because the 2007 TAC has not yet been determined, these proposed sport fishery management measures use the IPHC′s preliminary 2007 Area 2A TAC recommendation of 1,020,000 lb (463 mt), which is lower than the 2006 TAC of 1,380,000 lb (626 mt). The proposed sport fishery regulations are based on the preliminary 2007 Area 2A TAC of 1,020,000 lb (463 mt). Where season dates are not indicated, those dates will be provided in the final rule, following determination of the 2007 TAC and consultation with the states and the public. In Section 25 of the annual domestic management measures, “Sport Fishing for Halibut,” paragraph (4)(b) is proposed to read as follows: (4)* * *

(b)The sport fishing subareas, subquotas, fishing dates, and daily bag limits are as follows, except as modified under the inseason actions in § 300.63(c). All sport fishing in Area 2A is managed on a “port of landing” basis, whereby any halibut landed into a port counts toward the quota for the area in which that port is located, and the regulations governing the area of landing apply, regardless of the specific area of catch.

(i)The area in Puget Sound and the U.S. waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, east of a line extending from 48°17.30′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long. north to 48°24.10′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long., is not managed inseason relative to its quota. This area is managed by setting a season that is projected to result in a catch of 57,393 lb (26 mt).

(A)The fishing season in eastern Puget Sound (east of 123°49.50′ W. long., Low Point) is (season dates will be provided by NMFS in the final rule) and the fishing season in western Puget Sound (west of 123°49.50′ W. long., Low Point) is (season dates will be provided by NMFS in the final rule), 5 days a week (Thursday through Monday). (The final determination of the season dates would be based on the allowable harvest level and projected 2007 catch rates after the 2007 TAC is set by the IPHC.)

(B)The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person. (ii)The quota for landings into ports in the area off the north Washington coast, west of the line described in paragraph (4)(b)(i) of this section and north of the Queets River (47°31.70′ N. lat.), is 108,030 lb (49 mt). (A)The fishing seasons are: ( *1* ) Commencing on May 15 and continuing 3 days a week (Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday) until 77,782 lb (35 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission. ( *2* ) On June 19 and 21, the fishery will open only in the nearshore areas defined at the end of this paragraph. The fishery will open for one day on June 23 in the entire north coast subarea. If sufficient quota remains, the fishery would reopen, as a first priority, in the entire north coast subarea for one day on June 28. If there is insufficient quota remaining to reopen the entire north coast subarea on June 28, then the nearshore areas described below would reopen on June 28, up to four days per week (Thursday-Sunday), until the overall quota of 108,030 lb (49 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the area is closed by the Commission, or until September 30, whichever is earlier. After June 23, any fishery opening will be announced on the NMFS hotline at 800-662-9825. No halibut fishing will be allowed after June 23 unless the date is announced on the NMFS hotline. The nearshore areas for Washington's North Coast fishery are defined as follows: ( *i* ) WDFW Marine Catch Area 4B, which is all waters west of the Sekiu River mouth, as defined by a line extending from 48°17.30′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long. north to 48°24.10′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long., to the Bonilla-Tatoosh line, as defined by a line connecting the light on Tatoosh Island, WA, with the light on Bonilla Point on Vancouver Island, British Columbia (at 48°35.73′ N. lat., 124°43.00′ W. long.) south of the International Boundary between the U.S. and Canada (at 48°29.62′ N. lat., 124°43.55′ W. long.), and north of the point where that line intersects with the boundary of the U.S. territorial sea. ( *ii* ) Shoreward of the recreational halibut 30-fm boundary line, a modified line approximating the 30-fm depth contour from the Bonilla-Tatoosh line south to the Queets River. The recreational halibut 30-fm boundary line is defined by the following coordinates in the order listed:

(1)48°24.79′ N. lat., 124°44.07′ W. long.;

(2)48°24.80′ N. lat., 124°44.74′ W. long.;

(3)48°23.94′ N. lat., 124°44.70′ W. long.;

(4)48°23.51′ N. lat., 124°45.01′ W. long.;

(5)48°22.59′ N. lat., 124°44.97′ W. long.;

(6)48°21.75′ N. lat., 124°45.26′ W. long.;

(7)48°21.23′ N. lat., 124°47.78′ W. long.;

(8)48°20.32′ N. lat., 124°49.53′ W. long.;

(9)48°16.72′ N. lat., 124°51.58′ W. long.;

(10)48°10.00′ N. lat., 124°52.58′ W. long.;

(11)48°05.63′ N. lat., 124°52.91′ W. long.;

(12)47°56.25′ N. lat., 124°52.57′ W. long.;

(13)47°40.28′ N. lat., 124°40.07′ W. long.; and connecting back to 47°31.70′ N. lat., 124°37.03′ W. long.

(B)The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

(C)Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the North Coast Recreational Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA). It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the North Coast Recreational YRCA. A vessel fishing in the North Coast Recreational YRCA may not be in possession of any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the North Coast Recreational YRCA with or without halibut on board. The North Coast Recreational YRCA is a C-shaped area off the northern Washington coast intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. The North Coast Recreational YRCA is defined by straight lines connecting the following specific latitude and longitude coordinates in the order listed:

(1)48°18.00′ N. lat.; 125°18.00′ W. long.;

(2)48°18.00′ N. lat.; 124°59.00′ W. long.;

(3)48°11.00′ N. lat.; 124°59.00′ W. long.;

(4)48°11.00′ N. lat.; 125°11.00′ W. long.;

(5)48°04.00′ N. lat.; 125°11.00′ W. long.;

(6)48°04.00′ N. lat.; 124°59.00′ W. long.;

(7)48°00.00′ N. lat.; 124°59.00′ W. long.;

(8)48°00.00′ N. lat.; 125°18.00′ W. long.; and connecting back to 48°18.00′ N. lat.; 125°18.00′ W. long.

(iii)The quota for landings into ports in the area between the Queets River, WA (47°31.70′ N. lat.) and Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38.17′ N. lat.), is 42,739 lb (19 mt).

(A)The fishing season commences on May 1 and continues 5 days a week (Sunday through Thursday) in all waters (the primary fishery), except that in the area from 47°25.00′ N. lat. south to 46°58.00′ N. lat. and east of 124°30.00′ W. long. (the Washington South coast, northern nearshore area), the fishing season commences on May 1 and continues 7 days a week. The south coast subarea quota will be allocated as follows: 40,602 lb (18 mt), 95 percent, for the primary fishery, and 2,137 lb (1.0 mt), 5 percent, for the northern nearshore fishery, once the primary fishery has closed. The primary fishery will continue from May 1 until 40,602 lb (18 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or until September 30, whichever is earlier. Subsequent to this closure, if there is insufficient quota remaining to reopen the primary fishery for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be used to accommodate incidental catch in the northern nearshore area from 47°25.00′ N. lat. south to 46°58.00′ N. lat. and east of 124°30.00′ W. long. on Fridays and Saturdays, until 42,739 lb (19 mt) is projected to be taken and the fishery is closed by the Commission. If the fishery is closed prior to September 30, and there is insufficient quota remaining to reopen the northern nearshore area for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be transferred inseason to another Washington coastal subarea by NMFS via an update to the recreational halibut hotline.

