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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-04-04 · Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT) · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

33,051 words·~150 min read·/register/2008/04/04/08-1097·

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 66 Friday, April 4, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0264; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-07-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. TFE731-4, -4R, -5, -5AR, -5BR, and -5R Series Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for Honeywell International Inc. TFE731-4, -4R, -5, -5AR, -5BR, and -5R series turbofan engines, with interstage turbine transition
(ITT)duct, part number (P/N) 3075292-1; 3075292-3; 3074766-1; 3077063-1; 3075655-1; 3075655-2; 30756599-1; or 30756599-3, installed. This proposed AD would require replacing the affected ITT duct with a serviceable and redesigned ITT duct. This proposed AD results from reports of 49 low pressure turbine
(LPT)blade separations. Six of those events resulted in circumferential failure of the LPT2 or LPT3 nozzle assembly, leading to deformation of the ITT duct and uncontainment of the turbine blades and fragments of the LPT nozzle assembly. We are proposing this AD to prevent uncontainment of turbine blades and fragments of the LPT nozzle assembly, which could result in damage to the airplane. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by June 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD from Honeywell Engines and Systems Technical Publications and Distribution, M/S 2101-201, P.O. Box 52170, Phoenix, AZ 85072-2170, telephone:
(602)365-2493 (General Aviation),
(602)365-5535 (Commercial Aviation), fax:
(602)365-5577 (General Aviation and Commercial Aviation). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; e-mail: *joseph.costa@faa.gov* ; telephone:
(562)627-5246; fax:
(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0264; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-07-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. Discussion In July 2006, we started receiving reports of LPT blade separations, which resulted in circumferential failure of the LPT2 or LPT3 nozzle assembly. To date, we have received reports of 49 LPT blade separations of which 6 of those events caused spinning of the LPT2 or LPT3 nozzle assembly. The spinning can lead to deformation of the ITT duct and uncontainment of the turbine blades and fragments of the LPT nozzle assembly. This condition, if not corrected, could result in uncontainment of turbine blades and fragments of the LPT nozzle assembly, leading to damage to the airplane. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require replacing the affected ITT duct with a serviceable and redesigned ITT duct at the next Major Periodic Inspection of the engine or at next access of the ITT duct, whichever occurs first, but not to exceed 2,600 hours time-in-service after the effective date of the proposed AD. The serviceable and redesigned ITT duct will minimize the potential for uncontained events. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,500 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per engine to perform the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Reworked ITT ducts to the redesign would cost about $25,000 per engine. New ITT ducts that are redesigned would cost about $127,000. We estimate that 30 engines would require new ITT ducts. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $41,040,000. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **Honeywell International Inc. (formerly AlliedSignal Inc., formerly Garret Turbine Engine Company):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0264; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-07-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by June 3, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. TFE731-4, -4R, -5, -5AR, -5BR, and -5R series turbofan engines, with interstage turbine transition
(ITT)duct, part number (P/N) 3075292-1; 3075292-3; 3074766-1; 3077063-1; 3075655-1; 3075655-2; 30756599-1; or 30756599-3, installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Avions Marcel Dassault Mystere-Falcon 50 series, Dassault-Aviation 20, 50, 900, MF900 series, Cessna Model 650, Cessna Citation VII, and Raytheon Corporate Jets (formerly British Aerospace) Hawker 800 and 850XP series airplanes. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of 49 low pressure turbine
(LPT)blade separations. Six of those events resulted in circumferential failure of the LPT2 or LPT3 nozzle assembly, leading to deformation of the ITT duct and uncontainment of the turbine blades and fragments of the LPT nozzle assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontainment of turbine blades and fragments of the LPT nozzle assembly, which could result in damage to the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed at the next Major Periodic Inspection of the engine or at next access of the ITT duct, whichever occurs first, but not to exceed 2,600 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD, unless the actions have already been done. Replacement of the ITT Duct
(f)Replace the affected ITT ducts listed by part number in paragraph
(c)of this AD, with a serviceable and redesigned ITT duct. Definitions
(g)For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable and redesigned ITT duct is one not having a part number listed in this AD.
