Proposed Rules. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Agency: Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Action: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Citation: FR Doc. 07-1662 · Docket No. RM 2007-3 · 37 CFR 202

Summary

The Copyright Office is proposing to amend its regulations governing applications for registration of claims to the renewal term of copyright. This notice seeks public comment on the proposed amended regulations, which will take into account the fact that, since January 1, 2006, all applications for renewal have necessarily related to works which are subject to automatic renewal and, thus, are already in their renewal terms, making impossible any 28th- year registration of claims to the renewal term.

Dates

Comments are due May 4, 2007.

Supplementary Information

I. Background The 1976 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101, et. seq., carried over provisions for the continued protection of certain works first published or registered for copyright under the 1909 Copyright Act. Reenacting and preserving the provisions of section 24 of the 1909 law for all works which were then in their first term of copyright protection, Section 304(a) of Title 17 as originally enacted in 1976 provided that renewal registration had to be made during the 28th year of the original term of copyright in order to secure the additional (then 47) years of renewal-term protection. 17 U.S.C. 304(a) (1976). In 1992, Congress enacted a revision of section 304(a) of Title 17 which made renewal copyright automatic for works first published or registered from January 1, 1964, through December 31, 1977. This amendment allowed the renewal right to vest without registration of: [a] the claim to copyright during the original, 28-year term; or, [b] the claim to renewal copyright during the year immediately prior to the beginning of the renewal term ( i.e. , during the 28th year); or, [c] the claim to renewal copyright during the renewal term. Pub. L. No. 102-307, 106 Stat. 264, enacted June 26, 1992. In order to encourage renewal registration and provide a public record of renewal rights, however, Congress also amended section 304(a) to provide certain benefits to a party who undertook the renewal registration within the 28th year of the original term of copyright. These benefits for works with timely renewal registrations include: 1. A certificate of registration constitutes prima facie evidence as to the validity of the copyright during its renewal term and of the facts stated in the certificate. 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(4)(B). 2. A derivative work prepared under the authority of a grant of a transfer or license of copyright in a work made before the expiration of the original term of copyright may not continue to be used under the terms of the grant during the renewal term without the authority of the owner of the renewal copyright. 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(4)(A). 3. A renewal copyright vests upon the beginning of the renewal term in the party who was entitled to claim the renewal of copyright at the time the application was made as provided under 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(2)(A)(i) and (B)(i). Registration of a claim to the renewal term has also been possible since the 1992 amendment at any time during the renewal term, i.e. , at any time beyond the 28th year of the original term of copyright. 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(3)(A)(ii). Such renewal registration may be made whether or not an original-term registration was previously made. If no original-term registration was made, the renewal term applicant must provide information, under the provision of 17 U.S.C. 409 (11), regarding the original term of copyright. Such information must demonstrate that the work submitted for renewal registration complies with all requirements of the 1909 Act with respect to the existence, ownership, or duration of the copyright for the original term of the work. The Addendum to Form RE has been used to provide this information to the Copyright Office. The 1992 amendment further provided that, where no renewal registration has been made in the name of a party identified as entitled to the renewal right in the statute at 304(a)(1)(B) and (C), an application form may be filed at any time during the renewal term by any successor or assignee of such statutorily-enumerated party. Section 304(a)(3). II. End of 28th-Year Renewal Registration The Copyright Act of 1909 ceased to be effective on January 1, 1978. For all works published before January 1, 1978, where the year date in the copyright notice on published copies or phonorecords distributed by authority of the copyright owner was earlier than the year date of first publication, claims to renewal copyright must have been registered during the last year of the original copyright term as that term was computed from the year date in the copyright notice. For purposes of renewal registration, this year period began on December 31 of the 27th year from the year date appearing in the notice and ran through December 31 of the 28th year from the year date appearing in the notice rather than being computed from the year date of actual first publication. This ameliorative principle arose from case law under the 1909 Act and essentially benefitted the copyright owner by providing an alternative to the complete loss of copyright in instances of a wrong, i.e. , earlier, year date in the copyright notice. Further, for works governed by the 1909 copyright law, in effect until December 31, 1977, the original copyright term for a published work was computed from the date of first publication; the original term for a work first registered in unpublished form was computed from the date of registration in the Copyright Office. On January 1, 1978, the Copyright Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541 (October 19, 1976), became effective. The extensively revised copyright law provided that any work unpublished and not registered as of January 1, 1978, or published on or after that date, was to be governed by the 1976 statute and was to receive a term of protection provided by section 302 of the statute. However, for any copyright, the first term of which was subsisting on January 1, 1978, such term was to last 28 years with a possibility of a 47-year renewal term. Further, Pub. L. No. 105-298, 112 Stat. 2827, enacted October 27, 1998, changed the renewal term for works under copyright protection as of that date from 47 to 67 years. Thus, works first published or registered for their original term of copyright on or before December 31, 1977, constitute the category of works for which the renewal structure is applicable. Any such work could have an original term of copyright of 28 years, assuming compliance with all applicable requirements of the 1909 statute, and no work governed by the carried-over renewal provisions of section 304(a) of Title 17 may possess an original term of copyright extending beyond December 31, 2005, i.e. , 28 years after December 31, 1977. Thus, December 31, 2005, was the last day on which a work first published or originally registered as unpublished during the effective period of the 1909 copyright law could have been submitted for renewal registration during the 28th year of its original term of copyright and be eligible for the benefits listed above. III. Continuation of Post-28th Year Renewal Registration After January 1, 2006, works that were first published or registered as unpublished for the original term of copyright between 1964 and 1977 will continue to be amenable to renewal registration. Concerning works eligible for renewal registration since 1992, statutory claimants and successors or assignees of such statutory claimants may file applications for the renewal term. A claim to the renewal term must be registered in the name of the statutory claimant in whom the renewal copyright vested on the last day of the original term of copyright. 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (2)(B)(ii). This is true even when that claimant is no longer the owner of the copyright in the renewal term. If the statutory claimant in whom the renewal vested is the current owner and that claimant is submitting the renewal claim, that fact must be indicated on the renewal application. Where there is a successor or assignee of any statutory renewal claimant (the party who was the owner of the renewal term as determined on the last day of the original 28-year term of copyright), the successor or assignee may file the renewal application. 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(3)(A)(ii). Consistent with the Offices long-standing regulation at 37 CFR 202.3(b)(10), as a general rule, only one registration can be made for the same version of a particular work. This rule applies to renewal claims, including those filed by a successor or assignee. For example, if a successor-in-interest filed a renewal claim in 2006 and later assigned his interest to someone else, that person could not file a renewal claim. In the case of an application filed by a successor or assignee, the renewal application must identify the party in whom the renewal copyright vested by virtue of 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(1)(B) and (C) but in whose name no previous renewal registration has been made; must indicate the basis upon which copyright in the renewal term vested in that party; and must identify the party filing as successor or assignee of the statutory claimant under 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(3) and the manner by which such successor/assignee secured the renewal copyright. When such an application has been filed by a successor or assignee in the name of the statutory claimant as described in 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(1)(B) and (C), the Office will generally not accept subsequent claims filed by other successors or assignees whose rights are derived from the same statutory claimant. Where a successor or assignee claims the renewal right from the same statutory claimant as does another successor or assignee, the Copyright Office may, however, inquire concerning the particular situation and, if appropriate, may allow adverse renewal claims from both successors/assignees to be placed on the public record. Applications in which two or more persons or organizations adversely claim the copyright to the renewal term in a particular work will be handled as the Office’s Compendium of Copyright Practices, Compendium II (1984) , § 108.06, indicates: adverse claims will be registered if, after the Office inquires concerning the claims, each claim, on its own merits, is determined to meet all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. In such a case, correspondence between the parties filing competing renewal claims and the Copyright Office will be maintained within Office records and subject to public inspection according to regulations found at 37 CFR 201.2. In cases where adverse renewal claims are not accepted by the Copyright Office, however, if a public record of renewal ownership is sought by particular successors or assignees of the same statutory claimant as indicated in the filing of a previous claim by another successor or assignee, the document of transfer of the renewal copyright may be recorded in the Copyright Office. IV. Renewal Registration Procedures Under the proposed amendment, the Copyright Office will provide a revised application form for the registration of renewal claims. The proposed revised Form RE, as well as the proposed revised Form RE/CON (for use when additional information must be supplied) and Form RE/ADDENDUM (to be filed if the work, or the collective work in which it was first published, was not registered during the original term) may be viewed on the Copyright Office website at www.copyright.gov/proposedforms. Following issuance of a final rule, these new forms will be available on the Copyright Office website at www.copyright.gov as well as through postal mail upon request. Any requests to the Copyright Office for application forms for registration of claims to the renewal term will be filled with the newly revised form; the forms currently in use will be obsolete and the new forms must be used to file such renewal claims. One of the major changes to the form will facilitate the filing of applications by successors or assignees of the statutory renewal claimants listed at 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(1)(B) and (C). During the past several years, those successors or assignees of statutory claimants who wished to file an application to the renewal term, 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(3)(ii), had to seek advice from the Copyright Office because of the lack of appropriate application-form instructions for the successor or assignee situation; this has been addressed in the revised application form. V. Summary of Revisions to Regulation at 37 CFR 202.17 The proposed revision of this regulatory section, 202.17, is extensive and essentially reorders much of the information which previously appeared within this section. The most important change in information concerns the end of the 28th-year renewal registration possibility. 1. Section 202.17(a) more specifically explains the relevant statutory changes of 1992 regarding renewal rights and sets out the distinction between pre-1964 works and post-1964 works with respect to renewal registration. 2. Section 202.17(b) expands the list of terms defined to include “statutory claimant,” “assignee and successor,” and “vest” as those terms relate specifically to the provisions of this renewal registration regulation. 3. Section 202.17(c) explains the relevant time periods for both original term registration and renewal term registration and their optional character as they are set out in the 1992 revision of section 304(a) of Title 17. 4. Section 202.17(d) explains the benefits of 28th-year renewal registration under the 1992 revision to section 304(a) of Title 17 and indicates that such benefits have no longer been available since January 1, 2006, because the regime of 28th-year renewal registration has ended. 5. Section 202.17(e) sets out the parties entitled to the renewal right under 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(1)(B) and (C). This section also: a. clarifies that, in any derivative work which may be the subject of a renewal application, a renewal claim may be filed only in the new matter, revisions, or changes incorporated into that derivative work and which form the basis of the protected authorship for purposes of registration. b. clarifies that renewal claims for a work may, under certain circumstances, be filed under the posthumous work category and also under an individual claimant category but with the Copyright Office’s taking no position as to which of such claims may be adjudicated to be valid. For purposes of the copyright statute’s renewal provision, the term “posthumous work” means a work concerning which no copyright assignment or other contract for exploitation of the work has occurred during the author’s lifetime and which is unpublished at the time of the author’s death. Compendium of Copyright Office Practices, Compendium II (1984), 1317.03(a), citing Bartok v. Boosey & Hawkes, Inc., 523 F.2d 941 (2d Cir. 1975), and H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess 139 (1976). Two parties claiming renewal copyright who take different positions as to whether a particular work falls under the specific definition of “posthumous” which Congress adopted from Bartok may, thus, file separate and competing claims in such a situation. c. explains several situations concerning the filing of a renewal registration claim where an executor or a party appointed to fulfill such duties may be the appropriate filer of a renewal claim or where conflicting claims between an administrator of a will and the author’s next of kin may be accepted by the Copyright Office. The Office has also added a phrase, for purposes of § 202.17(e)(2)(iii)(C), qualifying that an executor appointed under a will must still be acting in that capacity at the time of registration when a renewal claim is filed. The phrase “if still acting in that capacity at the time of registration” is added to help claimants make decisions concerning their renewal submissions where an executor of a will may or may not be able to act in the filing of a renewal claim. For the uncertainties and varying situations concerning the presence or absence of an executor or administrator and the possibility of the next of kin’s claiming as an appropriate section 304 statutory class, see e.g. Silverman v. Sunrise Pictures Corp., 290 F. 804 (2d Cir.), cert. denied , 262 U.S. 758 (1923); Gibran v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. , 153 F. Supp. 854 (S.D.N.Y. 1957), aff’d sub. nom. Gibran v. National Committee of Gibran , 255 F.2d 121 (2d Cir.), cert. denied , 358 U.S. 828 (1958); Capano Music v. Myers Music, Inc ., 605 F. Supp. 692 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). 6. Section 202.17(f) clarifies the situations in which successors and assignees of the section 304(a)(1)(B) and (C) statutory renewal claimants may file applications for renewal registration. 