(B)The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

(C)Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the South Coast Recreational YRCA. It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the South Coast Recreational YRCA. A vessel fishing in the South Coast Recreational YRCA may not be in possession of any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the South Coast Recreational YRCA with or without halibut on board. The South Coast Recreational YRCA is an area off the southern Washington coast intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. The South Coast Recreational YRCA is defined by straight lines connecting the following specific latitude and longitude coordinates in the order listed:

(1)46°58.00′ N. lat., 124°48.00′ W. long.;

(2)46°55.00′ N. lat., 124°48.00′ W. long.;

(3)46°58.00′ N. lat., 124°49.00′ W. long.;

(4)46°55.00′ N. lat., 124°49.00′ W. long.; and connecting back to 46°58.00′ N. lat., 124°48.00′ W. long.

(iv)The quota for landings into ports in the area between Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38.17′ N. lat.) and Cape Falcon, OR (45°46.00′ N. lat.), is 16,060 lb (7.3 mt).

(A)The fishing season commences on May 1, and continues 7 days a week until 11,242 lb (5 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission or until July 21, whichever is earlier. The fishery will reopen on August 3 and continue 3 days a week (Friday through Sunday) until 16,060 lb (7 mt) have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or until September 30, whichever is earlier. Subsequent to this closure, if there is insufficient quota remaining in the Columbia River subarea for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be transferred inseason to another Washington and/or Oregon subarea by NMFS via an update to the recreational halibut hotline. Any remaining quota would be transferred to each state in proportion to its contribution.

(B)The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

(C)Pacific Coast groundfish may not be taken and retained, possessed or landed, except sablefish and Pacific cod when allowed by Pacific Coast groundfish regulations, if halibut are on board the vessel.

(v)The quota for landings into ports in the area off Oregon between Cape Falcon (45°46.00′ N. lat.) and Humbug Mountain (42°40.50′ N. lat.), is 186,066 lb (84 mt).

(A)The fishing seasons are: ( *1* ) The first season (the “inside 40-fm” fishery) commences May 1 and continues 7 days a week through October 31, in the area shoreward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour, or until the sub-quota for the central Oregon “inside 40-fm” fishery (14,885 lb (6.8 mt)) or any inseason revised subquota is estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, whichever is earlier. The boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour between 45°46.00′ N. lat. and 42°40.50′ N. lat. is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:

(1)45°46.00′ N. lat., 124°04.49′ W. long.;

(2)45°44.34′ N. lat., 124°05.09′ W. long.;

(3)45°40.64′ N. lat., 124°04.90′ W. long.;

(4)45°33.00′ N. lat., 124°04.46′ W. long.;

(5)45°32.27′ N. lat., 124°04.74′ W. long.;

(6)45°29.26′ N. lat., 124°04.22′ W. long.;

(7)45°20.25′ N. lat., 124°04.67′ W. long.;

(8)45°19.99′ N. lat., 124°04.62′ W. long.;

(9)45°17.50′ N. lat., 124°04.91′ W. long.;

(10)45°11.29′ N. lat., 124°05.19′ W. long.;

(11)45°05.79′ N. lat., 124°05.40′ W. long.;

(12)45°05.07′ N. lat., 124°05.93′ W. long.;

(13)45°03.83′ N. lat., 124°06.47′ W. long.;

(14)45°01.70′ N. lat., 124°06.53′ W. long.;

(15)44°58.75′ N. lat., 124°07.14′ W. long.;

(16)44°51.28′ N. lat., 124°10.21′ W. long.;

(17)44°49.49′ N. lat., 124°10.89′ W. long.;

(18)44°44.96′ N. lat., 124°14.39′ W. long.;

(19)44°43.44′ N. lat., 124°14.78′ W. long.;

(20)44°42.27′ N. lat., 124°13.81′ W. long.;

(21)44°41.68′ N. lat., 124°15.38′ W. long.;

(22)44°34.87′ N. lat., 124°15.80′ W. long.;

(23)44°33.74′ N. lat., 124°14.43′ W. long.;

(24)44°27.66′ N. lat., 124°16.99′ W. long.;

(25)44°19.13′ N. lat., 124°19.22′ W. long.;

(26)44°15.35′ N. lat., 124°17.37′ W. long.;

(27)44°14.38′ N. lat., 124°17.78′ W. long.;

(28)44°12.80′ N. lat., 124°17.18′ W. long.;

(29)44°09.23′ N. lat., 124°15.96′ W. long.;

(30)44°08.38′ N. lat., 124°16.80′ W. long.;

(31)44°08.30′ N. lat., 124°16.75′ W. long.;

(32)44°01.18′ N. lat., 124°15.42′ W. long.;

(33)43°51.60′ N. lat., 124°14.68′ W. long.;

(34)43°42.66′ N. lat., 124°15.46′ W. long.;

(35)43°40.49′ N. lat., 124°15.74′ W. long.;

(36)43°38.77′ N. lat., 124°15.64′ W. long.;

(37)43°34.52′ N. lat., 124°16.73′ W. long.;

(38)43°28.82′ N. lat., 124°19.52′ W. long.;

(39)43°23.91′ N. lat., 124°24.28′ W. long.;

(40)43°20.83′ N. lat., 124°26.63′ W. long.;

(41)43°17.96′ N. lat., 124°28.81′ W. long.;

(42)43°16.75′ N. lat., 124°28.42′ W. long.;

(43)43°13.98′ N. lat., 124°31.99′ W. long.;

(44)43°13.71′ N. lat., 124°33.25′ W. long.;

(45)43°12.26′ N. lat., 124°34.16′ W. long.;

(46)43°10.96′ N. lat., 124°32.34′ W. long.;

(47)43°05.65′ N. lat., 124°31.52′ W. long.;

(48)42°59.66′ N. lat., 124°32.58′ W. long.;

(49)42°54.97′ N. lat., 124°36.99′ W. long.;

(50)42°53.81′ N. lat., 124°38.58′ W. long.;

(51)42°50.00′ N. lat., 124°39.68′ W. long.;

(52)42°49.14′ N. lat., 124°39.92′ W. long.;

(53)42°46.47′ N. lat., 124°38.65′ W. long.;

(54)42°45.60′ N. lat., 124°39.04′ W. long.;

(55)42°44.79′ N. lat., 124°37.96′ W. long.;

(56)42°45.00′ N. lat., 124°36.39′ W. long.;

(57)42°44.14′ N. lat., 124°35.16′ W. long.;

(58)42°42.15′ N. lat., 124°32.82′ W. long.; and

(59)42°40.50′ N. lat., 124°31.98′ W. long.; ( *2* ) The second season (spring season), which is for the “all-depth” fishery, is open on (dates will be provided by NMFS in the final rule). The projected catch for this season is 128,386 lb (58 mt). If sufficient unharvested catch remains for additional fishing days, the season will re-open. Dependent on the amount of unharvested catch available, the potential season re-opening dates will be: (dates will be provided by NMFS in the final rule). If NMFS decides inseason to allow fishing on any of these re-opening dates, notice of the re-opening will be announced on the NMFS hotline

(206)526-6667 or

(800)662-9825. No halibut fishing will be allowed on the re-opening dates unless the date is announced on the NMFS hotline. (The final determination of the season dates would be based on the allowable harvest level and projected 2007 catch rates and on a public meeting held by ODFW after the 2007 TAC is set by the IPHC.) ( *3* ) If sufficient unharvested catch remains, the third season (summer season), which is for the “all-depth” fishery, will be open on (dates will be provided by NMFS in the final rule), or until the combined spring season and summer season quotas in the area between Cape Falcon and Humbug Mountain, OR, totaling 171,181 lb (78 mt), are estimated to have been taken and the area is closed by the Commission, or October 31, whichever is earlier. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline in July whether the fishery will re-open for the summer season in August. No halibut fishing will be allowed in the summer season fishery unless the dates are announced on the NMFS hotline. Additional fishing days may be opened if a certain amount of quota remains after August 5 and September 2. If after August 5, greater than or equal to 60,000 lb (27.2 mt) remains in the combined all-depth and inside 40-fm (73-m) quota, the fishery may re-open every Friday through Sunday, beginning August 10 - 12, and ending October 26 - 28. If after September 2, greater than or equal to 30,000 lb (13.6 mt) remains in the combined all-depth and inside 40-fm (73-m) quota, and the fishery is not already open every Friday through Sunday, the fishery may re-open every Friday through Sunday, beginning September 7 - 9, and ending October 26 - 28. After September 2, the bag limit may be increased to two fish of any size per person, per day. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline whether the summer all-depth fishery will be open on such additional fishing days, what days the fishery will be open and what the bag limit is.