(h)For the purpose of this AD, next access of the ITT duct is when the ITT duct is removed from the engine. Alternative Methods of Compliance
(i)The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information
(j)Honeywell International Inc. Service Bulletin
(SB)No. TFE731-72-3727, dated September 12, 2007, and SB No. TFE731-72-3728, dated September 12, 2007, pertain to the subject of this AD.
(k)Contact Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; e-mail: *joseph.costa@faa.gov* ; telephone:
(562)627-5246; fax:
(562)627-5210, for more information about this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 31, 2008. Peter A. White, Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-6993 Filed 4-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 36 CFR Part 1280 RIN 3095-AB33 [DOCKET NARA-08-0002] Use of Meeting Rooms and Public Space AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: NARA proposes to amend its regulations on public use of the National Archives Building in Washington, DC, for meetings or special events. This proposal incorporates changes in available space as a result of the renovation of the National Archives Building by identifying the kinds of space available and procedures for requesting use. NARA also proposes to charge fees for the use of public areas in the National Archives Building in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 2903(b). The proposed rule affects the public. DATES: Comments are due by June 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: NARA invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Fax:* Submit comments by facsimile transmission to 301-837-0319. *Mail:* Send comments to Regulations Comments Desk (NPOL), Room 4100, Policy and Planning Staff, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver comments to 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Davis Heaps at 301-837-1850, or fax at 301-837-0319. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Following is a discussion of substantive changes contained in this proposed rule. Additional nonsubstantive changes have been made and the proposed regulation has been written in plain language in accordance with the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, Plain Language in Government Writing. What changes have been made in this proposed rule? Most of the changes in this proposed rule are to 36 CFR part 1280, subpart D, “What Rules Apply to Use Public Areas in the Washington, DC Area?” We propose to change text in the regulations relating to the availability of public spaces in the National Archives Building for private, non-official use, including meetings and special events. The spaces available for such use have changed since the last revision to subpart D as a result of the building's renovation. The proposed changes to the regulations address some areas that have been relocated, expanded, and renamed. For example, the theater referenced in the current subpart D has been replaced elsewhere in the building by the larger William G. McGowan Theater. The Exhibition Hall has been replaced by renovated and newly constructed exhibit areas including: the renovated Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom (referred to as the Rotunda in these proposed regulations), displaying the Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights; the Rotunda Galleries; the Lawrence F. O'Brien Gallery; and, the Public Vaults. New “Presidential Conference Rooms” also have been built. Of these spaces, the McGowan Theater and the Presidential Conference Rooms may be reserved by groups for meetings and special events in accordance with our rules of use. Groups may also continue to reserve the Archivist's Reception Room, which is currently addressed in the subpart D regulations. We also propose to add information about fees we may charge under 44 U.S.C. 2903(b), which was enacted as part of the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA)Efficiency Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-383; 118 Stat. 2218-2220, Sec. 4(b)). Other related changes in this proposed rule are: • Removing the list of property under the control of the Archivist of the United States in § 1280.1 and, instead, providing a cross reference to the information in § 1280.2. • Replacing the title “Assistant Archivist for Administrative Services” with “Assistant Archivist for Administration” in § 1280.34. • Updating cross-referenced citations to the Code of Federal Regulations in §§ 1280.34(b) and 1280.48(f). • Updating the address for the NARA Public Affairs Officer in § 1280.48(a). • Adding the Charters Café as an available cafeteria in § 1280.68. • Removing references in Subpart D to NA Form 16008, Application for Use of Space, because we receive most requests by telephone or fax. We continue to include the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)control number for the information collection. • Adding tribal governments to the list of governments that may request to use NARA public spaces for official functions in new §§ 1280.70, 1280.84, and 1280.87. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects individuals. This regulation does not have any federalism implications. List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1280 Archives and records, Federal buildings and facilities. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, NARA proposes to amend part 1280 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 1280—USE OF NARA FACILITIES 1. The authority citation for part 1280 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 44 U.S.C. 2102 notes, 2104(a), 2112, 2903. 2. Amend § 1280.1 by revising paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 1280.1 What is the purpose of this part?