7. Section 202.17(g) indicates the information necessary on a renewal application form for a work for which a previous, original-term registration has been made. 8. Section 202.17(h) indicates the information necessary on a renewal application form and the required accompanying deposit materials in situations for works where no original-term registration has been made. Concerning the Form RE/Addendum to be used in this situation of no original-term registration, regulatory § 202.17(h)(3)(vii) explains that the applicant must provide within the application an averment that all authorized copies of the work which were publicly distributed in the United States or elsewhere before March 1, 1989, carried a statutorily correct copyright notice. March 1, 1989, is the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 [BCIA], making the presence of a copyright notice on copies of a work, published in the U.S., with the authorization of the copyright owner, optional. Before March 1, 1989, however, any copy, including any reprint copy, of a work published in this country or elsewhere, even though such work may have been first published under the 1909 Copyright Act, must have carried a statutorily required copyright notice. See 17 U.S.C. 405. List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 202 Claims to copyright, Copyright, Registration requirements, Renewals Proposed Regulations In consideration of the foregoing, the Copyright Office proposes to amend Part 202 of 37 CFR, Chapter II, in the manner set forth below: 1. The authority citation for part 202 continues to read as follows: Authority: 17 U.S.C. 408(f), 702. 2. Section 202.17 is revised to read as follows: § 202.17 Renewals (a) General . (1) This section concerns renewal for copyrights originally secured from January 1, 1964, through December 31, 1977, either by publication with the required copyright notice or by registration as an unpublished work. Renewal registration for these works is optional. As provided in Pub. L. No. 102-307, 106 Stat. 264, enacted June 26, 1992, renewal registration made during the last year of the original 28-year term of copyright differs in legal effect from renewal registration made during the 67-year extended renewal term. In the latter instance, the copyright is renewed automatically at the expiration of the original 28-year term. In the former instance, renewal by registration during the last year of the original 28-year term vested the renewal copyright in the statutory claimant living on the date of registration. (2) Works for which copyright was secured before 1964 are governed by the provisions of 17 U.S.C. 304(a) in effect prior to the 1992 date of enactment of Pub. L. No. 102-307. The copyrights in such works could have been renewed by registration only within the last calendar year of the original 28-year term of copyright protection. If renewal registration was not made during that period of time, copyright protection was lost when the original term of copyright expired and cannot be regained. (3) Works restored to copyright by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act are governed in their copyright term of protection by Pub. L. No. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809, 4976 (December 8, 1994). Under 17 U.S.C. 104A(a)(1)(A) and (B), as amended, any work in which copyright is restored subsists for the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have been otherwise granted in the United States. Such term includes the remainder of any applicable renewal term. (4) Automatic restoration of copyright in certain foreign works that were in the public domain in the United States may have occurred under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and may be protected by copyright or neighboring rights in their “source country,” as defined at 17 U.S.C. 104A(h)(8). (b) Definitions. (1) For purposes of this section, the terms assignee and successor , as they pertain to 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(3)(A)(ii), refer to a party which has acquired the renewal copyright in a work by assignment or by other means of legal succession from the statutory claimant [as that claimant is defined in 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(1)(B) and (C)] in whom the renewal copyright vested but in whose name no renewal registration was previously made. (2) For purposes of this section, a work has been copyrighted when it has been published with a proper copyright notice or, in the case of an unpublished work, when it has been registered for copyright. (3) For purposes of this section, the term posthumous work means a work that was unpublished on the date of the death of the author and with respect to which no copyright assignment or other contract for exploitation of the work occurred during the author’s lifetime. (4) For purposes of this section, the term statutory claimant means: (i) a party who was entitled to claim copyright for the renewal term at the time renewal registration was made either as a proprietary claimant ,17 U.S.C. 304(a)(2)(A)(i), or as a personal claimant, 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(2)(B)(i), if registration was made during the original term of copyright; or, (ii) if the original copyright term expired, a party who was entitled to claim copyright for the renewal term as of the last day of the original term of copyright as either a proprietary or a personal claimant, 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (a)(2)(B)(ii). (5) For purposes of this section, the term to vest means to give a fixed, non-contingent right of present or future enjoyment of the renewal copyright in a work. If renewal registration was made during the 28th year of the original term of copyright, the renewal copyright vested in the party or parties entitled to claim such copyright at the time of registration as provided by 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(1)(B) and (C). Although the vested right may have been determined by registration during the 28th year of the original term, the exercise of such right did not commence until the beginning of the renewal term, as provided in 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(2). If renewal registration was not made during the 28th year, the renewal copyright automatically vested upon the beginning of the renewal term in the party or parties entitled to claim such copyright on the last day of the original term as provided by 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (B)(ii). (c) Time limits: original term and renewal term registration . (1) Under 17 U.S.C. 304(a), prior to its amendment of June 26, 1992, a registration for the original term of copyright must have been made during the 28 years of that original term, and a renewal registration must also have been made during the 28th year of that term. Pub. L. No. 102-307, 106 Stat. 264 (June 26, 1992) amended section 304(a) for works originally copyrighted from January 1, 1964, through December 31, 1977, and provided for optional original-term registration and optional renewal registration. 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(2), (a)(3) and 409(11). For such works, claims to renewal copyright could have been registered during the last year of the original term but such registration was not required in order to enjoy statutory protection during the renewal term. 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(3)(B). (2) A renewal registration can be made at any time during the renewal term. 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(3)(A)(ii). If no original-term registration was made, renewal registration remains possible; but the Register may request information, under 17 U.S.C. 409(11), regarding the original term of copyright. Such information must demonstrate that the work complies with all requirements of the 1909 Act with respect to the existence, ownership, or duration of the copyright for the original term of the work. The Form RE/Addendum is used to provide this information. (3) Renewal registration is currently available for works copyrighted from January 1, 1964, through December 31, 1977. Under the provisions of 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(3)(A)(ii), renewal registration may be made any time during the 67-year renewal term for such works according to the procedure indicated in paragraph (h) of this section. Such renewal registration is optional and is not a condition of the subsistence of the copyright for the 67-year renewal term. 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(3)(B). In the case of such works for which no registration was made during the original term of copyright, renewal registration may be made by submission of a Form RE/Addendum. The Addendum, an adjunct to the renewal form, concerns the facts of first publication for a work and assures the Copyright Office that the work as it existed in its original term of copyright was in compliance with the 1909 copyright law, 17 U.S.C. 1, et. seq. (1909 Act, in effect through December 31, 1977), whose provisions govern such works. (d) Benefits of 28th-year renewal registration . Prior to January 1, 2006, renewal registration was available during the 28th year of the original term of copyright for works copyrighted from January 1, 1964, through December 31, 1977. As provided in Pub. L. No. 102-307, 106 Stat. 264, registration made during the 28th year of the original term of copyright provided the following benefits to the registrant: (1) The certificate of registration constituted prima facie evidence as to the validity of the copyright during its renewal term and of the facts stated in the certificate. 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(4)(B). (2) A derivative work prepared under the authority of a grant of a transfer or license of copyright in a work made before the expiration of the original term of copyright could not continue to be used under the terms of the grant during the renewal term without the authority of the owner of the renewal copyright. 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(4)(A). (3) The renewal copyright vested upon the beginning of the renewal term in the party entitled to claim the renewal of copyright at the time the application was made as provided under 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(2)(A)(i) and (B)(i). (e) Statutory parties entitled to claim copyright for the renewal term under section 304(a) . (1) Renewal claims must be registered in the name of the party or parties entitled to claim copyright for the renewal term as provided in paragraphs 2 through 4 of this section and as specified in 17 U.S.C. 304(a). If a work was a new version of a previously published or registered work, renewal registration may be claimed only in the new matter. (2) If the renewal claim was submitted during the last, i.e. , the 28th, year of the original term of copyright, the claim had to be registered in the name[s] of the statutory claimant[s] entitled to claim the renewal copyright on the date on which the claim was submitted to the Copyright Office. If the renewal claim is submitted during the sixty-seven year extended renewal term, the renewal claim can be registered only in the name[s] of the statutory claimant[s] entitled to claim the renewal on the last day (December 31) of the original term of copyright. These eligible renewal claimants are listed below: (i) The person who, on the applicable day, was the copyright proprietor is the appropriate renewal claimant in any posthumous work or any periodical, encyclopedia, or other composite work upon which the copyright was originally secured by the proprietor (ii) The person who, on the applicable day, was the copyright proprietor is the appropriate claimant in any work copyrighted by a corporate body (otherwise than as assignees or licensees of the individual author), or by an employer for whom such work was made for hire. (iii) For any other copyrighted work, including a contribution by an individual author to a periodical or to an cyclopedic or other composite work, the appropriate claimants, in descending order of eligibility, are the person who, on the applicable day, was: (A) the author(s) of the work, if still living; (B) the widow(er) and/or child(ren) of the author, if the author was deceased on the applicable day; (C) the author’s executor(s), if still acting in that capacity on the applicable day, provided the author had a will and neither the author, nor any widow(er) or child of the author is still living; (D) the author’s next of kin, in the absence of a will and if neither the author nor any widow, widower or child of the author is living. (3) The provisions of paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section are subject to the following qualification: Notwithstanding the definition of “posthumous work” in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, a renewal claim may be registered in the name of the proprietor of a work, as well as in the name of the appropriate claimant under paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section, in any case in which a contract for exploitation of the work but no copyright assignment in the work has occurred during the author’s lifetime. However, registration by the Copyright Office in this case should not be interpreted as evidencing the validity of either claim. (4) The provisions of paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(C) and (D) of this section are subject to the following qualifications: (i) In any case where: (A) the author has left a will which names no executor; or, (B) the author has left a will which names an executor who cannot or will not serve in that capacity; or, (C) the author has left a will which names an executor who has been discharged upon settlement of the estate, removed before the estate has been completely administered, or is deceased at the time of the renewal registration submission, the renewal claim may be registered either in the name of an administrator cum testamento annexo (administrator c.t.a.) or an administrator de bonis non cum testamento annexo (administrator d.b.n.c.t.a.) so appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction. (ii) In any case described in paragraph (e) of this section, except in the case where the author has left a will without naming an executor and a court-appointed administrator c.t.a. or administrator d.b.n.c.t.a. is in existence at the time of renewal registration, the renewal claim also may be registered in the name of the author’s next of kin. However, registration by the Copyright Office of conflicting renewal claims in such a case should not be interpreted as evidencing the validity of either claim. (f) Successors/assignees entitled to file an application for the renewal term under section 304(a). (1) The provisions of paragraph (e) of this section are subject to the following qualifications: (i) Where no renewal registration has been made in the name of a person or entity identified in paragraphs (e)(2)(i), (ii) and (iii) of this section, a renewal application may be filed at any time during the renewal term by any successor or assignee of such person or entity. (ii) In such cases described in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, the renewal application must identify the party in whom the renewal copyright vested; must indicate the basis upon which copyright for the renewal term vested in that party; must identify the party who is the successor or assignee of the statutory claimant under 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(3); and, must give the manner by which such successor/assignee secured the renewal copyright. (iii) When such a claim has been filed by a successor or assignee in the name of the statutory claimant as described in paragraph (e)(2)(i), (ii) and (iii) of this section, generally no subsequent claims may be filed by other successors or assignees whose rights are derived from the same statutory claimant. If a public record of renewal ownership is sought by other successors or assignees of the same statutory claimant, the document of transfer of the renewal copyright, either the renewal in its entirety or in part, may be recorded in the Copyright Office. (iv) Where a successor or assignee claims the renewal right from the same statutory claimant as does another successor or assignee, the Copyright Office may inquire concerning the situation and, if appropriate, may allow adverse renewal claims from the successors/assignees to be placed on the public record. In such cases, correspondence between the parties filing competing renewal claims and the Copyright Office will be, as always, maintained within Office records and subject to public inspection according to regulations found at 37 CFR 201.2. (g) Application for renewal registration for a work registered in its original 28-year term. (1) Each application for renewal registration shall be submitted on Form RE. All forms are available free of charge via the Internet by accessing the Copyright Office homepage at http://www.copyright.gov. Copies of Form RE are also available free upon request to the Public Information Office, United States Copyright Office, Library of Congress, 101 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20559-6000. (2) (i) An application for renewal registration may be submitted by any eligible statutory renewal claimant as specified in paragraph (e) of this section or by the duly authorized agent of such claimant, or by the successor or assignee of such claimant as provided under paragraph (f) of this section or by the duly authorized agent of such successor or assignee. (ii) An application for renewal registration shall be accompanied by the required fee as set forth in 37 CFR 201.3. The application shall contain the information required by the form and its accompanying instructions, and shall include a certification. The certification shall consist of: (A) A designation of whether the applicant is the renewal claimant, or a successor or assignee, or the duly authorized agent of such claimant or of such successor or assignee (whose identity shall also be given); (B) The handwritten signature of such claimant, successor or assignee, or agent, accompanied by the typewritten or printed name of that person; (C) A declaration that the statements made in the application are correct to the best of that person’s knowledge; and (D) The date of