(B)The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person, unless otherwise specified. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline any bag limit changes.

(C)During days open to all-depth halibut fishing, no Pacific Coast groundfish may be taken and retained, possessed or landed, except sablefish when allowed by Pacific Coast groundfish regulations, if halibut are on board the vessel.

(D)When the all-depth halibut fishery is closed and halibut fishing is permitted only shoreward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour, halibut possession and retention by vessels operating seaward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour is prohibited.

(E)Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the Stonewall Bank YRCA. It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the Stonewall Bank YRCA. A vessel fishing in the Stonewall Bank YRCA may not be in possession of any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the Stonewall Bank YRCA with or without halibut on board. The Stonewall Bank YRCA is an area off central Oregon, near Stonewall Bank, intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. The Stonewall Bank YRCA is defined by straight lines connecting the following specific latitude and longitude coordinates in the order listed:

(1)44°37.46 N. lat.; 124°24.92 W. long.;

(2)44°37.46 N. lat.; 124°23.63 W. long.;

(3)44°28.71 N. lat.; 124°21.80 W. long.;

(4)44°28.71 N. lat.; 124°24.10 W. long.;

(5)44°31.42 N. lat.; 124°25.47 W. long.; and connecting back to 44°37.46 N. lat.; 124°24.92 W. long.

(vi)The area south of Humbug Mountain, Oregon (42°40.50′ N. lat.) and off the California coast is not managed inseason relative to its quota. This area is managed on a season that is projected to result in a catch of 6,067 lb (2.8 mt).

(A)The fishing season will commence on May 1 and continue 7 days a week until October 31.

(B)The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person. Area 2A Non-Treaty Commercial Fishery Closed Areas Since 2003, large closed areas have applied to commercial vessels operating in the directed non-treaty commercial fishery for halibut in Area 2A. The Area 2A non-treaty commercial fishery closed areas implement the Plan and previously appeared in the annual halibut management measures published in the **Federal Register** . Beginning in 2006, this section was codified into regulatory language at 50 CFR part 300, subpart E. Coordinates for the boundary lines approximating the 30-fm and 100-fm depth contours for the closed areas are being revised to to better approximate depth contours. Therefore, NMFS is proposing new coordinates for these boundary lines in this proposed rule. Classification NMFS has prepared an RIR/IRFA and a CE on the proposed changes to the Plan and annual domestic Area 2A halibut management measures. Copies of these documents are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). NMFS prepared an IRFA that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. The IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). A summary of the IRFA follows: A fish-harvesting business is considered a “small” business by the Small Business Administration

(SBA)if it has annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 million. For related fish-processing businesses, a small business is one that employs 500 or fewer persons. For wholesale businesses, a small business is one that employs not more than 100 people. For marinas and charter/party boats, a small business is one with annual receipts not in excess of $6.5 million. All of the businesses that would be affected by this action are considered small businesses under Small Business Administration guidance. The proposed changes to the Plan, which allocates the catch of Pacific halibut among users in Washington, Oregon and California, would: constrain the Washington North Coast subarea June fishery to two specific nearshore areas on the first Tuesday and Thursday following June 17; reopen the Washington North Coast subarea June fishery in the entire north coast subarea on the first Saturday following June 17; if sufficient quota remains, reopen the entire Washington North Coast subarea for one day on the first Thursday following June 24, otherwise, reopen the nearshore areas on the first Thursday following June 24 for up to four days per week (Thursday-Sunday) until the quota is taken; set aside 5 percent of the Washington South Coast subarea quota for the nearshore fishery once the primary fishery has closed; set the Washington South Coast subarea nearshore fishery as a 2-day per week fishery, open Fridays and Saturdays; implement additional closed areas (Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Areas, or YRCAs) off the coast of Washington that would affect commercial and sport halibut fisheries; remove latitude/longitude coordinates from the Plan but refer to where in the regulations they are published to reduce duplication; remove language referring to salmon troll fishery July-September season; add a definition of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line; and decrease the California possession limit on land from two daily limits to one daily limit statewide to conform with state regulation. NMFS also proposes to implement the portions of the Plan and management measures that are not implemented through the IPHC, which includes the sport fishery management measures for Area 2A and to revise Area 2A non-treaty commercial fishery closed areas specified at 50 CFR 300.63. These actions are intended to enhance the conservation of Pacific halibut, to provide greater angler opportunity where available, to protect yelloweye rockfish and other overfished groundfish species from incidental catch in the halibut fisheries, and to ensure consistency between Federal groundfish and halibut regulations and between State and Federal regulations. As mentioned in the preamble, WDFW and ODFW held state meetings and crafted alternatives to adjust management of the sport halibut fisheries in their respective states. These alternatives were then narrowed down by the states and brought to the Council at the Council's September and November 2006 meetings. Generally, by the time the alternatives reach the Council, and because they have been through the state public review process, they are narrowed down into the proposed action and status quo. There were no alternatives that could have similarly improved angler enjoyment of and participation in the fisheries while simultaneously protecting halibut and co-occurring groundfish species from overharvest. In 1995, NMFS implemented the Plan, when the TAC was 520,000 pounds (236 mt). In each of the intervening years between 1995 and the present, minor revisions to the Plan have been made to adjust for the changing needs of the fisheries, even though the TAC reached levels of over 1,000,000 pounds (454 mt), with a peak of 1,480,000 pounds (671 mt) in 2004. Since 2004, there has been very little change in the total allowable catch and sector allocations. In 2005, the Area 2A Halibut TAC set by the IPHC was 1.33 million pounds (603 mt) and for 2006 it was 1.38 million pounds (626 mt). However, preliminary estimates of the 2007 TAC are lower than the TAC levels since 2001. The preliminary 2007 Area 2A TAC of 1.02 million pounds (463 mt) is lower than previous years due to the IPHC's new stock assessment information, revised selectivity assumptions and revised harvest policy. This is a 26-percent decline from the 2006 TAC. As this is a sizable decline, there may be changes to the regulations described in this proposed rule due to IPHC recommendations at their annual meeting in January 2007 or as an outcome of the state public workshops held after the IPHC meeting. Expectations are that any proposed changes in the regulations will be ones that seek to mitigate the adverse impacts of the decline of the TAC in order to maximize available fishing opportunities and benefits to fishing communities. Six hundred sixty two vessels were issued IPHC licenses to retain halibut in 2006. IPHC issues licenses for: the directed commercial fishery in Area 2A, including licenses issued to retain halibut caught incidentally in the primary sablefish fishery (298 licenses in 2006); incidental halibut caught in the salmon troll fishery (224 licenses in 2006); and the charterboat fleet (140 licenses in 2006). No vessel may participate in more than one of these three fisheries per year. Individual recreational anglers and private boats are the only sectors that are not required to have an IPHC license to retain halibut. Specific data on the economics of halibut charter operations is unavailable. However, in January 2004, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) completed a report on the overall West Coast charterboat fleet. In surveying charterboat vessels concerning their operations in 2000, the PSMFC estimated that there were about 315 charterboat vessels in operation off Washington and Oregon. In 2000, IPHC licensed 130 vessels to fish in the halibut sport charter fishery. Comparing the total charterboat fleet to the 130 and 140 IPHC licenses in 2000 and 2006, respectively, approximately 41 to 44 percent of the charterboat fleet could participate in the halibut fishery. The PSMFC has developed preliminary estimates of the annual revenues earned by this fleet and they vary by size class of the vessels and home state. Small charterboat vessels range from 15 to 30 ft (4.572 to 9.144 m), and typically carry 5 to 6 passengers. Medium charterboat vessels range from 31 to 49 ft (9.44 to 14.93 m) in length and typically carry 19 to 20 passengers. (Neither state has large vessels of greater than 49 ft (14.93 m) in their fleet.) Average annual revenues from all types of recreational fishing, whalewatching and other activities ranged from $7,000 for small Oregon vessels to $131,000 for medium Washington vessels. Estimates from the RIR show the recreational halibut fishery generated approximately $2.5 million in personal income to West Coast communities, while the non-tribal commercial halibut fishery generated approximately $1.8 million in income impacts. Because these estimated impacts for the entire halibut fishery overall are less than the SBA criteria for individual businesses, these data confirm that charterboat and commercial halibut vessels qualify as small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). These changes are authorized under the Pacific Halibut Act, implementing regulations at 50 CFR 300.60 through 300.65, and the Pacific Council process of annually evaluating the utility and effectiveness of Area 2A Pacific halibut management under the Plan. Given the TAC, the proposed sport management measures implement the Plan by managing the recreational fishery to meet the differing fishery needs of the various areas along the coast according to the Plan's objectives. The proposed commercial management measures will allow the fishery access to a portion of the Area 2A TAC while protecting overfished rockfish species that co-occur with halibut. The measures will be very similar to last year′s management measures. The changes to the Plan and domestic management measures are minor changes and are intended to increase flexibility in management and opportunity to harvest available quota. There are no large entities involved in the halibut fisheries; therefore, none of these changes to the Plan and domestic management measures will have a disproportionate negative effect on small entities versus large entities. These changes do not include any reporting or recordkeeping requirements. These changes will also not duplicate, overlap or conflict with other laws or regulations. Consequently, these changes to the Plan and annual domestic Area 2A halibut management measures are not expected to meet any of the RFA tests of having a “significant” economic impact on a “substantial number” of small entities. Nonetheless, NMFS has prepared a IRFA. Through this proposed rule, NMFS is requesting comments on these conclusions. This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, the Secretary recognizes the sovereign status and co-manager role of Indian tribes over shared Federal and tribal fishery resources. At section 302(b)(5), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act establishes a seat on the Pacific Council for a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from California, Oregon, Washington, or Idaho. The U.S. Government formally recognizes that the 12 Washington Tribes have treaty rights to fish for Pacific halibut. In general terms, the quantification of those rights is 50 percent of the harvestable surplus of Pacific halibut available in the tribes′ usual and accustomed (U and A) fishing areas (described at 50 CFR 300.64). Each of the treaty tribes has the discretion to administer their fisheries and to establish their own policies to achieve program objectives. Accordingly, tribal allocations and regulations, including the proposed changes to the Plan, have been developed in consultation with the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with tribal consensus. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300 Fishing, Fisheries, and Indian fisheries. Dated: January 9, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 *et seq.* 2. In § 300.63, paragraphs (e),