(a)This part tells you what rules you must follow when you use property under the control of the Archivist of the United States (see § 1280.2 of this part). § 1280.34 [Amended] 3. Amend § 1280.34 as follows: a. Remove “Assistant Archivist for Administrative Services” in paragraphs
(b)and
(c)and add in their place “Assistant Archivist for Administration.” b. Remove “36 CFR 1254.20” in the third sentence of paragraph
(b)and add in its place “36 CFR 1254.48.” 4. Amend § 1280.46 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: § 1280.46 What are the rules for filming, photographing, or videotaping on NARA property for personal use?
(b)* * *
(3)You may not film, photograph, or videotape while on the interior steps or ramp leading to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building. 5. Amend § 1280.48 by revising paragraph
(a)and amending paragraph
(f)by revising the first sentence to read as follows: § 1280.48 How do I apply to film, photograph, or videotape on NARA property for news purposes?
(a)If you wish to film, photograph, or videotape for news purposes at the National Archives Building (as delineated in § 1280.2(a)), the National Archives at College Park, or the Washington National Records Center, you must request permission from the NARA Public Affairs Officer, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20408-0001. See also § 1280.42(b) for additional permissions relating to the Washington National Records Center.
(f)This section does not apply to you if you have permission to use your own microfilming equipment to film archival records and donated historical materials under the provisions of 36 CFR 1254.90 through 1254.110. * * * 6. Amend § 1280.52 by revising the third sentence of paragraph
(a)as follows: § 1280.52 What are the rules for filming, photographing, or videotaping on NARA property for news purposes?
(a)* * * If the Public Affairs Officer approves your use of artificial lighting in the Rotunda, NARA will use facsimiles in place of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. * * * 7. Revise § 1280.68 to read as follows: § 1280.68 May I use the cafeterias? Yes, the Charters Café in the National Archives Building is normally open to the public Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. and the cafeteria at the National Archives at College Park is open to the public from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 8. Revise subpart D to read as follows: Subpart D—What Rules Apply To Use NARA Public Areas in the Washington, DC Area? General Sec. 1280.70 When does NARA allow non-NARA groups to use the public areas of NARA property? 1280.71 What are the general rules for using NARA property in the Washington, DC area? 1280.72 What additional rules apply for a NARA approved event? National Archives Building, Washington, DC 1280.74 What spaces in the National Archives Building are available for use by non-NARA groups and organizations? 1280.76 When are the public areas available for private events in the National Archives Building? 1280.78 Does NARA charge fees for the use of public areas in the National Archives Building? 1280.80 How do I request to use NARA public areas in the National Archives Building? 1280.82 How will NARA handle my request to use public areas in the National Archives Building? 1280.84 May I ask to use the Rotunda? 1280.85 What space in the National Archives at College Park is available for use by non-NARA groups and organizations? 1280.86 When are the public areas available for events in the National Archives at College Park? 1280.87 Does NARA charge fees for the use of public areas in the National Archives at College Park? 1280.88 How do I request to use NARA public areas in the National Archives at College Park? 1280.89 How will NARA handle my request to use public areas in the National Archives at College Park? Subpart D—What Rules Apply To Use NARA Public Areas in the Washington, DC Area? General § 1280.70 When does NARA allow non-NARA groups to use the public areas of NARA property?
(a)The primary use of NARA property in the Washington, DC, area (the National Archives Building and the National Archives at College Park), including those areas open to the public, is the conduct of official NARA business, including public programs and other activities conducted in conjunction with government and non-government organizations and the Foundation for the National Archives (“Foundation”). In conducting official business, NARA and its partners use all of the public areas of the Washington, DC, area facilities. There are no public areas in the Washington National Records Center in Suitland, MD.