certification. (3) Once a renewal registration has been made, the Copyright Office will not accept another application for renewal registration on behalf of the same renewal claimant. (h) Renewal with addendum registration for an unregistered work . (1) General . For published works copyrighted from January 1, 1964, through December 31, 1977, where no registration was made during the original term of copyright and where renewal registration is sought during the 67-year renewal term, the Form RE/Addendum must be used to provide information concerning the original term of copyright. The Form RE/Addendum requires a separate fee and the deposit of one copy or phonorecord of the work as first published (or identifying material in lieu of a copy or phonorecord). The effective date of registration for a renewal claim submitted on a Form RE/Addendum is the date the Copyright Office receives an acceptable completed application, the required fees, and an acceptable deposit for the work. (2) Time Limits . A renewal claim accompanied by an Addendum to Form RE may be filed at any time during the 67-year renewal term. (3) Content . The Form RE/Addendum must contain the following information: (i) The title of the work; (ii) The name of the author(s); (iii) The date of first publication of the work; (iv) The nation of first publication of the work; (v) The citizenship of the author(s) on the date of first publication of the work; (vi) The domicile of the author(s) on the date of first publication of the work; (vii) An averment that, at the time of first publication, and thereafter until March 1, 1989 [effective date of the Berne Implementation Act of 1988], all the copies or phonorecords of the work, including reprints of the work, published, i.e. , publicly distributed in the United States or elsewhere, under the authority of the author or other copyright proprietor, bore the copyright notice required by the Copyright Act of 1909 and that United States copyright subsists in the work; (viii) For works of United States origin which were subject to the manufacturing provisions of section 16 of the Copyright Act of 1909 as it existed at the time the work was published, the Form RE/Addendum must also contain information about the country of manufacture and the manufacturing processes; and (ix) The handwritten signature of the renewal claimant or successor or assignee, or the duly authorized agent of the claimant or of the successor or assignee. The signature shall be accompanied by the printed or typewritten name of the person signing the Addendum and by the date of the signature; and shall be immediately preceded by a declaration that the statements made in the application are correct to the best of that person’s knowledge. (4) Fees . Form RE and Form RE/Addendum must be accompanied by the required fee for each form as required in 37 CFR 201.3. (5) Deposit requirement . One copy or phonorecord or identifying material of the work as first published in accordance with the deposit requirements set out in 37 CFR 202.20 and 202.21 is required. (6) Waiver of the deposit requirement . Where the renewal applicant asserts that it is either impossible or otherwise an undue hardship to satisfy the deposit requirements of 37 CFR 202.20 and 202.21, the Copyright Office, at its discretion, may, upon receipt of an acceptable explanation of the inability to submit such copy or identifying material, permit the deposit of the following in descending order of preference. In every case, however, proof of the copyright notice showing the content and location of the notice as it appeared on copies or phonorecords of the work as first published must be included. (i) A reproduction of the entire work as first published ( e.g. , photocopy, videotape, audiotape, CD-ROM, DVD are examples of physical media which may hold reproductions of a work as first published). If the work is a contribution to a periodical, a reproduction of only the contribution (including the relevant copyright notice) will suffice. (ii) A reprint of the work ( e.g. , a later edition, a later release of a phonorecord, or the like). The reprint must show the copyright notice as it appeared in the same location within the first published copy of the work as well as the exact content of the copyright notice appearing in the first published edition. If the copyrightable content of the reprint differs from that of the first published edition, an explanation of the differences between the two editions is required. (iii) Identifying material including a reproduction of the greatest feasible portion of the copyrightable content of a work including a photocopy or photograph of the title page, title screen, record label or the like, as first published, and a photocopy or photograph showing the copyright notice content and location as first published. The Copyright Office may request deposit of additional material if the initial submission is inadequate for examination purposes. Dated: March 28, 2007. Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights. [FR Doc. E7-6174 Filed 4-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 152, 156, 167, 168, 169, 172, and 174 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-1003; FRL-8118-2] RIN 2070-AJ32 Plant-Incorporated Protectants; Potential Revisions to Current Production Regulations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). SUMMARY: In light of the differences between plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs) and other types of pesticides, EPA is considering amendments to the current pesticide establishment and production regulations promulgated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and to other related FIFRA regulations as needed for producers of PIPs. PIPs are pesticidal substances that are intended to be produced and used in a living plant, or the produce thereof, and the genetic material necessary for the production of such a pesticidal substance, and also include any inert ingredient contained in the plant, or the produce thereof. Given these characteristics, it is possible that PIPs may not be produced in the manner contemplated when the current establishment and production regulations were promulgated for other types of pesticide. In this ANPRM, the Agency provides a list of the general regulatory provisions applicable to PIPs that EPA is considering amending and solicits public comment on the completeness of the list and the scope of any potential changes to these regulations. EPA also is soliciting information that may be useful to EPA as it reviews these regulations and developing the proposed rules. In addition to soliciting comments through this ANPRM, EPA intends to solicit stakeholder input through two public meetings during the comment period of this ANPRM. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-1003, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal : http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Mail : Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • Delivery : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805. Instructions : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-1003. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Howie, Hazard Assessment Coordination and Policy Division (7202M), Office of Science Coordination and Policy, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-4146; fax number: (202) 564-8502; e-mail address: howie.stephen@epa.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, import, process, or use PIPs. In order to identify potentially impacted industries the analysis relies on North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 325320). This industry comprises establishments that are producing PIPs intended for distribution and sale as pesticides. • Crop Production (NAICS code 111). These are establishments such as farms, orchards, groves, greenhouses, and nurseries, primarily engaged in growing crops, plants, vines, or trees and their seeds. • Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools (NAICS code 611310). This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in furnishing academic courses and granting degrees at baccalaureate or graduate levels. Furthermore, they may comprise establishments where research on PIPs occurs and where PIPs may be grown. • Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (NAICS code 54171). This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in conducting research and experimental development in the physical, engineering, or life sciences, such as agriculture, environmental, biology, botany, biotechnology, forests, and other allied subjects. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-1003. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805. 2. Tips for preparing your comments . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? PIPs are “pesticidal substances that are intended to be produced and used in a living plant, or the produce thereof, and the genetic material necessary for the production of such a pesticidal substance. PIPs also include any inert ingredient contained in the plant, or the produce thereof.” (40 CFR 174.3) By definition, PIPs are primarily distinguished from other types of pesticides because they are intended to be produced and used in the living plant. Other types of pesticides are primarily produced in a facility and used through physical application, e.g., spraying or dusting of the plant. Since PIPs were not defined when the existing regulations associated with pesticide establishments and pesticide production were promulgated, the existing regulations may not adequately address this distinction. The Agency is therefore considering amending the current FIFRA regulations associated with pesticide establishments and pesticide production to better address PIPs and PIP production given the unique characteristics of PIPs compared to other types of pesticides. EPA is soliciting comments from interested stakeholders on the issues and questions identified in this ANPRM. EPA intends to use this information in reviewing these regulations and developing its proposed rules. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? EPA has regulatory authority to promulgate regulations under FIFRA sections 3(a), 8(a), 25(a), and 25(b) (7 U.S.C. 136a(a), 136f(a), 136w(a), and 136w(b)). PIPs are pesticides under FIFRA section 2 because they are introduced into plants with the intention of “preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest...” (7 U.S.C. 136(u)). Under FIFRA section 7, any person who manufactures, prepares, compounds, propagates, or processes any pesticide is a “producer.” “Produce,” as further described in in 40 CFR 167.3, also means to package, repackage, label, relabel, or otherwise change the container of any pesticide. FIFRA section 7 requires that producers of pesticides register the establishments where production occurs and requires that producers report their annual production (7 U. S. C. 136e). In addition, producers of pesticides are required under FIFRA section 8(a) to maintain records with respect to their operations, and to make such records available for inspection (7 U.S.C. 136f(a)). Under FIFRA section 9 appropriately credentialed inspectors have the authority to conduct inspections at pesticide producing establishments or other places where pesticides are being held for distribution or sale for the purpose of inspecting and obtaining samples (7 U.S.C. 136g). C. Why is the Agency Considering Amending the Regulations? EPA believes that the existing regulations need to be amended to better address apparent differences between PIPs and other types of pesticides in the application of FIFRA’s production and production-related requirements. The existing regulations were written for pesticides that are generally produced and used in a more traditional manner, e.g., spraying or dusting onto the plants. PIPs are produced and used in a living plant, which raises questions regarding how that “production” should be regulated under the existing authorities of FIFRA. In general, EPA’s experience with PIPs is that they present different and potentially lower risk situations compared to chemical pesticides. However, EPA needs to ensure that appropriate PIP production data are available to manage any potential risk a PIP might pose. The United States Government published in the Federal Register issue of June 26, 1986 (51 FR 23302) a document entitled, Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology (“Coordinated Framework”), which describes in broad terms the Federal Government’s approach to regulating biotechnology products. In that document, the Federal Government concluded that it could appropriately regulate the products of biotechnology under existing laws, but recognized that, in some cases, new regulations might be needed. Consistent with the Coordinated Framework, EPA regulates PIPs under its pesticide authorities. In the Federal Register issue of July 19, 2001 (66 FR 37771) (FRL-6057-7), EPA published a rule that established a regulatory framework for PIPs. That rule clarified the relationship between plants and PIPs under FIFRA, exempted from FIFRA requirements PIPs derived entirely through conventional breeding between sexually compatible plants, established a new part in the Code of Federal Regulations specifically for PIPs (40 CFR part 174), provided requirements for reporting of adverse effects, and set forth certain procedures for CBI. In that Federal Register document, EPA also anticipated the future need for proposing regulations tailored specifically to PIPs so that the regulatory framework would better fit their unique characteristics (66 FR 37807). EPA indicated that it would continue to apply existing regulations to PIPs, except where superseded by the regulations in the July 19, 2001 Final Rule, until the Agency could develop additional regulations specifically tailored to PIPs. Since the mid-1990s, EPA has approved a number of PIP experimental use permits (EUPs) under FIFRA section 5, as well as seed increase and commercial use registrations under FIFRA section 3. During this time, EPA has registered facilities involved in the production of PIPs as pesticide producing establishments under FIFRA section 7. These have included, for example, sites of the original transformation (where plant tissue was transformed by the insertion of PIP genetic material) and seed processing facilities. FIFRA section 7 requires that producers of pesticides register the establishments where the pesticide is produced and report the amount of pesticide produced. EPA’s experience to date has demonstrated, particularly in the area of pesticide production, that the existing regulations (e.g., 40 CFR part 167) may need to be better tailored to address PIPs. For example, existing regulations require pesticide production quantities to be reported in terms of volume or weight (gallons or pounds), measurements that are not useful when considering a pesticidal substance produced within a plant. Other questions concern the manner in which PIPs are increased within a living plant. Such increase occurs at many stages from product development through use, which raises questions concerning where pesticide production occurs, and what establishments must register and report their production. Clarification of this matter would help to ensure that appropriate persons comply with production related requirements, and that other persons do not face unnecessary regulatory burden. To that end, EPA is reviewing the existing regulations in 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter E and considering potential regulatory changes to address the apparent differences between PIPs and other types of pesticides. III. Current Regulations Under Review EPA is considering amending the following existing regulations related to pesticide establishment and production to better address PIPs and PIP production: 1. Registration of establishments where PIPs are produced (FIFRA section 7 and 40 CFR 167.20). Current regulations require any producer of a pesticide to register the “production” site with EPA. The statutory and regulatory definitions of “produce” include several activities, including manufacturing, preparing, compounding, propagating, or processing any pesticide or packaging, repackaging, labeling, and relabeling the container of any pesticide. 2. Reporting by registered production establishments (FIFRA section 7 and 40 CFR 167.85). Current regulations require a producer operating a producing establishment to report annually the types and amount of each pesticidal product that was produced, sold, or distributed the previous year and to estimate the amount that will be produced during the current year. 3. Recordkeeping and inspection authority (FIFRA sections 8 and 9 and 40 CFR 169.2 and 169.3). EPA's statutory authority under FIFRA section 8, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, require pesticide producers, registrants, and applicants for registration to maintain certain records related to pesticide production (i.e., including information regarding the production, receipt, and shipment of pesticides) and to provide these records upon request to appropriately credentialed inspectors. FIFRA section 8 also provides authority for appropriately credentialed inspectors to conduct inspections to access such information. Furthermore, under FIFRA section 9 appropriately credentialed inspectors have the authority to conduct inspections at pesticide producing establishments or other places where pesticides are being held for distribution or sale for the purpose of inspecting and obtaining samples. 