(f)and

(g)are revised to read as follows: § 300.63 Catch sharing plan and domestic management measures in Area 2A.

(e)*Area 2A Non-Treaty Commercial Fishery Closed Areas.*

(1)Non-treaty commercial vessels operating in the directed commercial fishery for halibut in Area 2A are required to fish outside of a closed area, known as the Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA), that extends along the coast from the U.S./Canada border south to 40°10′ N. lat. Between the U.S./Canada border and 46°16′ N. lat., the eastern boundary of the RCA is the shoreline. Between 46°16′ N. lat. and 40°10′ N. lat., the RCA is defined along an eastern boundary approximating the 30-fm (55-m) depth contour. Coordinates for the 30-fm (55-m) boundary are listed at § 300.63 (f). Between the U.S./Canada border and 40°10′ N. lat., the RCA is defined along a western boundary approximating the 100-fm (183-m) depth contour. Coordinates for the 100-fm (183-m) boundary are listed at § 300.63 (g).

(2)Non-treaty commercial vessels operating in the incidental catch fishery during the sablefish fishery north of Pt. Chehalis, WA, in Area 2A are required to fish outside of a closed area. Under Pacific Coast groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.382, fishing with limited entry fixed gear is prohibited within the North Coast Commercial Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA). It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with limited entry fixed gear within the North Coast Commercial YRCA. The North Coast Commercial Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area YRCA is an area off the northern Washington coast, overlapping the northern part of North Coast Recreational YRCA, and is defined by straight lines connecting latitude and longitude coordinates. Coordinates for the North Coast Commercial YRCA are specified in groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.390.

(3)Non-treaty commercial vessels operating in the incidental catch fishery during the salmon troll fishery in Area 2A are required to fish outside of a closed area. Under the Pacific Coast groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.383, fishing with salmon troll gear is prohibited within the Salmon Troll Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA). It is unlawful for commercial salmon troll vessels to take and retain, possess, or land fish within the Salmon Troll YRCA. The Salmon Troll YRCA is an area off the northern Washington coast and is defined by straight lines connecting latitude and longitude coordinates. Coordinates for the Salmon Troll YRCA are specified in groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.390 and in salmon regulations at 50 CFR 660.405.

(f)The 30-fm (55-m) depth contour between 46°16′ N. lat. and 40°10′ N. lat. is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:

(1)46°16.00′ N. lat., 124°13.05′ W. long.;

(2)46°16.00′ N. lat., 124°13.04′ W. long.;

(3)46°07.00′ N. lat., 124°07.01′ W. long.;

(4)45°55.95′ N. lat., 124°02.23′ W. long.;

(5)45°54.53′ N. lat., 124°02.57′ W. long.;

(6)45°50.65′ N. lat., 124°01.62′ W. long.;

(7)45°48.20′ N. lat., 124°02.16′ W. long.;

(8)45°46.00′ N. lat., 124°01.86′ W. long.;

(9)45°43.46′ N. lat., 124°01.28′ W. long.;

(10)45°40.48′ N. lat., 124°01.03′ W. long.;

(11)45°39.04′ N. lat., 124°01.68′ W. long.;

(12)45°35.48′ N. lat., 124°01.90′ W. long.;

(13)45°29.81′ N. lat., 124°02.45′ W. long.;

(14)45°27.97′ N. lat., 124°01.90′ W. long.;

(15)45°27.22′ N. lat., 124°02.66′ W. long.;

(16)45°24.20′ N. lat., 124°02.94′ W. long.;

(17)45°20.60′ N. lat., 124°01.74′ W. long.;

(18)45°20.25′ N. lat., 124°01.85′ W. long.;

(19)45°16.44′ N. lat., 124°03.22′ W. long.;

(20)45°13.63′ N. lat., 124°02.69′ W. long.;

(21)45°11.05′ N. lat., 124°03.59′ W. long.;