(b)NARA may permit, under the conditions described in this subpart, the occasional use of certain public areas by other Federal agencies, quasi-Federal agencies, and state, local, and tribal government organizations for official activities. NARA also permits the occasional, non-official use of its public areas by organizations when the activity relates to or furthers NARA's archival, records, or other programs. § 1280.71 What are the general rules for using NARA property in the Washington, DC area? In addition to the rules listed in Subparts A, B, and C of this part, you must adhere to the following rules when using NARA public spaces:
(a)All use must relate to or further the archival, records, or other activities of NARA. Examples of use that meet this standard include programs that promote research in or the dissemination and use of NARA holdings, including educational programs and materials, the preservation of NARA holdings or the historical records and documentary materials of other institutions, and the use and enjoyment of NARA exhibits.
(b)All use must be consistent with the public perception of NARA as an archival and research institution.
(c)When NARA cohosts an activity with the Foundation or other organizations, NARA must be identified as the cohost in all materials and publicity relating to the activity.
(d)When NARA has authorized your organization to use NARA property, you may not characterize your use of NARA property as an endorsement by NARA of your organization or its activities, or otherwise suggest an official relationship between NARA and your organization.
(e)You are not allowed to charge an admission fee or make any indirect assessment for admission, and you may not otherwise collect money at the event.
(f)You may not use NARA property or permission to use that property to advertise, promote, or sell commercial enterprises, products, or services, or for partisan political, sectarian, or similar purposes.
(g)You may not use NARA property if you or your organization or group engages in discriminatory practices proscribed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
(h)You must not misrepresent your identity to the public nor conduct any activities in a misleading or fraudulent manner.
(i)You must ensure that no Government property is destroyed, displaced, or damaged during your use of NARA public areas. You must take prompt action to replace, return, restore, repair or repay NARA for any damage caused to Government property during the use of NARA facilities. § 1280.72 What additional rules apply for a NARA approved event?
(a)Approved applicants must provide support people as needed to register guests, distribute approved literature, name tags, and other material.
(b)We must approve in advance any item that you plan to distribute or display during your use of NARA property, or any notice or advertisement that refers, directly or indirectly, to NARA, the Foundation for the National Archives, or the National Archives Trust Fund, or incorporates any of the seals described in 36 CFR 1200.2.
(c)We must approve in advance any vendor or caterer who will work in NARA facilities. You must comply with all NARA requirements for the use of food and drink at your event.
(d)No food or drink may be present or consumed in areas where original records or historical materials are displayed. National Archives Building, Washington, DC § 1280.74 What spaces in the National Archives Building are available for use by non-NARA groups and organizations? You may ask to use the following areas in the National Archives Building, Washington, DC: Area Capacity Rotunda Galleries 250 persons. William G. McGowan Theater 290 persons. Archivist's Reception Room 125 persons. Presidential Conference Rooms 20 to 70 persons. § 1280.76 When are the public areas available for private events in the National Archives Building? Most public areas are available for set-up and use on weekdays from 6 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. during the fall and winter seasons (day after Labor Day through March 14). The areas are available for set-up and use from 7:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. in the spring season (March 15 through Labor Day). The areas are not available during weekends or on Federal holidays. A NARA staff member must be present at all times when non-NARA groups use NARA spaces. § 1280.78 Does NARA charge fees for the use of public areas in the National Archives Building?
(a)NARA is authorized to charge fees for the occasional, non-official use of its public areas, as well as for services related to such use, including additional cleaning, security, and other staff services. NARA will either exercise this authority directly, or, for activities co-sponsored with the Foundation for the National Archives, as part of your group's arrangements with the Foundation.
(b)We will inform organizations interested in using public spaces in the National Archives Building in advance and in writing of the total estimated cost associated with using the public area of interest. Fees NARA charges are paid to the National Archives Trust Fund.
(c)Federal and quasi-Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal governmental institutions using public space for official government functions pay fees to the National Archives Trust Fund only for the costs for additional cleaning, security, and other staff services NARA provides. § 1280.80 How do I request to use NARA public areas in the National Archives Building?
(a)Direct your request to use space to: Special Events Division Director (AI); National Archives and Records Administration, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room G-9, Washington, DC 20408. Request by telephone at 202-357-5164 or by fax at 202-357-5926.