4. Labeling on PIP containers (FIFRA section 2 and 40 CFR 156.10). The statute and current regulations provide requirements for labeling of pesticides, including name of the product, identity of the producer, net content, product registration number, establishment registration number, ingredient statement, hazard and precautionary statements, directions for use, and use classification. Currently, PIPs are labeled for FIFRA section 5 EUPs and FIFRA section 3 seed increase registrations only. 5. EUPs for field testing of unregistered PIPs (FIFRA section 5 and 40 CFR part 172). FIFRA allows for field testing of unregistered pesticides under an EUP. Any pesticide production activity related to an EUP, either the production of a pesticide for use in an EUP or by being produced as a result of an EUP, is subject to FIFRA production establishment and recordkeeping requirements. 6. Production of unregistered PIPs for export (FIFRA section 17 and 40 CFR 168.65-168.85). FIFRA exempts pesticides intended solely for export from certain FIFRA requirements, including product registration requirements. Products intended for export only are therefore not subject to the product safety evaluation required of products intended for domestic distribution and sale. However, they must still comply with the producer establishment registration, reporting and recordkeeping requirements of FIFRA sections 7 and 8 and are subject to certain labeling requirements, e.g., their label must include the statement: “Not Registered for Use in the United States of America.” IV. Request for Comments EPA is seeking public comment on the completeness of the list of current regulations that need to be reviewed for applicability to PIPs and PIP producers (see Unit III.), and is soliciting related information to use in reviewing these regulations and developing its proposed rules. These issues are especially challenging for PIPs, since based on statutory and regulatory definitions, the borders between production and use are unclear. EPA is seeking public input to help inform decisions on how best to ensure appropriate compliance without imposing unnecessarily burdensome reporting or labeling requirements on PIP registrants, producers, distributors, and users. 1. EPA would like comments in response to the following questions with respect to the regulations referenced in Unit III.: a. Registration of establishments (Unit III.1.). Given that PIPs by definition are intended to be produced and used in a living plant, what activities should the Agency consider to be part of “production” as that term is defined in FIFRA (which includes manufacturing, preparing, compounding, propagating, or processing any pesticide or packaging, repackaging, labeling, and relabeling the container), and what establishments should be registered to help EPA manage any potential risks associated with PIPs? What other types of facilities, if any (e.g., growers involved in seed production), involved in the development of PIP-containing varieties should be subject to these requirements? Please explain the reason for your response. b. Production reporting (Unit III.2.). What production reporting, by whom and in what units (e.g., volume, weight, number of seeds, etc.) would be appropriate? Should reporting units be dependent on the reproductive methodology of the crop (e.g., seeds, bulbs, or tubers)? Given your response to Unit IV.1.a., what types of production reporting would provide the Agency with information valuable for compliance assurance purposes and for managing any potential risks associated with a violation? c. Recordkeeping and inspection (Unit III.3.). What establishments or other locations are appropriate to be inspected for records and samples, and what records would be appropriate for producers of PIPs to maintain? d. Labeling (Unit III.4.). Please comment on current labeling practices for PIPs. Are current labeling practices sufficient? For example, do grower agreements offer sufficient information and compliance assurance to ensure registered PIPs are used in a manner that protects human health and the environment? Are there circumstances where labeling different from that currently in practice for PIPs may be appropriate? e. Experimental use permits (Unit III.5.). Are there aspects of production in association with PIP EUPs that are different from production associated with other types of pesticides used in EUPs? If there are differences, how should they be addressed for PIP EUPs? f. Production for export (Unit III.6.). What conditions would ensure that a PIP is intended for export only, and what would be necessary for such a PIP to meet the requirements of FIFRA? 2. Are there other characteristics not described in this document unique to PIPs that may affect the application of the existing regulations associated with pesticide establishments and pesticide production to PIP producers? 3. Are there additional sections of FIFRA implementing regulations related to pesticide establishment and production regulations that should be modified to more effectively address the unique characteristics of PIPs? V. Do Any Statutory or Executive Order Reviews Apply to this Action? Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that ANPRMs are considered “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of the Executive Order. The Agency therefore submitted this document to OMB for the 10-day review period afforded under this Executive order. Any changes made in response to OMB comments during that review have been documented in the docket as required by the Executive order. Since this ANPRM does not impose or propose any requirements, and instead seeks comments and suggestions for the Agency to consider in possibly developing a subsequent proposed rule, the various other review requirements that apply when an agency imposes requirements do not apply to this action. As part of your comments on this ANPRM, you may include any comments or information that you have regarding this action. In particular, any comments or information that would help the Agency to assess the potential impact of a rule on small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq .); to consider voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note); to consider environmental health or safety effects on children pursuant to Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or to consider human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The Agency will consider such comments during the development of any subsequent notice of proposed rulemaking as it takes appropriate steps to address any applicable requirements. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 152, 156, 167, 168, 169, 172, 174 Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Plant-incorporated protectants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 22, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-6151 Filed 4-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 07-1350; MB Docket No. 04-319; RM-10984] Radio Broadcasting Services; Clinchco, VA and Coal Run, KY AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule, denial. SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rule making filed by East Kentucky Broadcasting Corp. (“Petitioner”) proposing to substitute Channel 221C3 for Channel 276A at Coal Run and modify the license of Station WPKE-FM to reflect the channel upgrade. To accommodate the channel upgrade, Petitioner proposes to substitute Channel 276A for Channel 221A at Clinchco, Virginia and modify the license of Station WDIC-FM to reflect the channel substitution. However, Petitioner's proposed site is unacceptable due to major terrain obstruction that prevents the requisite 70 dBu signal over the entire community of license. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hayne, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2177. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 04-319, adopted March 16, 2007, and released March 20, 2007. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com. This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. (The Commission, is, therefore, not required to submit a copy of this Report and Order to the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because the proposed rule is denied.) Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E7-6258 Filed 4-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board 49 CFR Parts 1300 and 1313 [STB Ex Parte No. 669] Interpretation of the Term “Contract” in 49 U.S.C. 10709 AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board seeks public comments on a proposal to interpret the term “contract” in 49 U.S.C. 10709 as embracing any bilateral agreement between a carrier and a shipper for rail transportation in which the railroad agrees to a specific rate for a specific period of time in exchange for consideration from the shipper, such as a commitment to tender a specific amount of freight during a specific period or to make specific investments in rail facilities. DATES: Comments are due by June 4, 2007. Reply comments are due August 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should comply with the instructions at the E-FILING link on the Board's Web site, at http://www.stb.dot.gov. Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should send an original and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: STB Ex Parte No. 669, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. Copies of written comments will be available from the Board's contractor, ASAP Document Solutions (mailing address: Suite 103, 9332 Annapolis Rd., Lanham, MD 20706; e-mail address: asapdc@verizon.net ; telephone number: 202-306-4004). The comments will also be available for viewing and self-copying in the Board's Public Docket Room, Room 755, and will be posted to the Board's Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar at 202-245-0395. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Until the late 1970s, the Board's predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), had found contract rates between a railroad and a shipper to be per se unlawful. They were regarded as a destructive competitive practice that would have the effect of damaging existing rate structures and reducing competition. 1 In 1978, the ICC changed course, issuing a policy statement acknowledging that contract rates may be beneficial in many circumstances because “a shipper is guaranteed a certain rate for the period of the contract while the carrier knows what service that shipper will receive.” 2 In that proceeding, the ICC adopted the following definition of a rail “contract rate”: 1 See Contract Rates on Rugs and Carpeting from Amsterdam, N.Y., to Chicago , 313 I.C.C. 247, 254 (1961); Guaranteed Rates from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada, to Chicago , 315 I.C.C. 311, 323 (1961). 2 Change of Policy Railroad Contract Rates, Ex Parte No. 358-F (ICC served Nov. 9, 1978). a railroad freight rate arrived at through mutual agreement between a railroad * * * and a shipper in which the railroad agrees to provide service for a given price and the shipper agrees to tender a given amount of freight during a fixed period. 3 3 See former 49 CFR 1039.1 (1979). Rather than finding all such agreements lawful, however, the ICC undertook to review the legality of contract rates on a case-by-case basis. Congress viewed the ICC's changed policy as insufficient, because it had “a number of restrictions and uncertainties and [had] resulted in the limited use of contracts.” 4 To ensure that shippers and railroads would be free to enter into rail transportation contracts “without concern about whether the ICC would disapprove a contract,” 5 in the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 (Staggers Act), 6 Congress amended the statute to provide that railroads “may enter into a contract with one or more purchasers of rail services to provide specified services under specified rates and conditions.” Former 49 U.S.C. 10713(a) (1995) (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 10709(a)). When originally enacted, the provision further stated that “a rail carrier may not enter into a contract with purchasers of rail service except as provided in this section.” Former 49 U.S.C. 10713(a) (1995). 4 H.R. Rep. No. 96-1035, 96th Cong., 2nd Sess. (May 16, 1980) at 57 ( House Report ); see also S. Rep. No. 96-470, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (Dec. 7, 1979) at 24 ( Senate Report ) (the changes are “intended to clarify the status of contract rate and service agreements in an effort to encourage carriers and purchasers of rail service to make widespread use of such agreements”). 5 House Report at 58; see also Senate Report at 24. 6 Pub. L. No. 96-448, 94 Stat. 1895 (1980). Congress also expressly removed all matters and disputes arising from rail transportation contracts from the ICC's (and now the Board's) jurisdiction. See former 49 U.S.C. 10713(i) (1995) (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 10709(c)). If the parties have a dispute regarding such a contract—such as whether there has been adequate performance or whether the contract is void because it was signed under duress—such matters are to be decided by the courts under applicable state contract law. See former 49 U.S.C. 10713(i)(2) (1995) (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 10709(c)(2)). Congress also explained that, if someone believes that a contract is anticompetitive, “the antitrust laws are the appropriate and only remedy available.” 7 Congress considered the contract rate provision of the Staggers Act to be “among the most important in the bill.” 8 But there is no clear distinction in the statute or our precedent between a contract and a common carrier rate. 7 House Report at 58. 8 Senate Report at 9. In a recent proceeding, Kansas City Power & Light Company v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, STB Docket No. 42095 ( KCPL ), the Board asked the parties to submit briefs to discuss a hybrid pricing mechanism that the carrier designated a common carrier pricing arrangement, but could be viewed as a rail transportation contract. See Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Union Pac. R.R., STB Docket No. 42095 (STB served July 27, 2006). The parties took the position that the rates at issue were common carrier rates subject to the Board's jurisdiction. The parties cited agency precedent for the proposition that a common carrier rate “is nothing more than a special kind of contract between a carrier and its shippers,” citing National Grain & Feed Assoc. v. BN RR. Co., et al. , 8 I.C.C.2d 421, 437 (1992), and whether a contract or common carrier rate exists has been examined on a case-by-case basis in light of the parties' intent, citing Aggregate Volume Rate on Coal, Acco, UT to Moapa, NV, 364 I.C.C. 678, 689 (1981) (Utah). The parties also pointed out that the agency has in the past stated that the purpose of allowing for contract rates is to establish negotiated, mutually agreeable rates to which parties intend to be bound. See Utah, 364 I.C.C. at 689; see also Product and Geographic Competition, 2 I.C.C.2d 1, 11 (1985); Market Dominance Determinations, 365 I.C.C. 118, 125 (1981). The Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) also argued that it can enter into any kind of bilateral agreement with a shipper, but maintain Board jurisdiction by labeling the agreement a common carrier rate rather than a contract rate. It contended that a carrier has the authority to designate what type of rate it is establishing, based on section 10701(c), arguing “[u]nless a specific prohibition applies, ‘a rail carrier may establish any rate for transportation or other service provided by the rail carrier.' Rail carriers thus have broad flexibility to design common carrier offerings as alternatives to rail transportation contracts in response to business needs.” 9 Because the parties could have reasonably relied on prior agency precedent to conclude that this kind of hybrid pricing mechanism is subject to Board jurisdiction, we concluded that it would be inappropriate to set aside or reexamine that ICC precedent in that adjudication. 9 See STB Docket No. 42095, UP's Response to Order to Show Cause, at 8 (filed Sept. 25, 2006). Nevertheless, we have serious concerns about the lack of any clear demarcation between contract and common carrier rates because of the boundaries on our jurisdiction. The carrier in the KCPL proceeding has crafted a hybrid pricing mechanism that appears to have all of the characteristics of a rail transportation contract, but avoids some important consequences of entering into such a contract by its choice of label. Traditionally, common carrier pricing has been a holding out to the public to provide a specified transportation services for a given price that a shipper accepts by tendering traffic. Under these unilateral contracts, 10 the carrier has the right to change the common carrier rates or terms upon 20 days' notice under 49 U.S.C. 11101(c). In other words, where there is no mutuality of consideration, a carrier can unilaterally withdraw one offer and replace it with another. 10 A unilateral contract is one in which one party makes an express engagement or undertakes a performance, without receiving in return any express engagement or promise of performance from the other. The essence of a unilateral contract is that neither party is bound until the promisee accepts the offer by performing the proposed act. Black's Law Dictionary 277 (6th abr. Ed. 1991). The new pricing structures we are witnessing as reflected in the KCPL proceeding, however, contain a mutuality of obligation between the carriers and shippers that appear to have the hallmarks of a contractual relationship. These bilateral agreements mutually bind both the shipper and the carrier for a given period of time. In exchange for some sort of consideration from the shipper, the carrier commits to a specific rate or service for a specific term. While Congress intended to permit carriers to have the pricing flexibility to enter into these kinds of agreements, we believe that Congress also intended for these contractual agreements to be confidential, outside Board jurisdiction, and subject to the scrutiny of the antitrust laws, rather than regulation under the Interstate Commerce Act. We also have concerns that the increased used of these hybrid pricing mechanisms could create an environment where collusive activities in the form of anticompetitive price signaling could occur. Whereas the terms and conditions of common carrier rates must be publicly disclosed under section 11101, 11 the terms of a rail transportation contract are to be kept confidential, a factor that makes collusion in this highly concentrated industry more difficult. 