(22)45°08.55′ N. lat., 124°03.47′ W. long.;

(23)45°02.81′ N. lat., 124°04.64′ W. long.;

(24)44°58.06′ N. lat., 124°05.03′ W. long.;

(25)44°53.97′ N. lat., 124°06.92′ W. long.;

(26)44°48.89′ N. lat., 124°07.04′ W. long.;

(27)44°46.94′ N. lat., 124°08.25′ W. long.;

(28)44°42.72′ N. lat., 124°08.98′ W. long.;

(29)44°38.16′ N. lat., 124°11.48′ W. long.;

(30)44°33.38′ N. lat., 124°11.54′ W. long.;

(31)44°28.51′ N. lat., 124°12.04′ W. long.;

(32)44°27.65′ N. lat., 124°12.56′ W. long.;

(33)44°19.67′ N. lat., 124°12.37′ W. long.;

(34)44°10.79′ N. lat., 124°12.22′ W. long.;

(35)44°09.22′ N. lat., 124°12.28′ W. long.;

(36)44°08.30′ N. lat., 124°12.30′ W. long.;

(37)44°00.22′ N. lat., 124°12.80′ W. long.;

(38)43°51.56′ N. lat., 124°13.18′ W. long.;

(39)43°44.26′ N. lat., 124°14.50′ W. long.;

(40)43°33.82′ N. lat., 124°16.28′ W. long.;

(41)43°28.66′ N. lat., 124°18.72′ W. long.;

(42)43°23.12′ N. lat., 124°24.04′ W. long.;

(43)43°20.83′ N. lat., 124°25.67′ W. long.;

(44)43°20.48′ N. lat., 124°25.90′ W. long.;

(45)43°16.41′ N. lat., 124°27.52′ W. long.;

(46)43°14.23′ N. lat., 124°29.28′ W. long.;

(47)43°14.03′ N. lat., 124°28.31′ W. long.;

(48)43°11.92′ N. lat., 124°28.26′ W. long.;

(49)43°11.02′ N. lat., 124°29.11′ W. long.;

(50)43°10.13′ N. lat., 124°29.15′ W. long.;

(51)43°09.26′ N. lat., 124°31.03′ W. long.;

(52)43°07.73′ N. lat., 124°30.92′ W. long.;

(53)43°05.93′ N. lat., 124°29.64′ W. long.;

(54)43°01.59′ N. lat., 124°30.64′ W. long.;

(55)42°59.72′ N. lat., 124°31.16′ W. long.;

(56)42°53.75′ N. lat., 124°36.09′ W. long.;

(57)42°50.00′ N. lat., 124°38.39′ W. long.;

(58)42°49.37′ N. lat., 124°38.81′ W. long.;

(59)42°46.42′ N. lat., 124°37.69′ W. long.;

(60)42°46.07′ N. lat., 124°38.56′ W. long.;

(61)42°45.29′ N. lat., 124°37.95′ W. long.;

(62)42°45.61′ N. lat., 124°36.87′ W. long.;

(63)42°44.27′ N. lat., 124°33.64′ W. long.;

(64)42°42.75′ N. lat., 124°31.84′ W. long.;

(65)42°40.50′ N. lat., 124°29.67′ W. long.;

(66)42°40.04′ N. lat., 124°29.20′ W. long.;

(67)42°38.09′ N. lat., 124°28.39′ W. long.;

(68)42°36.73′ N. lat., 124°27.54′ W. long.;

(69)42°36.56′ N. lat., 124°28.40′ W. long.;

(70)42°35.77′ N. lat., 124°28.79′ W. long.;

(71)42°34.03′ N. lat., 124°29.98′ W. long.;

(72)42°34.19′ N. lat., 124°30.58′ W. long.;

(73)42°31.27′ N. lat., 124°32.24′ W. long.;

(74)42°27.07′ N. lat., 124°32.53′ W. long.;

(75)42°24.21′ N. lat., 124°31.23′ W. long.;

(76)42°20.47′ N. lat., 124°28.87′ W. long.;

(77)42°14.60′ N. lat., 124°26.80′ W. long.;

(78)42°13.67′ N. lat., 124°26.25′ W. long.;

(79)42°10.90′ N. lat., 124°24.56′ W. long.;

(80)42°07.04′ N. lat., 124°23.35′ W. long.;

(81)42°02.16′ N. lat., 124°22.59′ W. long.;

(82)42°00.00′ N. lat., 124°21.81′ W. long.;

(83)41°55.75′ N. lat., 124°20.72′ W. long.;

(84)41°50.93′ N. lat., 124°23.76′ W. long.;

(85)41°42.53′ N. lat., 124°16.47′ W. long.;

(86)41°37.20′ N. lat., 124°17.05′ W. long.;

(87)41°24.58′ N. lat., 124°10.51′ W. long.;

(88)41°20.73′ N. lat., 124°11.73′ W. long.;

(89)41°17.59′ N. lat., 124°10.66′ W. long.;

(90)41°04.54′ N. lat., 124°14.47′ W. long.;

(91)40°54.26′ N. lat., 124°13.90′ W. long.;

(92)40°40.31′ N. lat., 124°26.24′ W. long.;

(93)40°34.00′ N. lat., 124°27.39′ W. long.;

(94)40°30.00′ N. lat., 124°31.32′ W. long.;

(95)40°28.89′ N. lat., 124°32.43′ W. long.;

(96)40°24.77′ N. lat., 124°29.51′ W. long.;

(97)40°22.47′ N. lat., 124°24.12′ W. long.;

(98)40°19.73′ N. lat., 124°23.59′ W. long.;

(99)40°18.64′ N. lat., 124°21.89′ W. long.;

(100)40°17.67′ N. lat., 124°23.07′ W. long.;

(101)40°15.58′ N. lat., 124°23.61′ W. long.;

(102)40°13.42′ N. lat., 124°22.94′ W. long.; and

(103)40°10.00′ N. lat., 124°16.65′ W. long.;

(g)The 100-fm (183-m) depth contour used between the U.S. border with Canada and 40°10′ N. lat. is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:

(1)48°15.00′ N. lat., 125°41.00′ W. long.;

(2)48°14.00′ N. lat., 125°36.00′ W. long.;

(3)48°09.50′ N. lat., 125°40.50′ W. long.;

(4)48°08.00′ N. lat., 125°38.00′ W. long.;

(5)48°05.00′ N. lat., 125°37.25′ W. long.;

(6)48°02.60′ N. lat., 125°34.70′ W. long.;

(7)47°59.00′ N. lat., 125°34.00′ W. long.;

(8)47°57.26′ N. lat., 125°29.82′ W. long.;

(9)47°59.87′ N. lat., 125°25.81′ W. long.;

(10)48°01.80′ N. lat., 125°24.53′ W. long.;

(11)48°02.08′ N. lat., 125°22.98′ W. long.;

(12)48°02.97′ N. lat., 125°22.89′ W. long.;

(13)48°04.47′ N. lat., 125°21.75′ W. long.;

(14)48°06.11′ N. lat., 125°19.33′ W. long.;

(15)48°07.95′ N. lat., 125°18.55′ W. long.;

(16)48°09.00′ N. lat., 125°18.00′ W. long.;

(17)48°11.31′ N. lat., 125°17.55′ W. long.;

(18)48°14.60′ N. lat., 125°13.46′ W. long.;

(19)48°16.67′ N. lat., 125°14.34′ W. long.;

(20)48°18.73′ N. lat., 125°14.41′ W. long.;