(b)You must submit requests, signed by an authorized official of your organization, to use NARA public areas at least 30 calendar days before the proposed event is to occur.
(c)OMB control number 3095—0043 has been assigned to the information collection contained in this section. § 1280.82 How will NARA handle my request to use public areas in the National Archives Building?
(a)When you ask to use property in the National Archives Building, we review your request to:
(1)Ensure that it meets all of the provisions in this subpart;
(2)Determine if the public area you have requested is available on the date and time you have requested;
(3)Evaluate whether your proposed use is appropriate for the requested space; and
(4)Determine the costs of the event.
(b)When we have completed this review, we will notify you of the decision. We may ask for additional information before deciding whether or not to approve your event.
(c)NARA reserves the right to review, reject, or require changes in any material, activity, or caterer you intend to use for the event. § 1280.84 May I ask to use the Rotunda? The Rotunda is primarily used for the public exhibition of the Charters of Freedom and other documents from NARA's holdings. NARA also uses the Rotunda for activities that further its Strategic Plan. Therefore, the use of the Rotunda for private events is not permitted. NARA may, upon application, permit other Federal agencies, quasi-Federal agencies, and State, local, and tribal governments to use the Rotunda for official functions, with NARA as a co-sponsor. Governmental groups that use the Rotunda for official functions must reimburse NARA for the cost of additional cleaning, security, and other staff services. National Archives at College Park, MD § 1280.85 What space in the National Archives at College Park is available for use by non-NARA groups and organizations? You may ask to use the following areas: Area Capacity Auditorium 300. Lecture Rooms 30 to 70 persons (or up to 300 with all dividers removed). § 1280.86 When are the public areas available for events in the National Archives at College Park? Most areas are available for set-up and use from 8 a.m. until 9:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 9 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on Saturday. A NARA staff member must be present at all times when the public area is in use. If the space and staff are available, we may approve requests for events held before or after these hours and on Sunday. § 1280.87 Does NARA charge fees for the use of public areas in the National Archives at College Park? NARA may charge a fee under 44 U.S.C. 2903(b) for the use of public areas at the National Archives at College Park. We inform organizations in advance and in writing of the total estimated cost of using the public area. Federal and quasi-Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal governmental institutions using public space for official government functions pay fees to the National Archives Trust Fund only for the costs for additional cleaning, security, and other staff services NARA provides. § 1280.88 How do I request to use NARA public areas in the National Archives at College Park?
(a)Direct your request to use space to: Special Events Coordinator (AII); Facilities and Personal Property Management Division; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. Request by telephone at 301-837-1900, or by fax at 301-837-3237.
(b)You must submit requests for use of NARA public areas at least 30 calendar days before the proposed event is to occur.
(c)OMB control number 3095—0043 has been assigned to the information collection contained in this section. § 1280.89 How will NARA handle my request to use public areas in the National Archives at College Park?
(a)When you ask to use public areas at the National Archives at College Park, we will review your request to:
(1)Ensure that it meets all of the provisions in this subpart;
(2)Determine if the room you have requested is available on the date and time you have requested; and
(3)Determine the cost of the event.
(b)When we have completed this review, we will notify you of the decision. We may ask for additional information before deciding whether or not to approve your event.