12 Thus, a carrier's hybrid pricing mechanism may not contain the same protections against collusion as do traditional confidential transportation contracts. An important competitive benefit of contracts is that they often enable shippers to obtain service commitments and lower rates that carriers might not otherwise offer through the public tariff process. 11 See 49 CFR 1300.2 (“A rail carrier must disclose to any person, upon formal request, the specific rates(s) requested * * *. as well as all charges and service terms * * *.”). 12 See, e.g., Canadian National, et al.—Control—Illinois Central, et al., 4 S.T.B. 122, 149 (1999) (“As we explained in the UP/SP decision affirmed by the court, there are three elements, all of which are present here, that each make tacit collusion unlikely for markets in which two railroads operate. First, tacit collusion cannot flourish where, as in railroading, rate concessions can and are made secretly through confidential contracts.”); see also Water Transport Ass'n v. ICC, 722 F.2d 1025 (2d Cir. 1983) (“[I]t has long been recognized under the antitrust laws that public disclosure of contract terms can undermine competition by stabilizing prices at an artificially high level.”); see generally Petition To Disclose Long-Term Rail Coal Contracts, ICC Ex Parte No. 387 (Sub-No. 961) (ICC served July 29, 1988) (lengthy discussion of the confidentiality of rail transportation contracts). We also question whether the position advanced by UP that these sorts of rates are authorized by section 10701(c) is consistent with the statutory scheme. Read in context with the other provisions of section 10701, we believe that subsection (c) addresses the level of the rate that a carrier may set in the first instance, and does not allow the carrier to control the designation of the type of rate that is involved. Moreover, under the railroad's interpretation, there would appear to be no type of agreement between a carrier and a shipper—no matter how long the term or how individually tailored or bilateral the responsibilities created—that a carrier could not unilaterally label common carrier rate and service terms. If that were so, the contract provision in section 10709 would become largely superfluous. Similarly, the carrier's interpretation would render section 10722 redundant. In that provision, Congress expressly authorized rail carriers to establish premium charges in common carrier rates for special services or special levels of service in order to encourage more efficient use of freight cars. See 49 U.S.C. 10722. If, however, section 10701 authorizes common carrier tariffs that embrace any kind of special rates and terms, it would not have been necessary for Congress to separately authorize special rates in section 10722. We are inclined to find that a more reasonable interpretation of the statute is that section 10701 does not authorize carriers to enter into either special common carrier rates or bilateral contractual agreements. Both the authority for, and limitations on, those types of rates are set forth in sections 10722 and 10709, respectively. Section 10709, in turn, removes those contracts from the regulatory scheme associated with common carrier service. In light of the above concerns, we seek public comment on our proposed interpretation of the term “contract” in section 10709 as embracing any bilateral agreement between a carrier and a shipper for rail transportation in which the railroad agrees to a specific rate for a specific period of time in exchange for consideration from the shipper, such as a commitment to tender a specific amount of freight during a specific period or to make specific investments in rail facilities. Under the proposed interpretation, notwithstanding any carrier representation that the rate specified in the agreement is a common carrier rate, such a bilateral agreement would be regarded by the Board as a rail transportation contract under section 10709 and therefore outside the Board's jurisdiction. See Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. FERC, 404 F.3d 459, 463 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“jurisdiction cannot arise from the absence of objection, or even from affirmative agreement. To the contrary, as a statutory entity, [the agency] cannot acquire jurisdiction merely by agreement of the parties before it.”); see also Weinberger v. Bentex Pharms., Inc., 412 U.S. 645, 652 (1973) (only Congress, not parties, may confer jurisdiction). Though we need not seek public comments before issuing an interpretative rule of this nature, we do so here to ensure that we have fully considered the issues and ramifications before taking this action. We do not intend to stifle innovation in transportation markets or otherwise disadvantage any party. To the extent this interpretation could be seen as contradicting past agency statements regarding whether a bilateral agreement can constitute a common carrier rate, we would apply this interpretation prospectively only. However, we do not want to create incentives for a carrier to rush to put into place as many rates as possible in hybrid “common carrier” agreements during the period of unavoidable delay associated with seeking public comments. Therefore, should we adopt this interpretative rule, we intend to apply the rule to all agreements entered into after the date of publication of this decision in the Federal Register . Parties are hereby placed on notice that if this proposal is adopted, the reasonableness of a rate reflected in a bilateral agreement entered into after this date will be treated as a confidential contract governed by section 10709 and outside the Board's jurisdiction. Our proposed changes to the Code of Federal Regulations are set forth in the appendix. Parties are specifically invited to comment on the proposed rules, particularly concerning 49 CFR 1313.1(c). Parties are asked to consider whether the proposed changes would have unforeseen consequences for agricultural contracts and whether there are differences between agricultural and other types of rail transportation contracts. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Board certifies that this action will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 721, 49 U.S.C. 10709. Decided: March 28, 2007. By the Board, Chairman Nottingham, Vice Chairman Buttrey, and Commissioner Mulvey. Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board proposes to amend part 1300 and 1313 of title 49, chapter x, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 1300—DISCLOSURE, PUBLICATION, AND NOTICE OF CHANGE OF RATES AND OTHER SERVICE TERMS FOR RAIL COMMON CARRIAGE 1. The authority citation for Part 1300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 721(a) and 11101(f). 2. Amend § 1300.1 by adding paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) to read as follows: § 1300.1 Scope; definitions. (c) * * * (1) The term contract in 49 U.S.C. 10709 is defined as any bilateral agreement between a carrier and a shipper for rail transportation in which the carrier agrees to a specific rate for a specific period of time in exchange for consideration from the shipper, such as a commitment to tender a specific amount of freight during a specific period or to make specific investments in rail facilities. (2) Notwithstanding any representation that a rate specified in an agreement is a common carrier rate, a bilateral agreement as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section will be treated by the Board as a rail transportation contract authorized under 49 U.S.C. 10709 and therefore outside the Board's jurisdiction. PART 1313—RAILROAD CONTRACTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 3. The authority citation for Part 1313 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 721(a) and 10709. 4. Amend § 1313.1 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 1313.1 Scope; definitions of terms. (c) For purposes of this part, the term contract means a contract as defined in 49 CFR 1300.1(c), including any amendment thereto, to provide specified transporation of agricultural products (including grain, as defined in 7 U.S.C. 75 and products thereof). * * * [FR Doc. E7-6215 Filed 4-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [Docket No. 070330073-7073-01; I.D. 030507A] RIN 0648-AU87 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota Specifications and Effort Controls AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments; notice of public hearings. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes initial 2007 fishing year specifications for the Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) fishery to set BFT quotas for each of the established domestic fishing categories and to set effort controls for the General category and Angling category. This action is necessary to implement recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). A minor administrative change to the permit regulations is also proposed. NMFS solicits written comments and will hold public hearings in April 2007 to receive oral comments on these proposed actions. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 4, 2007. The public hearings dates are: 1. April 24, 2007, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., Morehead City, NC. 2. April 26, 2007, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., West Islip, NY. 3. April 27, 2007, 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., Gloucester, MA. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted through any of the following methods: • E-mail: 07BFTSPECS@noaa.gov . Include in the subject line the following identifier: “Comments on 2007 Atlantic bluefin tuna specifications.” • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov . • Mail: Sarah McLaughlin, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1), NMFS, One Blackburn Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930. • Fax: (978) 281-9340. The hearing locations are: 1. Morehead City — Carteret Community College (Joselyn Hall, H.J. McGee, Jr. Building), 3505 Arendell Street, Morehead City, NC 28557. 2. West Islip — West Islip Public Library, 3 Higbie Lane, West Islip, NY 11795. 3. Gloucester — NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Supporting documents including the Environmental Assessment, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Regulatory Impact Review are available by sending your request to Sarah McLaughlin at the mailing address specified above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah McLaughlin, 978-281-9260. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic tunas are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the ATCA. The ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate, to implement ICCAT recommendations. The authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA). Background On May 28, 1998, NMFS published in the Federal Register (64 FR 29090) final regulations, effective July 1, 1999, implementing the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (1999 FMP). On October 2, 2006, NMFS published in the Federal Register (71 FR 58058) final regulations, effective November 1, 2006, implementing the Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (Consolidated HMS FMP), which consolidates the management of all Atlantic HMS (i.e., sharks, swordfish, tunas, and billfish) into one comprehensive FMP. The initial specifications within this proposed rule are published in accordance with the Consolidated HMS FMP and are necessary to implement the 2006 ICCAT quota recommendation, as required by the ATCA, and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This proposed rule would: (1) Establish initial quota specifications consistent with the BFT rebuilding program by allocating the 2006 ICCAT-recommended quota for the 2007 fishing year (June 1, 2007 - December 31, 2007, pursuant to the change in fishing year to a calendar year as of January 2008 per the Consolidated HMS FMP); (2) establish General category effort controls, including time-period subquotas, restricted fishing days (RFDs), and the initial retention limit; and (3) establish Angling category retention limits for the 2007 fishing season. A minor administrative change to the permit regulations is also proposed to allow additional flexibility during conversion back from a fishing year to a calendar year. Overall U.S. landings figures for the 2006 fishing year are still preliminary and may be updated before these 2007 fishing year specifications are finalized. The specifications and effort controls may subsequently be adjusted during the course of the fishing year, consistent with the provisions of the Consolidated HMS FMP, and, as appropriate, would be published in the Federal Register . NMFS has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) which present and analyze anticipated environmental, social, and economic impacts of several alternatives for each of the major issues contained in this proposed rule. The complete list of alternatives and their analysis is provided in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA, and is not repeated here in its entirety. A copy of the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed rule is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). 2006 ICCAT Recommendation, BFT Underharvests, and Transfers to Other ICCAT Contracting Parties At its 2006 meeting, ICCAT recommended a western Atlantic BFT Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of 2,100 mt, to allow for continued rebuilding of BFT through 2018. The TAC is inclusive of dead discards and will be effective annually for 2007 through 2008, and thereafter until changed. The following deductions are made from the TAC prior to applying the U.S. share percentage: 4 mt for the United Kingdom (in respect of Bermuda), 4 mt for France (in respect of St. Pierre and Miquelon), 25 mt for Mexico (to allow incidental catch in the longline fishery in the Gulf of Mexico), and 15 mt for Canada and 25 mt for the United States (for bycatch related to directed longline fisheries in the “in the vicinity of the management boundary area,” i.e., the Northeast Distant gear restricted area (NED), which was defined in the 2003 BFT annual specification rulemaking process as the Northeast Distant statistical area (68 FR 56783, October 2, 2003). The U.S. share of the adjusted TAC is 57.48 percent, or 1,165.12 mt. Accounting for the 25 mt NED set-aside, the total U.S. allocation is 1,190.12 mt. The previous (2002) ICCAT recommendation for a western Atlantic BFT TAC of 2,700 mt included a U.S. quota of 1,464.6 mt, which was effective from 2003 through the end of the 2006 fishing year, i.e., May 31, 2007, and also included a 25-mt NED set-aside, for a total of 1,489.6 mt. The 2006 ICCAT recommendation also includes provisions to: (1) limit carryover of underharvest to no more than 50 percent of a contracting party's initial TAC; (2) limit mortality of school BFT to an average of 10 percent of the initial TAC, calculated on a four-year basis; and (3) allow a contracting party with a TAC allocation to make a one-time transfer within a fishing year of up to 15 percent of its TAC allocation to other contracting parties with TAC allocations, consistent with domestic obligations and conservation considerations. Regarding the third provision, the ICCAT recommendation stipulates that the quota transfer may not be used to cover overharvests, and that a contracting party that receives a one-time quota transfer may not retransfer that quota. For the United States, the 15-percent limit on quota transfer equates to 178.5 mt. In considering whether the United States could enter into an arrangement with another ICCAT contracting party, several factors would need to be taken into account, including, but not limited to, the amount of quota to be transferred, the projected ability of U.S. vessels to harvest the U.S. TAC before the end of the fishing year, the potential benefits of the transfer to U.S. fishing participants (such as access to the EEZ of the receiving contracting party for the harvest of a designated amount of BFT), potential ecological impacts, and the contracting party's ICCAT compliance status. NMFS intends to undertake any transfer of U.S. quota to another ICCAT contracting party via a separate action proposed in the Federal Register , if the situation arises. Initial landings estimates (as of January 15, 2007) per category are as follows: General category — 159.8 mt; Harpoon category — 22.2 mt; Longline category — 31.4 mt; Angling category — 186.8 mt; Trap category — 0 mt; and Purse Seine category — 3.6 mt. These preliminary landings estimates, totaling 403.8 mt, indicate that the total 2006 underharvest is 2,435.4 mt. Underharvests per category are preliminarily determined to be as follows: General category — 1,003.5 mt; Harpoon category — 101.8 mt; Longline category — 236.6 mt; Angling category — 195.2 mt; Trap category — 5.3 mt; and Purse Seine category — 620.5 mt. Based on the estimated amount of Reserve that NMFS maintains for the landing of BFT taken during ongoing scientific research projects and/or potential overharvests in certain categories, NMFS estimates that 282.3 mt of Reserve remains from