(21)48°19.67′ N. lat., 125°13.70′ W. long.;

(22)48°19.70′ N. lat., 125°11.13′ W. long.;

(23)48°22.95′ N. lat., 125°10.79′ W. long.;

(24)48°21.61′ N. lat., 125°02.54′ W. long.;

(25)48°23.00′ N. lat., 124°49.34′ W. long.;

(26)48°17.00′ N. lat., 124°56.50′ W. long.;

(27)48°06.00′ N. lat., 125°00.00′ W. long.;

(28)48°04.62′ N. lat., 125°01.73′ W. long.;

(29)48°04.84′ N. lat., 125°04.03′ W. long.;

(30)48°06.41′ N. lat., 125°06.51′ W. long.;

(31)48°06.00′ N. lat., 125°08.00′ W. long.;

(32)48°07.08′ N. lat., 125°09.34′ W. long.;

(33)48°07.28′ N. lat., 125°11.14′ W. long.;

(34)48°03.45′ N. lat., 125°16.66′ W. long.;

(35)47°59.50′ N. lat., 125°18.88′ W. long.;

(36)47°58.68′ N. lat., 125°16.19′ W. long.;

(37)47°56.62′ N. lat., 125°13.50′ W. long.;

(38)47°53.71′ N. lat., 125°11.96′ W. long.;

(39)47°51.70′ N. lat., 125°09.38′ W. long.;

(40)47°49.95′ N. lat., 125°06.07′ W. long.;

(41)47°49.00′ N. lat., 125°03.00′ W. long.;

(42)47°46.95′ N. lat., 125°04.00′ W. long.;

(43)47°46.58′ N. lat., 125°03.15′ W. long.;

(44)47°44.07′ N. lat., 125°04.28′ W. long.;

(45)47°43.32′ N. lat., 125°04.41′ W. long.;

(46)47°40.95′ N. lat., 125°04.14′ W. long.;

(47)47°39.58′ N. lat., 125°04.97′ W. long.;

(48)47°36.23′ N. lat., 125°02.77′ W. long.;

(49)47°34.28′ N. lat., 124°58.66′ W. long.;

(50)47°32.17′ N. lat., 124°57.77′ W. long.;

(51)47°30.27′ N. lat., 124°56.16′ W. long.;

(52)47°30.60′ N. lat., 124°54.80′ W. long.;

(53)47°29.26′ N. lat., 124°52.21′ W. long.;

(54)47°28.21′ N. lat., 124°50.65′ W. long.;

(55)47°27.38′ N. lat., 124°49.34′ W. long.;

(56)47°25.61′ N. lat., 124°48.26′ W. long.;

(57)47°23.54′ N. lat., 124°46.42′ W. long.;

(58)47°20.64′ N. lat., 124°45.91′ W. long.;

(59)47°17.99′ N. lat., 124°45.59′ W. long.;

(60)47°18.20′ N. lat., 124°49.12′ W. long.;

(61)47°15.01′ N. lat., 124°51.09′ W. long.;

(62)47°12.61′ N. lat., 124°54.89′ W. long.;

(63)47°08.22′ N. lat., 124°56.53′ W. long.;

(64)47°08.50′ N. lat., 124°57.74′ W. long.;

(65)47°01.92′ N. lat., 124°54.95′ W. long.;

(66)47°01.08′ N. lat., 124°59.22′ W. long.;

(67)46°58.48′ N. lat., 124°57.81′ W. long.;

(68)46°56.79′ N. lat., 124°56.03′ W. long.;

(69)46°58.01′ N. lat., 124°55.09′ W. long.;

(70)46°55.07′ N. lat., 124°54.14′ W. long.;

(71)46°59.60′ N. lat., 124°49.79′ W. long.;

(72)46°58.72′ N. lat., 124°48.78′ W. long.;

(73)46°54.45′ N. lat., 124°48.36′ W. long.;

(74)46°53.99′ N. lat., 124°49.95′ W. long.;

(75)46°54.38′ N. lat., 124°52.73′ W. long.;

(76)46°52.38′ N. lat., 124°52.02′ W. long.;

(77)46°48.93′ N. lat., 124°49.17′ W. long.;

(78)46°41.50′ N. lat., 124°43.00′ W. long.;

(79)46°34.50′ N. lat., 124°28.50′ W. long.;

(80)46°29.00′ N. lat., 124°30.00′ W. long.;

(81)46°20.00′ N. lat., 124°36.50′ W. long.;

(82)46°18.40′ N. lat., 124°37.70′ W. long.;

(83)46°18.03′ N. lat., 124°35.46′ W. long.;

(84)46°17.00′ N. lat., 124°22.50′ W. long.;

(85)46°16.00′ N. lat., 124°20.62′ W. long.;

(86)46°13.52′ N. lat., 124°25.49′ W. long.;

(87)46°12.17′ N. lat., 124°30.74′ W. long.;

(88)46°10.63′ N. lat., 124°37.96′ W. long.;

(89)46°09.29′ N. lat., 124°39.01′ W. long.;

(90)46°02.40′ N. lat., 124°40.37′ W. long.;

(91)45°56.45′ N. lat., 124°38.00′ W. long.;

(92)45°51.92′ N. lat., 124°38.50′ W. long.;

(93)45°47.20′ N. lat., 124°35.58′ W. long.;

(94)45°46.40′ N. lat., 124°32.36′ W. long.;

(95)45°46.00′ N. lat., 124°32.10′ W. long.;

(96)45°41.75′ N. lat., 124°28.12′ W. long.;

(97)45°36.95′ N. lat., 124°24.47′ W. long.;

(98)45°31.84′ N. lat., 124°22.04′ W. long.;

(99)45°27.10′ N. lat., 124°21.74′ W. long.;

(100)45°20.25′ N. lat., 124°18.54′ W. long.;

(101)45°18.14′ N. lat., 124°17.59′ W. long.;

(102)45°11.08′ N. lat., 124°16.97′ W. long.;

(103)45°04.39′ N. lat., 124°18.35′ W. long.;

(104)45°03.83′ N. lat., 124°18.60′ W. long.;

(105)44°58.05′ N. lat., 124°21.58′ W. long.;

(106)44°47.67′ N. lat., 124°31.41′ W. long.;

(107)44°44.54′ N. lat., 124°33.58′ W. long.;

(108)44°39.88′ N. lat., 124°35.00′ W. long.;

(109)44°32.90′ N. lat., 124°36.81′ W. long.;

(110)44°30.34′ N. lat., 124°38.56′ W. long.;

(111)44°30.04′ N. lat., 124°42.31′ W. long.;

(112)44°26.84′ N. lat., 124°44.91′ W. long.;

(113)44°17.99′ N. lat., 124°51.04′ W. long.;

(114)44°12.92′ N. lat., 124°56.28′ W. long.;

(115)44°00.14′ N. lat., 124°55.25′ W. long.;

(116)43°57.68′ N. lat., 124°55.48′ W. long.;

(117)43°56.66′ N. lat., 124°55.45′ W. long.;

(118)43°56.47′ N. lat., 124°34.61′ W. long.;

(119)43°42.73′ N. lat., 124°32.41′ W. long.;

(120)43°30.92′ N. lat., 124°34.43′ W. long.;

(121)43°20.83′ N. lat., 124°39.39′ W. long.;

(122)43°17.45′ N. lat., 124°41.16′ W. long.;

(123)43°07.04′ N. lat., 124°41.25′ W. long.;

(124)43°03.45′ N. lat., 124°44.36′ W. long.;