(c)NARA reserves the right to review, reject, or require changes in any material, activity, or caterer you intend to use for the event. Dated: March 31, 2008. Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United States. [FR Doc. E8-7126 Filed 4-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0130-200725; FRL-8551-5] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Florida: Prevention of Significant Deterioration AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed approval and proposed conditional approval. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to conditionally approve State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revisions submitted by the State of Florida on February 3, 2006. The proposed revisions modify Florida's Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)permitting regulations in the SIP to address changes to the federal New Source Review
(NSR)regulations, which were promulgated by EPA on December 31, 2002, and reconsidered with minor changes on November 7, 2003 (collectively, these two final actions are referred to as the “2002 NSR Reform Rules”). The proposed revisions include provisions for baseline emissions calculations, an actual-to-projected-actual methodology for calculating emissions changes, options for plantwide applicability limits, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. As part of the conditional approval, Florida will have twelve months from the date of EPA's final conditional approval of the SIP revisions in which to revise its PSD recordkeeping requirements and several definitions in order to be consistent with existing federal law. In addition to and in conjunction with the proposed conditional approval of Florida's PSD permitting program SIP revisions, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's concurrent February 3, 2006, request to make the State's PSD permitting program applicable to electric power plants which are also subject to the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA). This proposed approval follows the receipt of adverse comments on, and EPA's subsequent withdrawal of, EPA's May 25, 2007, direct final rule granting full approval to Florida to implement its PSD permitting program for sources subject to the PPSA. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0130, by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: adams.yolanda@epa.gov* . 3. *Fax:* 404-562-9019. 4. *Mail:* “EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0130,” Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Ms. Yolanda Adams, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. “EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0130.” EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Florida State Implementation Plan, contact Ms. Heidi LeSane, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404)562-9074. Ms. LeSane can also be reached via electronic mail at *lesane.heidi@epa.gov* . For information regarding New Source Review, contact Ms. Yolanda Adams, Air Permits Section, at the same address above. The telephone number is
(404)562-9214. Ms. Adams can also be reached via electronic mail at *adams.yolanda@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. What actions are being proposed? II. What is the background of EPA's proposed action on the Florida PSD rule revisions? III. What is EPA's Analysis of Florida's PSD program revisions and what are the conditions for full SIP-approval? IV. What is the background of prior EPA action on Florida's PSD program for electric power plants? V. What is the basis for EPA's proposed SIP-approval of the inclusion of electric power plants in Florida's PSD program? VI. Proposed Action VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What actions are being proposed? *NSR Reform Revisions* . On February 3, 2006, the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), submitted revisions to the Florida SIP. The submittal consists of revisions to the following FDEP rules: Chapter 62-204, “Air Pollution Control—General Provisions;” Chapter 62-210, “Stationary Sources—General Provisions;” and Chapter 62-212, “Stationary Sources—Preconstruction Review.” The revisions were made to update the Florida PSD program to make it consistent with changes to the federal NSR regulations published on December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186) and November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021). EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the February 3, 2006, SIP submittal consistent with section 110(k)(4) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “Act”). Pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA may conditionally approve a portion of a SIP revision based on a commitment from the state to adopt specific, enforceable measures no later than twelve months from the date of final conditional approval. If the state fails to commit to undertake the necessary changes, or fails to actually make the changes within the twelve month period, EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. EPA is not required to propose the finding of disapproval. The necessary revisions to the Florida SIP will materially alter the existing SIP-approved rule. As a result, the State must also provide a new SIP submittal to EPA for approval that includes the rule changes within twelve months from the date of EPA's final action conditionally approving Florida's PSD program. As with any SIP revision, Florida must undergo public notice and comment, and allow for a public hearing (and any other procedures required by State law) on the proposed changes to its rules. If Florida fails to adopt and submit the specified measures by the end of one year (from the final conditional approval), or fails to make a SIP submittal to EPA within twelve months following the final conditional approval, EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. If Florida timely revises its rules and submits the revised SIP submittal, EPA will process that SIP revision consistent with the CAA. Generally, with regard to the conditional approval of Florida's PSD program, Florida must revise its PSD recordkeeping requirements and several definitions in the rules. Section III below provides more details regarding EPA's analysis of Florida's PSD program and the changes that are necessary to the Florida rules in order for full approval of Florida's SIP revision. *Applicability of Florida's SIP-approved PSD permitting program to electric power plants* . In addition to and in conjunction with the proposed conditional approval of Florida's PSD SIP revisions, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's concurrent February 3, 2006, request to make the State's PSD permitting program applicable to electric power plants subject to the Florida PPSA. Any final approval of this request would mean that Florida's SIP-approved PSD permitting program, including any final conditional approval of the State's PSD revisions noted above, would apply to electric power plants in Florida in lieu of the current federally delegated PSD program. II. What is the background of EPA's proposed action on the Florida PSD rule revisions? On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA published final rule changes to 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)parts 51 and 52, regarding the CAA's PSD and Nonattainment NSR