the 2006 fishing year. In anticipation of a cap on carryover for the 2007 fishing year, i.e., 595.1 mt, or one half of the initial U.S. TAC of 1,190.12 mt, and in anticipation of a substantial underharvest of the 2006 fishing year domestic quota, the United States agreed at the 2006 ICCAT meeting to transfer a total of 275 mt of current U.S. underharvest (i.e., underharvest of the 2006 fishing year quota) as follows: 75 mt and 100 mt for 2007 and 2008, respectively, to Mexico, and 50 mt for each of the years 2007 and 2008 to Canada. Based on these transfers, the remaining amount of underharvest (as of January 15, 2007) is 2,160.4 mt. However, the ICCAT-recommended cap limits the amount the United States may carry over for 2007 to 595.1 mt. Domestic Quota Allocation The 1999 FMP and its implementing regulations established baseline percentage quota shares for the domestic fishing categories. These percentage shares were based on allocation procedures that NMFS developed over several years. The baseline percentage quota shares established in the 1999 FMP and contained in the Consolidated HMS FMP for fishing years beginning June 1, 1999, and continuing to the present are as follows: General category — 47.1 percent; Harpoon category — 3.9 percent; Purse Seine category — 18.6 percent; Angling category — 19.7 percent; Longline category — 8.1 percent; Trap category — 0.1 percent; and Reserve category — 2.5 percent. These proposed initial 2007 fishing year specifications, consistent with the BFT rebuilding program, would allocate the 2006 ICCAT-recommended quota for the 2007 fishing year among the several established domestic fishing categories based on the current BFT quota allocation percentages per the Consolidated HMS FMP, and would allocate 25 mt to the longline north NED subquota. As described further below, these specifications also would apply 595.1 mt of the underharvest of BFT quota from the 2006 fishing year, consistent with the ICCAT-recommended 50-percent cap on quota carryover to the 2007 fishing year quota, and distribute that underharvest in such a manner to: (1) Allow for potential transfer of a portion (up to 15 percent) of the 2007 U.S. quota to other ICCAT Contracting Parties, if warranted; (2) ensure that the Longline category has sufficient quota to operate during the 2007 fishing year while also considering accounting for BFT discards; and (3) provide the non-Longline quota categories a share of the remainder of the underharvest consistent with the allocation scheme established in the Consolidated HMS FMP. Beginning with its 1998 recommendation, ICCAT has historically recommended a deduction of 79 mt from the TAC as an allowance for dead discards, and the U.S. portion of this allowance has been 68 mt. The 2006 ICCAT recommendation included neither a recommended dead discard allowance, nor specified dead discard reporting methodology for compliance purposes. Nevertheless, the United States must report dead discard estimates annually. Accordingly, NMFS must account for BFT dead discards in setting the 2007 fishing year quota. In the past, for compliance purposes, the United States has reported dead discards to ICCAT as an estimate based on pelagic longline vessel logbook tallies, adjusted as warranted by observer data. For 2005, the most recent year for which complete information is available, the estimate is approximately 46 mt. However, based on revised methodology, the SCRS now reports dead discard estimates generated via extrapolation of logbook tallies by pooled observer data; for 2005, the estimate is approximately 131 mt. These specifications also use this revised estimate. Estimates of dead discards from other gear types and fishing sectors that do not use the pelagic longline vessel logbook are unavailable at this time and thus are not included in this calculation. Per the ICCAT recommendation, which specifies a U.S. quota that is inclusive of dead discards, and consistent with how NMFS has handled past incidents of dead discards exceeding the allowance, NMFS would deduct the 131 mt of estimated dead discards from the amount of quota available for the Longline category for the 2007 fishing year. In addition, NMFS proposes to modify the BFT quota and annual adjustment regulations at § 635.27(a) to indicate that NMFS will account for dead discards annually as part of the specifications process, and to indicate its intent to subtract that amount from the quota of the category accounting for the dead discards. As described above, the United States may choose, pursuant to the 2006 ICCAT recommendation, to transfer up to 15 percent of the U.S. TAC to another ICCAT Contracting Party with a TAC allocation, consistent with U.S. obligations and conservation considerations. NMFS proposes to divide the 595.1 mt of quota carryover such that 178.5 mt (i.e., 15 percent of 1,190.12 mt) is placed in the Reserve for potential ICCAT transfer purposes. NMFS also proposes to assign a sufficient amount of the quota carryover (236.6 mt) to the Longline category, due to the revised dead discard accounting methodology, so that after accounting for the 131 mt of dead discards, sufficient quota is available to cover the anticipated landings and dead discards of the pelagic longline fishery during the 2007 fishing year, i.e., potentially 200 mt. NMFS seeks to avoid a zero or negative quota for the Longline category, which could result in increased BFT discards, given that NMFS must subtract the best available dead discard estimate from the TAC on an annual basis. The Longline category baseline quota allocation (currently 8.1 percent of the TAC) may need to be revisited in the near future. Any change to the baseline allocation would require an amendment to the Consolidated HMS FMP. NMFS proposes to distribute the remainder of the quota carryover (180 mt) to the Angling, General, Harpoon, Purse Seine, and Trap categories consistent with their FMP allocations. Consistent with the 2006 ICCAT recommendation, the proposed rule also would increase the limit on the take of school BFT (measuring 27 inches (68.6 cm) to less than 47 inches (119.4 cm)) over each 4-consecutive-year period from 8 percent of the total U.S. TAC (per the 2002 ICCAT recommendation) to 10 percent. Because the total U.S. quota is reduced by 22 percent, there will be only a minor effective increase in the base school BFT quota, in weight. 2007 Proposed Initial Quota Specifications In accordance with the 2006 ICCAT quota recommendation, the Consolidated HMS FMP percentage shares for each of the domestic categories, and regulations regarding annual adjustments at § 635.27(a)(10)(ii), NMFS proposes initial quota specifications for the 2007 fishing year as follows: General category — 643.6 mt; Harpoon category — 53.3 mt; Purse Seine category — 254.1 mt; Angling category — 269.2 mt; Longline category — 200 mt; and Trap category — 1.4 mt. Additionally, 207.6 mt would be allocated to the Reserve category for inseason adjustments, scientific research collection, potential overharvest in any category except the Purse Seine category, and potential quota transfers. Based on the above proposed initial specifications and considerations regarding the school BFT fishery, the Angling category quota of 269.2 mt would be further subdivided as follows: School BFT — 119 mt, with 45.8 mt to the northern area (north of 39°18′ N. latitude), 51.2 mt to the southern area (south of 39°18′ N. latitude), plus 22 mt held in reserve; large school/small medium BFT — 144 mt, with 68 mt to the northern area and 76 mt to the southern area; and large medium/giant BFT — 6.2 mt, with 2.1 mt to the northern area and 4.2 mt to the southern area. The 25-mt NED set-aside quota is in addition to the overall incidental longline quota to be subdivided in accordance with the North/South allocation percentages (i.e., no more than 60 percent to the south of 31° N. latitude). Thus, the proposed Longline category quota of 200 mt would be subdivided as follows: 80 mt to pelagic longline vessels landing BFT north of 31° N. latitude and 120 mt to pelagic longline vessels landing BFT south of 31° N. latitude, with 25 mt set-aside for bycatch of BFT related to directed pelagic longline fisheries in the NED. NMFS would account for landings under this additional quota separately from other landings under the Longline north subcategory. General Category Effort Controls For the last several years, NMFS has implemented General category time-period subquotas to increase the likelihood that fishing would continue throughout the entire General category season. The subquotas are consistent with the objectives of the Consolidated HMS FMP and are designed to address concerns regarding the allocation of fishing opportunities, to assist with distribution and achievement of optimum yield, to allow for a late season fishery, and to improve market conditions and scientific monitoring. The regulations implementing the Consolidated HMS FMP divide the annual General category quota into five time-period subquotas as follows: 50 percent for June-August, 26.5 percent for September, 13 percent for October-November, 5.2 percent for December, and 5.3 percent for January. Because the fishing year is changing back to a calendar year effective January 1, 2008, NMFS proposes, for the 2007 fishing year only, to distribute the 5.3 percent of the General category quota that would be assigned to the January time period to the four time periods that will occur during the 2007 fishing year. Therefore, of the available 643.6-mt coastwide quota, 339.8 mt would be available in the period beginning June 1 and ending August 31, 2007; 180.1 mt would be available in the period beginning September 1 and ending September 30, 2007; 88.4 mt would be available in the period beginning October 1 and ending November 30, 2007; and 35.3 mt would be available in the period beginning December 1 and ending December 31, 2007. The January 2007 BFT fishery was prosecuted using 2006 fishing year quota. The January 2008 subquota will be included in the 2008 specifications, which NMFS plans to publish prior to the start of the fishery on January 1, 2008. As discussed in the Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS plans to work with the affected constituents through the 2008 specifications process to determine the most appropriate disposition of any under- or overharvest that has accrued in the General category by the end of December 2007. In addition to time-period subquotas, NMFS also implements General category RFDs to extend the General category fishing season. The RFDs are designed to address the same issues addressed by time-period subquotas and provide additional fine scale inseason flexibility. For the 2007 fishing year, NMFS proposes a series of solid blocks of RFDs to extend the General category for as long as possible through the end of the 2007 fishing year. Therefore, NMFS proposes that persons aboard vessels permitted in the General category would be prohibited from fishing, including catch-and-release and tag-and-release, for BFT of all sizes on the following days: all Saturdays and Sundays from November 17, 2007, through December 31, 2007, plus November 22 and December 25, 2007, while the fishery is open. These proposed RFDs would distribute fishing opportunities during the late season without increasing BFT mortality. NMFS' intention is to propose RFDs for January 2008 as part of the 2008 quota specifications and effort controls, scheduled to be published before January 1, 2008. Finally, NMFS proposes to adjust the General category retention limit to three BFT (73 inches (185.4 cm) or greater per vessel per day/trip). This action is intended to allow increased opportunities to harvest the General category quota during the period when catch rates have historically been slow, and to avoid accumulation of unused quota. This retention limit would be effective from June 1, 2007, until August 31, 2007, unless adjusted with an inseason action, if necessary. NMFS may consider further retention limit adjustments after August 31, 2007, depending on several factors, including but not limited to catch rates and availablility of quota. Angling Category Effort Controls NMFS proposes to adjust the Angling category retention limit to one school BFT (27 inches (68.6 cm) to less than 47 inches (119.4 cm)), and two large school/small medium BFT (i.e., two BFT measuring 47 inches (119.4 cm) to less than 73 inches (185.4 cm)) per vessel per day/trip. This limit is expected to maximize use of the Angling category quota while avoiding overharvest of each of the Angling catgeory subquotas. The alternative also would provide the same retention limit for both private and charter/headboat vessels. Permit Category Changes Because of the scheduled change to a calendar year fishery beginning January 1, 2008, and because NMFS plans to administer the permit program such that Atlantic Tunas, HMS Charter/Headboat, and HMS Angling category permits issued for the 2007 fishing year will be effective through December 31, 2008, NMFS also proposes to extend the window of opportunity to change permit categories for the 2008 fishing year, i.e., once during the period of January 1, 2008, through May 31, 2008. Classification This proposed rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the ATCA. The AA has preliminarily determined that the regulations contained in this proposed rule are necessary to implement the recommendations of ICCAT and to manage the domestic Atlantic HMS fisheries. 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. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). NMFS has prepared this IRFA to analyze the impacts on small entities of the alternatives for establishing 2007 fishing year BFT quotas for all domestic fishing categories and General and Angling category effort controls. The analysis for the IRFA assesses the impacts of the various alternatives on the vessels that participate in the BFT fisheries, all of which are considered small entities. In order to do this, NMFS has estimated the average impact that the alternatives to establish the 2007 BFT quota for all domestic fishing categories would have on individual categories and the vessels within those categories. As mentioned above, the 2006 ICCAT recommendation reduced the U.S. BFT TAC to 1,190.12 mt. This quota allocation includes a set-aside quota of 25 mt to account for incidental catch of BFT related to directed longline swordfish and non-BFT tuna fisheries in the NED. This action would distribute the adjusted (baseline) TAC of 1,165.1 mt to the domestic fishing categories based on the allocation percentages established in the Consolidated HMS FMP. In 2006, the annual gross revenues from the commercial BFT fishery were approximately $3.4 million. Approximately 8,751 vessels are permitted to land and sell BFT under four commercial BFT quota categories (including charter/headboat vessels). The commercial categories and their 2006 gross revenues are General ($2.5 million), Harpoon ($265,951), Purse Seine ($33,819), and Longline ($558,022). The IRFA assumes that vessels within a category will have similar catch and gross revenues in order to consider the relative impact of the various preferred alternatives on vessels. Data on net revenues of individual fishermen are lacking, so the economic impact of the alternatives is averaged across each category. NMFS considers this a reasonable approach for BFT fisheries. More specifically, available landings data (weight and ex-vessel value of the fish in price/pound) allow NMFS to calculate the gross revenue earned by a fishery participant on a successful trip. The available data do not, however, allow NMFS to calculate the effort and cost associated with each successful trip (e.g., the cost of gas, bait, ice, etc.) so net revenue for each participant cannot be calculated. NMFS cannot determine whether net revenue varies among individual fishery participants within each category, and therefore whether the economic impact of a regulation would have a varying impact among individual participants. As a result, NMFS analyzes the average impact of the proposed alternatives among all participants in each category. For the allocation of BFT quota among domestic fishing categories, NMFS considered three alternatives: A no action alternative (A1); Alternative A2 (the preferred alternative), which would implement the 2006 ICCAT recommendation; and Alternative A3, which would allocate the 2006 ICCAT recommendation in a manner other than that designated in the Consolidated HMS FMP and which could address issues regarding the changing nature of the BFT fisheries (e.g., allocate additional quota to certain categories and/or certain geographic regions). Alternative A3 would result in a de facto quota reallocation among categories, and an FMP amendment would be necessary for its implementation. Per the Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS prepares quota specifications annually for the upcoming fishing year. Preparation of an FMP amendment would not be possible in the brief period of time between receipt of the ICCAT recommendation, which occurred in late November 2006, and the start of the 2007 fishing year on June 1, 2007. Therefore, analysis of the impacts of Alternative A3 is not available. But, if an FMP amendment was feasible, positive economic impacts would be expected to result on average for vessels in permit categories that would receive a greater share than established in the FMP, and negative economic impacts would be expected to result on average for vessels in permit categories that would receive a lesser share than established in the FMP. Impacts per vessel would depend on the temporal and spatial availability of BFT to participants. As noted above, the preferred alternative (Alternative A2) would implement the 2006 ICCAT recommendation in accordance with the Consolidated HMS FMP and consistent with the