(125)43°03.91′ N. lat., 124°50.81′ W. long.;

(126)42°55.70′ N. lat., 124°52.79′ W. long.;

(127)42°54.12′ N. lat., 124°47.36′ W. long.;

(128)42°50.00′ N. lat., 124°45.33′ W. long.;

(129)42°44.00′ N. lat., 124°42.38′ W. long.;

(130)42°40.50′ N. lat., 124°41.71′ W. long.;

(131)42°38.23′ N. lat., 124°41.25′ W. long.;

(132)42°33.02′ N. lat., 124°42.38′ W. long.;

(133)42°31.90′ N. lat., 124°42.04′ W. long.;

(134)42°30.08′ N. lat., 124°42.67′ W. long.;

(135)42°28.28′ N. lat., 124°47.08′ W. long.;

(136)42°25.22′ N. lat., 124°43.51′ W. long.;

(137)42°19.23′ N. lat., 124°37.91′ W. long.;

(138)42°16.29′ N. lat., 124°36.11′ W. long.;

(139)42°13.67′ N. lat., 124°35.81′ W. long.;

(140)42°05.66′ N. lat., 124°34.92′ W. long.;

(141)42°00.00′ N. lat., 124°35.27′ W. long.;

(142)41°47.04′ N. lat., 124°27.64′ W. long.;

(143)41°32.92′ N. lat., 124°28.79′ W. long.;

(144)41°24.17′ N. lat., 124°28.46′ W. long.;

(145)41°10.12′ N. lat., 124°20.50′ W. long.;

(146)40°51.41′ N. lat., 124°24.38′ W. long.;

(147)40°43.71′ N. lat., 124°29.89′ W. long.;

(148)40°40.14′ N. lat., 124°30.90′ W. long.;

(149)40°37.35′ N. lat., 124°29.05′ W. long.;

(150)40°34.76′ N. lat., 124°29.82′ W. long.;

(151)40°36.78′ N. lat., 124°37.06′ W. long.;

(152)40°32.44′ N. lat., 124°39.58′ W. long.;

(153)40°30.00′ N. lat., 124°38.13′ W. long.;

(154)40°24.82′ N. lat., 124°35.12′ W. long.;

(155)40°23.30′ N. lat., 124°31.60′ W. long.;

(156)40°23.52′ N. lat., 124°28.78′ W. long.;

(157)40°22.43′ N. lat., 124°25.00′ W. long.;

(158)40°21.72′ N. lat., 124°24.94′ W. long.;

(159)40°21.87′ N. lat., 124°27.96′ W. long.;

(160)40°21.40′ N. lat., 124°28.74′ W. long.;

(161)40°19.68′ N. lat., 124°28.49′ W. long.;

(162)40°17.73′ N. lat., 124°25.43′ W. long.;

(163)40°18.37′ N. lat., 124°23.35′ W. long.;

(164)40°15.75′ N. lat., 124°26.05′ W. long.;

(165)40°16.75′ N. lat., 124°33.71′ W. long.;

(166)40°16.29′ N. lat., 124°34.36′ W. long.; and

(167)40°10.00′ N. lat., 124°21.12′ W. long.; [FR Doc. E7-420 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 665 [Docket No. 061227341-6341-01; I.D. 120406A] RIN 0648-AU99 Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Hawaii Shallow-set Longline Fishery AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: This proposed rule would permanently remove the 7-day delay in effectiveness when closing the Hawaii-based shallow-set longline fishery as a result of reaching interaction limits for sea turtles. This action would allow immediate closure of the fishery, and would enhance protection of sea turtles. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received by January 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by “AU99” by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *AU99Swordfish@noaa.gov* . Include “AU99” in the subject line of the message. • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: *www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: William L. Robinson, Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd. 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814. In accordance with the Endangered Species Act, a Biological Opinion, dated February 23, 2004, was prepared for the longline fishery, which operates under the Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (FMP). Copies of the Biological Opinion are available from William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES ). Copies of the regulatory amendment may be obtained from Kitty M. Simonds, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC), 1164 Bishop St. 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Harman, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2271. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access This **Federal Register** document is also accessible via the World Wide Web at the Office of the **Federal Register** : *www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* . Background The Hawaii-based pelagic longline fishery for swordfish, tunas, and related species is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Pelagics FMP). The Pelagics FMP was developed by the WPFMC under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the Pelagics FMP appear at 50 CFR part 665 and subpart H of 50 CFR part 600. The regulations at § 665.33(b)(1) establish maximum annual limits on the numbers of interactions that occur between longline fishing operations and sea turtles. These limits apply to physical interactions experienced by vessels registered under Hawaii longline limited-access permits while engaged in shallow-set longline fishing. There are calendar-year annual limits on physical interactions for two species of sea turtles, one for leatherback sea turtles set at 16, and one for loggerhead sea turtles set at 17. NMFS is required by the 2004 Biological Opinion to maintain 100-percent observer coverage in the Hawaii shallow-set longline fishery. Interactions with turtles are monitored using data from scientific observers placed by NMFS aboard all vessels engaged in shallow-set longline fishing. The current regulations at § 665.33(b)(2) prescribe that as soon as the physical interaction limit for either of the two turtle species has been determined to have been reached in a given year, the shallow-set component of the Hawaii-based longline fishery must be closed by NMFS for the remainder of the calendar year, after giving permit holders at least seven days advance notice. Once that component of the fishery is closed, no vessel registered under a Hawaii longline limited-access permit may engage in shallow-set longline fishing north of the Equator. The 7-day delay was intended to give NMFS adequate time to notify permit holders and vessel operators of the fishery closure. Based on the best information available on fishing activity levels and anticipated turtle interaction rates at the time when the regulations were first implemented, the 7-day delay in effectiveness offered by the advance notice provision was thought to provide adequate protection to sea turtles, while also providing adequate notice of the fishery closure to vessels at sea. At the time when the current regulations were implemented, NMFS observers placed aboard longline vessels were not issued satellite telephones, and other communication methods were considered ineffective for notifying vessels at sea of a closure. More effective means of providing notification to active fishermen now exist; NMFS observers carry satellite telephones that enable effective communications between NMFS and each shallow-set vessel at sea. Fishing activity levels and rates of turtle interactions in early 2006 were higher than expected, resulting in the fishery quickly reaching the limit on turtle interactions. To respond to the greater fishing activity and turtle interaction rates, and to prevent additional adverse impacts to turtles, fishery closure was facilitated by issuance of an emergency rule that suspended the 7-day delay in effectiveness for closing the fishery. The emergency rule that suspended the delay in effectiveness in closing the fishery was effective on March 20, 2006 (71 FR 14416, March 22, 2006). When the 2006 fishery was closed, NMFS notified the operator of each Hawaii-based shallow-set longline vessel, directly via the satellite telephone carried by the NMFS observer placed on the vessel. This allowed for immediate closure of the fishery. The limit on turtle interactions was not exceeded, maximizing protection to the turtles. To implement the closure, NMFS published a notice that closed the fishery, effective from March 20, 2006, through December 31, 2006 (71 FR 14824, March 24, 2006). NMFS subsequently published a notice extending until March 19, 2007, the emergency rule that suspends the advance notice provision (71 FR 54759, September 19, 2006). At its 135 th meeting on October 18, 2006, the WPFMC voted to recommend to NMFS that the regulations governing the notification to close the fishery be amended to permanently remove the 7-day delay in effectiveness. The amended regulations would close the shallow-set fishery immediately upon reaching either limit on turtle interactions. The WPFMC developed a regulatory amendment, which may be obtained from Kitty M. Simonds (see ADDRESSES ). Copies of the regulatory amendment, environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, and initial regulatory flexibility analysis

(IRFA)may be obtained from William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES ). Classification NMFS has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the Pelagics FMP and has preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if promulgated, would have on small entities. A description of the proposed action, why it is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for the rule are described at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. There are no recordkeeping or reporting requirements associated with this proposed rule. This proposed rule considered four alternative management measures including the proposed Alternative 2, which modifies existing regulations to close the shallow-set fishery immediately upon reaching a turtle interaction limit. Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, would continue to include a 7-day delay in effectiveness when closing the fishery. Alternative 3 would modify existing regulations to close the fishery immediately upon reaching the turtle interaction limit, plus change the fishing year with regards to monitoring the limit on sea turtle interactions. Alternative 4 would modify existing regulations to close the fishery immediately upon reaching the turtle interaction limit, plus utilize short-term time/area closures to decrease the number of turtle interactions and lengthen the fishing season. Based on recent levels of participation in the shallow-set longline fishery, it is estimated that approximately 35 shallow-set longline vessels may be affected by this rulemaking. All are considered to be small entities as defined by the Small Business Administration

(SBA)as follows: any fish-harvesting business is a small business if it is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation and has annual receipts not in excess of $4 million. Because all vessels are considered to be small entities, there are no disproportionate economic impacts between small and large vessels resulting from this proposed rule. Furthermore, there are no disproportionate impacts among the affected population of small entities based on vessel size, fishing gear, or geographical considerations, e.g., home port. Based upon an estimated net revenue of $3,099 per set, and assuming that one set per day is the norm, the range of potential reduction in net revenues to individual swordfish vessels resulting from the implementation of the proposed Alternative 2 would be from $0 to $21,693 per closure, associated with a potential loss of 0-7 fishing days per vessel, respectively. The relative impact of a closure on annual returns from the swordfish fishery would depend on how quickly the fishery is closed in any one year. For example, if the fishery was closed after 63 days, there would be an estimated 10 percent reduction in potential annual net revenues. If the fishery was closed after 133 days, there would be an estimated 5.0 percent reduction. After 273 days, an estimated 2.5 percent reduction would result, and so on. These projections assume that all shallow-set certificates were being utilized. The loss in revenues could be mitigated by providing vessels with an early warning of projected closures, thus allowing the affected vessels to better plan for fishing operations. Better planning would avoid unnecessary trip preparation and allow the opportunity to change gear for fishing in alternative longline fisheries, such as the Hawaii-based deep-set

(tuna)longline fishery. Alternative 1 (no action) would prevent direct economic losses to affected vessels. However, this alternative would not provide adequate protection to sea turtles. Alternatives 3 and 4 could partially mitigate the economic impacts to small entities associated with the proposed alternative by lengthening the fishing season, which would distribute landings to avoid flooding the market and allowing for price stability. The small entities also would be better able to plan their fishing operations, especially if they participate in another fishery when not targeting swordfish, and mitigate adverse economic impacts, such as unreasonably low prices, which can arise from the market becoming flooded as the fishery is closed and all vessels return to port. Because the high turtle interaction rates experienced in the 2006 fishing year may have been an anomaly, and in future years the fishery may not reach either turtle interaction limit, the time/area closures as proposed in Alternative 4, and the shifting of the shallow-set fishing season as proposed in Alternative 3 are not preferred at this time. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665 Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: January 10, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 665 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC l. The authority citation for part 665 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 665.22, revise paragraphs

(ss)and

(tt)to read as follows: § 665.22 Prohibitions.

(ss)Engage in shallow-setting from a vessel registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit after the shallow-set component of the longline fishery has been closed pursuant to § 665.33(b), in violation of § 665.33(i).

(tt)Fail to immediately retrieve longline fishing gear upon receipt of actual notice that the shallow-set component of the longline fishery has been closed pursuant to § 665.33(b), in violation of § 665.33(i). 3. In § 665.33, remove paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and (iv), and revise paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and

(ii)to read as follows: § 665.33 Western Pacific longline fishing restrictions

(b)* * *

(2)* * *

(i)As soon as practicable, the Regional Administrator will file for publication at the Office of the Federal Register a notification of the sea turtle interaction limit having been reached. The notification will include an advisement that the shallow-set component of the longline fishery shall be closed, and that shallow-set longline fishing north of the Equator by vessels registered for use under Hawaii longline limited access permits will be prohibited beginning at a specified date, until the end of the calendar year in which the sea turtle interaction limit was reached. Coincidental with the filing of the notification, the Regional Administrator will also provide actual notice that the shallow-set component of the longline fishery shall be closed, and that shallow-set longline fishing north of the Equator by vessels registered for use under Hawaii longline limited access permits will be prohibited beginning at a specified date, to all holders of Hawaii longline limited access permits via telephone, satellite telephone, radio, electronic mail, facsimile transmission, or post.

(ii)Beginning on the fishery closure date indicated by the Regional Administrator in the notification provided to vessel operators and permit holders and published in the **Federal Register** under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, until the end of the calendar year in which the sea turtle interaction limit was reached, the Hawaii-based shallow-set component of the longline fishery shall be closed. [FR Doc. E7-459 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 9 Tuesday, January 16, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board Order No. 1497 Approval for Expansion of Authority for Subzone 116C, The Premcor Refining Group Inc., (Oil Refinery), Port Arthur, Texas Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zone of Southeast Texas, Inc., grantee of FTZ 116, has requested authority on behalf of The Premcor Refining Group Inc. (Premcor), to expand the scope of manufacturing activity conducted under zone procedures within Subzone 116C at the Premcor refinery in Port Arthur, Texas (FTZ Docket 7-2006, filed 2/21/2006); Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 10641-10642, 3/2/06); Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that approval of the application would be in the public interest if approval is subject to the conditions listed below; Now, Therefore, the Board hereby orders: The application to expand the scope of manufacturing authority under zone procedures within Subzone 116C, is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including § 400.28, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Foreign status (19 CFR § 146.41, 146.42) products consumed as fuel for the petrochemical complex shall be subject to the applicable duty rate. 2. Privileged foreign status (19 CFR § 146.41) shall be elected on all foreign merchandise admitted to the subzone, except that non-privileged foreign

(NPF)status (19 CFR § 146.42) may be elected on refinery inputs covered under HTSUS Subheadings #2709.00.10, #2709.00.20, #2710.11.25, #2710.11.45, #2710.19.05, #2710.19.10, #2710.19.45, #2710.91.00, #2710.99.05, #2710.99.10, #2710.99.16, #2710.99.21 and #2710.99.45 which are used in the production of: -petrochemical feedstocks (examiners report, Appendix “C”); -products for export; -and, products eligible for entry under HTSUS # 9808.00.30 and # 9808.00.40 (U.S. Government purchases). Signed at Washington, DC, this 4 th day of January 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-460 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) will meet on January 30, 2007, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 6087B, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to sensors and instrumentation equipment and technology. Agenda Public Session 1. Welcome and Introductions. 2. Remarks from Bureau of Industry and Security Management. 3. Industry Presentations. 4. New Business: Election of Chairman(s). Closed Session 5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that the materials be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Yvette Springer at *Yspringer@bis.doc.gov.* The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on November 21, 2006 pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 Section 10(d)), that the portion of this meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public. For more information contact Yvette Springer on

(202)482-2813. Dated: January 10, 2007. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. 07-121 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 12

Traces to 12 documents

CFR

U.S. Code