ATCA, under which the United States is obligated to implement ICCAT-approved quota recommendations. Alternative A2 would have slightly positive impacts for fishermen. The no action alternative would keep the quota at pre-2006 ICCAT recommendation levels (approximately 300 mt more) and would not be consistent with the purpose and need for this action and the Consolidated HMS FMP. It would maintain economic impacts to the United States and to local economies at a distribution and scale similar to 2006 or recent prior years, and would provide fishermen additional fishing opportunities, subject to the availability of BFT to the fishery, in the short term. The preferred alternative also would implement the provision of the 2006 ICCAT recommendation that limits tolerance for school BFT landings to 10 percent of the U.S. TAC, calculated on a four-year average. This is expected to have neutral impacts on fishermen who fish for school BFT, particularly those who rely exclusively on the school size class for BFT harvest, since the available quota is the same as the level when the limit was 8-percent of the U.S. TAC under the 2002 ICCAT recommendation. Two alternatives were considered for effort control using RFDs in the General category. The no action alternative would not implement any RFDs with publication of the initial specifications but rather would use inseason management authority established in the Consolidated HMS FMP to implement RFDs during the season, should catch rates warrant taking this approach. This alternative could be most beneficial during a season of low catch rates and could have positive economic consequences if slow catch rates were to persist during the late season fishery. During a slow season, the season could regulate itself and fishermen could choose when to fish or not based on their own preferences. However, it is impossible to predict in advance whether the season will have low or high catch rates. The preferred alternative would designate RFDs according to a schedule published in the initial BFT specifications. In the past, when catch rates have been high, the use of RFDs (preferred alternative) has had positive economic consequences by avoiding oversupplying the market and extending the season as late as possible. In addition, establishing RFDs at the season onset provides better planning opportunities than implementing RFDs during the season, since charter/headboat businesses could book trips and recreational and commercial fishermen could make plans ahead of time rather than waiting until the last minute to see if an RFD is going to be implemented. However, implementing RFDs to extend the late season may have some negative economic impacts to northern area fishermen who choose to travel to the southern area during the late season fishery. Travel and lodging costs may be greater if the season were extended over a greater period of time as proposed under the preferred alternative. Those additional costs could be mitigated if the ex-vessel price of BFT stays high, as is intended under this alternative. Without RFDs, travel costs may be less because of a shorter season; however, the market could be oversupplied and ex-vessel prices could fall. Overall, extending the season as late as possible and establishing formalized RFDs at the season onset would enhance the likelihood of increasing participation by southern area fishermen, increase access to the fishery over a greater range of the fish migration, provide a reliable mechanism for slowing a fishery that has an ability to generate extremely high catch rates, and is expected to provide better than average ex-vessel prices with an overall increase in gross revenues. A retention limit of three BFT (measuring 73 inches (185.4 cm) or greater per vessel per day/trip) is the preferred alternative for the opening retention limit for the General category, which would be in effect through August 31, 2007. This alternative is expected to result in the most positive socio-economic impacts by providing the best opportunity to harvest the quota while avoiding oversupplying the market, thus maximizing gross revenues. Other considered alternatives were the no action alternative (one BFT measuring 73 inches or greater per vessel per day/trip) and a retention limit of two BFT (73 inches or greater per vessel per day/trip). Both of these alternatives are expected to be too restrictive given the large amount of quota available for the General category during the 2007 fishing year and could result in the negative economic impact of lower gross revenues. Although early season landings seldom occur at a rate that could oversupply the market, NMFS will monitor landings closely to ensure that the increased retention limit does not contribute to an oversupply. Six alternatives were considered for Angling category retention limits for the 2007 fishing year. The preferred alternative (D1b) is a three BFT retention limit (two fish measuring 47 inches (119.4 cm) to less than 73 inches (185.4 cm) and one fish measuring 27 inches (68.6 cm) to less than 73 inches) per vessel per day/trip for all sectors of the Angling category for the entire 2007 fishing year. The other two alternatives providing the same daily retention limits (per vessel) for both private recreational and charter/headboats were the no action alternative (D1a, i.e., one fish measuring 27 inches to less than 73 inches) and Alternative D1c (two fish measuring 47 inches to less than 73 inches and two fish measuring 27 inches to less than 73 inches). Alternative D1a was not preferred because it could unnecessarily restrict the amount of Angling category landings which could result in an underharvest of the quota and a negative economic impact. Alternative D1c was not preferred because it could result in an overharvest of the quota, with negative economic consequences. Three other alternatives were considered that would provide different retention limits for the Angling category sectors. The first (D2a) would allow a private vessel daily retention limit of three fish (two measuring 47 inches to less than 73 inches and one measuring 27 inches to less than 47 inches) and a charter/headboat daily retention limit (per vessel) of five fish (three fish measuring 47 inches to less than 73 inches and two fish measuring 27 inches to less than 47 inches). The second alternative (D2b) would allow three fish (two measuring 47 inches to less than 73 inches and one measuring 27 inches to less than 47 inches) for each vessel per day/trip for the season, with an increase to five fish (three measuring 47 inches to less than 73 inches and two measuring 27 inches to less than 47 inches) per vessel for charter/headboats during June 15, 2007 through July 31, 2007, and the month of September 2007. The third alternative (D2c) would allow two fish (measuring 27 inches to less than 73 inches) less than 47 inches) for each vessel per day/trip for the season, with an increase to three fish (measuring 27 inches to less than 73 inches) per vessel for charter/headboats during June 15, 2007 through July 31, 2007, and the month of September 2007. Alternatives D2a and D2b were considered to be potentially too liberal with a greater potential for exceeding the Angling category quota for 2007. Alternative D2c was considered to be unnecessarily restrictive with a greater potential for negative economic impacts associated with not harvesting the entire quota. In addition, the D2 subalternatives were not preferred since they could result in perceived inequities between the two sectors of the Angling category fishery. The preferred alternative (D1b) was selected to balance the intent of landing the Angling category quota without overharvesting, providing sufficient retention limits to offset costs, reducing any perceived inequities between the charter/headboat and private recreational vessel sectors of the Angling category fishery, and providing economic benefits to all regional sectors of the fishery. There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action. This proposed rule has also been determined not to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635 Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Management, Treaties. Dated: March 30, 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 635 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES 1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 2. In § 635.4, paragraph (j)(3) is revised to read as follows: § 635.4 Permits and fees. (j) * * * (3) A vessel owner issued an Atlantic tunas permit in the General, Harpoon, or Trap category or an Atlantic HMS permit in the Angling or Charter/Headboat category under paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section may change the category of the vessel permit once within 10 calendar days of the date of issuance of the permit. After 10 calendar days from the date of issuance of the permit, the vessel owner may not change the permit category until the following fishing season, except during the period of January 1, 2008, through May 31, 2008, when one additional change is authorized. 3. In § 635.27, paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1)(i), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4)(i), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7)(i), (a)(7)(ii), (a)(10)(iii), and (a)(10)(iv) are revised to read as follows: § 635.27 Quotas. (a) BFT. Consistent with ICCAT recommendations, and with paragraph (a)(10)(iv) of this section, NMFS may subtract the most recent, complete, and available estimate of dead discards from the annual U.S. BFT quota, and make the remainder available to be retained, possessed, or landed by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The remaining baseline annual U.S. BFT quota will be allocated among the General, Angling, Harpoon, Purse Seine, Longline, Trap, and Reserve categories. BFT may be taken by persons aboard vessels issued Atlantic Tunas permits, HMS Angling permits, or HMS Charter/Headboat permits. The baseline annual U.S. BFT quota is 1,165.1 mt, not including an additional annual 25 mt allocation provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Allocations of the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota are: General - 47.1 percent (548.8 mt); Angling - 19.7 percent (229.5 mt), which includes the school BFT held in reserve as described under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section; Harpoon - 3.9 percent (45.4 mt); Purse Seine - 18.6 percent (216.7 mt); Longline - 8.1 percent (94.4 mt), which does not include the additional annual 25 mt allocation provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and Trap - 0.1 percent (1.2 mt). The remaining 2.5 percent (29.1 mt) of the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota will be held in reserve for inseason or annual adjustments based on the criteria in paragraph (a)(8) of this section. NMFS may apportion a quota allocated to any category to specified fishing periods or to geographic areas and will make annual adjustments to quotas, as specified in paragraph (a)(10) of this section. BFT quotas are specified in whole weight. (1) General category quota. * * * (i) Catches from vessels for which General category Atlantic Tunas permits have been issued and certain catches from vessels for which an HMS Charter/Headboat permit has been issued are counted against the General category quota in accordance with § 635.23(c)(3). The amount of large medium and giant BFT that may be caught, retained, possessed, landed, or sold under the General category quota is 47.1 percent (548.8 mt) of the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota, and is apportioned as follows: (A) January 1 through January 31 - 5.3 percent (29.1 mt); (B) June 1 through August 31 - 50 percent (274.4 mt); (C) September 1 through September 30 - 26.5 percent (145.4 mt); (D) October 1 through November 30 - 13 percent (71.3 mt); and (E) December 1 through December 31 - 5.2 percent (28.5 mt). (2) Angling category quota. In accordance with the framework procedures of the HMS FMP, prior to each fishing year or as early as feasible, NMFS will establish the Angling category daily retention limits. The total amount of BFT that may be caught, retained, possessed, and landed by anglers aboard vessels for which an HMS Angling permit or an HMS Charter/Headboat permit has been issued is 19.7 percent (229.5 mt) of the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota. No more than 2.3 percent (5.3 mt) of the annual Angling category quota may be large medium or giant BFT. In addition, over each 4 consecutive-year period (starting in 2007, inclusive), no more than 10 percent of the annual U.S. BFT quota, inclusive of the allocation specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, may be school BFT. The Angling category quota includes the amount of school BFT held in reserve under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section. The size class subquotas for BFT are further subdivided as follows: (i) After adjustment for the school BFT quota held in reserve (under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section), 52.8 percent (51.2 mt) of the school BFT Angling category quota may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed south of 39°18′ N. lat. The remaining school BFT Angling category quota (45.8 mt) may be caught, retained, possessed or landed north of 39°18′ N. lat. (ii) An amount equal to 52.8 percent (55.6 mt) of the large school/small medium BFT Angling category quota may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed south of 39°18′ N. lat. The remaining large school/small medium BFT Angling category quota (49.6 mt) may be caught, retained, possessed or landed north of 39°18′ N. lat. (iii) An amount equal to 66.7 percent (3.5 mt) of the large medium and giant BFT Angling category quota may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed south of 39°18′ N. lat. The remaining large medium and giant BFT Angling category quota (1.8 mt) may be caught, retained, possessed or landed north of 39°18′ N. lat. (3) Longline category quota. The total amount of large medium and giant BFT that may be caught incidentally and retained, possessed, or landed by vessels that possess Longline category Atlantic Tunas permits is 8.1 percent (94.4 mt) of the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota. No more than 60.0 percent of the Longline category quota may be allocated for landing in the area south of 31°00′ N. lat. In addition, 25 mt shall be allocated for incidental catch by pelagic longline vessels fishing in the Northeast Distant gear restricted area as specified at § 635.23(f)(3). (4) * * * (i) The total amount of large medium and giant BFT that may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed by vessels that possess Purse Seine category Atlantic Tunas permits is 18.6 percent (216.7 mt) of the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota. The directed purse seine fishery for BFT commences on July 15 of each year unless NMFS takes action to delay the season start date. Based on cumulative and projected landings in other commercial fishing categories, and the potential for gear conflicts on the fishing grounds or market impacts due to oversupply, NMFS may delay the BFT purse seine season start date from July 15 to no later than August 15 by filing an adjustment with the Office of the Federal Register prior to July 1. (5) Harpoon category quota. The total amount of large medium and giant BFT that may be caught, retained, possessed, landed, or sold by vessels that possess Harpoon category Atlantic Tunas permits is 3.9 percent (45.4 mt) of the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota. The Harpoon category fishery closes on November 15 each year. (6) Trap category quota. The total amount of large medium and giant BFT that may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed by vessels that possess Trap category Atlantic Tunas permits is 0.1 percent (1.2 mt) of the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota. (7) * * * (i) The total amount of BFT that is held in reserve for inseason or annual adjustments and fishery-independent research using quotas or subquotas is 2.5 percent (29.1 mt) of the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota. Consistent with paragraph (a)(8) of this section, NMFS may allocate any portion of this reserve for inseason or annual adjustments to any category quota in the fishery. (ii) The total amount of school BFT that is held in reserve for inseason or annual adjustments and fishery-independent research is 18.5 percent (22 mt) of the total school BFT Angling category quota as described under paragraph (a)(2) of this section. This is in addition to the amounts specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section. Consistent with paragraph (a)(8) of this section, NMFS may allocate any portion of the school BFT Angling category quota held in reserve for inseason or annual adjustments to the Angling category. (10) * * * (iii) Regardless of the estimated landings in any year, NMFS may adjust the annual school BFT quota to ensure that the average take of school BFT over each 4 consecutive-year period beginning in the 2007 fishing year does not exceed 10 percent by weight of the total annual U.S. BFT quota, inclusive of the allocation specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, for that period. (iv) NMFS may subtract the best available estimate of dead discards from the amount of BFT that can be landed in the subsequent fishing year by those categories accounting for the dead discards. [FR Doc. E7-6259 Filed 4-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 64 Wednesday, April 4, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket No: AMS-07-0044; CN-07-002] Notice of Request for an Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget, for an extension of and revision to the currently approved information collection Cotton Classification and Market News Service. DATES: Comments received by June 4, 2007 will be considered. Additional Information or Comments: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal to Shethir Riva, Chief, Research and Promotion, Cotton Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0224. Comments should be submitted in triplicate. Comments may also be submitted electronically through www.regulations.gov. All comments should reference the docket number and page number of this issue of the Federal Register . All comments received will be made available for public inspection at Cotton Program, AMS, USDA, Room 2639-S, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250 during regular business hours. A copy of this notice may be found at http://www.ams.usda.gov/cotton/rulemaking.htm. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shethir Riva, Chief, Research and Promotion, Cotton Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0224, telephone (202) 720-3193, facsimile (202) 690-1718, or e-mail at Shethir.riva@usda.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Cotton Classification and Market News Service. OMB Number: 0581-0009. Expiration Date of Approval: September 30, 2007. Type of Request: Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection. Abstract: The Cotton Classification and Market News Service program provides market information on Cotton prices, quality, stocks, demand and supply to growers, ginners, merchandisers, textile mills and the public for their use in making sound business decisions. The Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act U.S.C. 471-476, authorizes and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to: (a) Collect and publish annually, statistics or estimates concerning the grades and staple lengths of stocks of cotton, known as the carryover, on hand on the 1st of August each year in warehouses and other establishments of every character in the continental U.S., and following such publication each year, to publish at intervals, in his/her discretion, his/her estimate of the grades and staple length of cotton of the current crop (7 U.S.C. 471); (b) Collect, authenticate, publish and distribute by radio, mail, or otherwise, timely information of the market supply, demand, location, and market prices of cotton (7 U.S.C. 473b). The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627, authorizes and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to collect and disseminate marketing information, including adequate outlook information on a market-area basis, for the purpose of anticipating and meeting consumer requirements, aiding in the maintenance of farm income, and bringing about a balance between production and utilization of agricultural products. The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the Acts and to provide the cotton industry the type of information they need to make sound business decisions. The information collected is the minimum required. Information is requested from growers, cooperatives, merchants, manufacturers, and other government agencies. This includes information on cotton, cottonseed and cotton linters. The information collected is used only by authorized employees of the USDA, AMS. The Cotton Industry is the primary user of the compiled information and AMS and other government agencies are secondary users. Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.13 hours per response. Respondents: Cotton Merchandisers, Textile Mills, Ginners. Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,066. Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 8.55. Estimated Number of Responses: 9,116.13. Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,161.25. Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Shethir Riva, Chief, Research and Promotion, Cotton Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0224. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Dated: March 29, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-6246 Filed 4-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket No. DA-07-04] Notice of Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request an extension for and revision to a currently approved information collection for report forms under the Federal milk marketing order program. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by June 4, 2007 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or to the Office of the Deputy Administrator, Dairy Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 2968 South, Stop 0225, Washington, DC 20250-0225. Comments should make reference to the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register . All comments will be made available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact William F. Newell, Chief, Order Operations Branch, Dairy Programs, (202) 690-2375, FAX: (202) 720-2454. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Report Forms Under Federal Milk Orders (From Milk Handlers and Milk Marketing Cooperatives). OMB Number: 0581-0032. Expiration Date of Approval: September 30, 2007. Type of Request: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection. Abstract: Federal milk marketing order regulations authorized under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), require milk handlers to report in detail the receipts and utilization of milk and milk products handled at each of their plants that are regulated by a Federal order. The data are needed to administer the classified pricing system and related requirements of each Federal order. A Federal milk marketing order (hereinafter, Order) is a regulation issued by the Secretary of Agriculture that places certain requirements on the handling of milk in the area it covers. Each Order is established under the authority of the Act. The Order requires that handlers of milk for a marketing area pay not less than certain minimum class prices according to how the milk is used. These prices are established under each Order after a public hearing at which evidence is received on the supply and demand conditions for milk in the market. An Order requires that payments for milk be pooled and paid to individual farmers or cooperative associations of farmers on the basis of a uniform or average price. Thus, all eligible farmers (producers) share in the market wide use-values of milk by regulated handlers. Milk Orders help ensure adequate supplies of milk and dairy products for consumers and adequate returns to producers. The Orders also provide for the public dissemination of market statistics and other information for the benefit of producers, handlers, and consumers. Formal rulemaking amendments to the Orders must be approved in referenda conducted by the Secretary. During 2006, 52,725 dairy farmers delivered over 120 billion pounds of milk to handlers regulated under the milk orders. This volume represents 67 percent of all milk marketed in the U.S. and 68 percent of the milk of bottling quality (Grade A) sold in the country. The value of this milk delivered to Federal milk order handlers at minimum order blend prices was nearly $16.0 billion. Producer deliveries of milk used in Class I products (mainly fluid milk products) totaled 45 billion pounds—38 percent of total producer deliveries. More than 239 million Americans reside in Federal milk order marketing areas—80 percent of the total U.S. population. Each Order is administered by a market administrator who is an agent of the Secretary of Agriculture. The market administrator is authorized to levy assessments on regulated handlers to carry out the market administrator's duties and responsibilities under the Orders. Additional duties of the market administrators are to prescribe reports required of each handler, to assure that handlers properly account for milk and milk products, and to assure that such handlers pay producers and associations of producers according to the provisions of the Order. The market administrator employs a staff that verifies handlers' reports by examining records to determine that the required payments are made to producers. Most reports required from handlers are submitted monthly to the market administrator. The forms used by the market administrators are required by the respective Orders that are authorized by the Act. The forms are used to establish: The quantity of milk received by handlers, the pooling status of the handler, the class-use of the milk used by the handler, and the butterfat content and amounts of other components of the milk. The forms covered under this information collection require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the Orders, and their use is necessary to fulfill the intent of the Act as expressed in the Orders and in the rules and regulations issued under the Orders. The information collected is used only by authorized employees of the market administrator and authorized representatives of the USDA, including AMS Dairy Programs' headquarters staff. Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.07 hours per response. Respondents: Milk handlers and milk marketing cooperatives. Estimated Number of Respondents: 740. Estimated Number of Responses: 20,565. Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 28. Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 21,818 hours. Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Dated: March 29, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-6248 Filed 4-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2007-0012] Risk-Based Inspection System AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of public meetings on risk-based inspection SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection (FSIS) will hold a series of public meetings on specific topics relating to risk-based inspection in processing. The first meeting will focus on the algorithm that the Agency intends to use to compute risk-based inspection levels for processing establishments. A second meeting will address the issue of attributing illness to food. Production volume will be discussed at the third meeting, and industry data will be the focus of the fourth meeting. The expert elicitation process will be discussed at the fifth meeting. DATES: FSIS will hold the meetings on the following dates: Monday, April 2, 2007 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. The first meeting will focus on the algorithm the Agency intends to use to compute risk-based inspection levels for processing establishments. Thursday, April 5, 2007 from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. This meeting will discuss the issue of attributing illness to food. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Production volume will be discussed at the third meeting. Monday, April 30, 2007 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. The topic of industry data is the focus of the fourth meeting. A technical meeting on the expert elicitation process is also planned as the fifth meeting. The date of this meeting will be announced at a later time. Any changes in meeting dates or times will be posted on the FSIS Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov . ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held in Room 244 at George Mason University, 3401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22201. Directions to the site, the agenda, and other meeting materials will be posted on the FSIS Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov . All meetings will be accessible through conference call. Specific information concerning connections and the telephone number will also be posted on the FSIS Web site. Members of the public should pre-register for the meetings (see Background). Online registration information is also located on the Web site. FSIS welcomes comments on the topics to be discussed at the public meetings. An issue paper concerning the respective topics will be posted on the FSIS Web site, http://www.fsis.usda.gov , a week prior to each meeting, with the exception of the meeting on attribution. Comments may be submitted on the meeting topics by any of the following methods for 30 days from the date of completion of each public meeting: • Electronic mail: An e-mail box has been established specifically for comments for RBI. Comments can be submitted to: riskbasedinspection@fsis.usda.gov . • Mail, including floppy disks or CD-ROMs: Send to: Ellyn Blumberg, USDA, FSIS, Aerospace Building, 3rd floor, room 405, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. • Hand or courier-delivered items: Deliver to: Ellyn Blumberg at 901 D Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024. Have security guard call (202) 690-6520 in order to hand deliver items. • Facsimile: Fax comments to: (202) 690-6519. All submissions received must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2007-0012 and meeting topic. The comments also will be posted on the Agency's Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Fernandez for meeting information at (202) 690-6524, Fax (202) 690-6519, or e-mail sally.fernandez@fsis.usda.gov . Keith Payne for technical information at (202) 690-6522 or e-mail at keith.payne@fsis.usda.gov . Persons requiring a sign language interpreter or other special accommodations should notify the Agency contacts no later than two weeks before the meeting, at the numbers above or by e-mail. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background FSIS is the public health regulatory agency in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) responsible for ensuring that the nation's commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged. To better address the food safety and public health challenges it faces, FSIS is working to make its inspection system more risk-based and to continue to implement science-based policies. Although the Agency acknowledges that some types of meat and poultry products pose greater health risks than others, and some establishments control risks better than others, under the current system of processing inspection, a Consumer Safety Inspector visits every plant at least once every shift to perform a variety of verification procedures scheduled by the Performance Based Inspection System (PBIS.) PBIS schedules inspection procedures the same way in all processing plants, regardless of the particular food safety hazard associated with the products produced or processes performed at one plant versus another. In July 2004, the Agency outlined the basic features of a predictive model that would permit FSIS to improve resource allocation by considering the inherent risks and risk control effectiveness of the meat and poultry establishments under Federal inspection. Since that time, FSIS has continued to develop and refine these ideas. In November 2005, FSIS addressed the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NAMCPI) on Agency progress toward a Risk-Based Inspection System (RBIS). In May 2006, the Agency again addressed NAMCPI—this time on ideas the Agency has on measuring risk control effectiveness for RBI. Reductions in the number of illnesses attributed to the consumption of adulterated meat and poultry products can be achieved by placing greater inspection and verification emphasis on establishments whose processes, owing to the nature and volume of their production, require greater control of the risks. FSIS believes that it can improve public health by focusing its efforts on processing establishments that produce products presenting high inherent risk and that are less effective in controlling risks. At the same time, FSIS can focus less on processing establishments that produce products that present low inherent risk and that exercise effective risk control. In both cases, establishments will continue to be inspected on a per shift basis, although the intensity of inspection will vary, depending on risk factors. In October 2006, FSIS held a public meeting to present ideas about how the Agency can develop these measures for federally-inspected meat and poultry processing establishments and to accept stakeholder input. This series of technical meetings that the Agency is announcing will address various dimensions of RBI and protecting public health, and FSIS is seeking input from all stakeholders on these matters. Prior to each meeting, FSIS will post on its Web site an issue paper on its current thinking concerning the respective topic or other relevant materials. At the meeting relating to attributing illness to food, the agency will invite experts to provide information and views on the definitions of attribution as well as state of the art methods in collecting attribution data. Each meeting will be moderated to ensure that all participants have ample opportunity to present their views. A transcript of the meetings will be taken and made available on the FSIS Web site, http://www.fsis.usda.gov . All comments received in response to this notice will be considered part of the public record. Members of the public should pre-register for the meeting. Online registration information is located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov. Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that minorities, women and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it online through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/2007_Notices_Index/ . FSIS will also make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interests to constituents and stakeholders. The update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Listserv and Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader and more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/email_subscription/ . Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their account. David P. Goldman, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. 07-1662 Filed 3-30-07; 3:56 pm]