(NNSR)programs. On November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA published a notice of final action on the reconsideration of the December 31, 2002, final rule changes. In that November 7, 2003, final action, EPA added the definition of “replacement unit,” and clarified an issue regarding plantwide applicability limitations (PALs). Collectively, these two EPA final actions are referred to as the “2002 NSR Reform Rules.” The purpose of this action is to propose to conditionally approve the SIP submittal from Florida, which addresses EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. The 2002 NSR Reform Rules are part of EPA's implementation of Parts C and D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515. Part C of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, is the PSD program, which applies in areas that meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)—“attainment” areas—as well as in areas for which there is insufficient information to determine whether the area meets the NAAQS—“unclassifiable” areas. Part D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7515, is the NNSR program, which applies in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS—“nonattainment” areas. Collectively, the PSD and NNSR programs are referred to as the “New Source Review” or NSR programs. EPA regulations implementing these programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part 51, appendix S. The CAA's NSR programs are preconstruction review and permitting programs applicable to new and modified stationary sources of air pollutants regulated under the CAA. The NSR programs of the CAA include a combination of air quality planning and air pollution control technology program requirements. Briefly, section 109 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7409, requires EPA to promulgate primary NAAQS to protect public health and secondary NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once EPA sets those standards, states must develop, adopt, and submit to EPA for approval, a SIP that contains emissions limitations and other control measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each SIP is required to contain a preconstruction review program for the construction and modification of any stationary source of air pollution to assure that the NAAQS are achieved and maintained; to protect areas of clean air; to protect air quality related values (such as visibility) in national parks and other areas; to assure that appropriate emissions controls are applied; to maximize opportunities for economic development consistent with the preservation of clean air resources; and to ensure that any decision to increase air pollution is made only after full public consideration of the consequences of the decision. The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes to five areas of the NSR programs. In summary, the 2002 Rules:
(1)Provide a new method for determining baseline actual emissions;
(2)adopt an actual-to-projected-actual methodology for determining whether a major modification has occurred;
(3)allow major stationary sources to comply with plant-wide applicability limits to avoid having a significant emissions increase that triggers the requirements of the major NSR program;
(4)provide a new applicability provision for emissions units that are designated clean units; and
(5)exclude pollution control projects
(PCPs)from the definition of “physical change or change in the method of operation.” On November 7, 2003, EPA published a notice of final action on its reconsideration of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules (68 FR 63021), which added a definition for “replacement unit” and clarified an issue regarding PALs. For additional information on the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, see 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), and *http://www.epa.gov/nsr* . After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules were finalized and effective (March 3, 2003), industry, state, and environmental petitioners challenged numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, along with portions of EPA's 1980 NSR Rules (45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit Court) issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. *New York* v. *United States* , 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005). In summary, the DC Circuit Court vacated portions of the rules pertaining to clean units and PCPs, remanded a portion of the rules regarding recordkeeping, 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and either upheld or did not comment on the other provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. On June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32526), EPA took direct final action to revise the 2002 NSR Reform Rules to remove from federal law all provisions pertaining to clean units and the PCP exemption that were vacated by the DC Circuit Court. This proposed action on the Florida SIP is consistent with the decision of the DC Circuit Court because Florida's submittal does not include any portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules that were vacated as part of the June 2005 decision. With regard to the remanded portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules related to recordkeeping, on December 21, 2007, EPA took final action on the proposed revisions by establishing that “reasonable possibility” applies where source emissions equal or exceed 50 percent of the CAA NSR significance levels for any pollutant (72 FR 72607). The “reasonable possibility” provision identifies for sources and reviewing authorities the circumstances under which a major stationary source undergoing a modification that does not trigger major NSR must keep records. Florida's regulations do not include the “reasonable possibility” language. Florida's SIP revisions require all modifications that use the actual-to-projected-actual methodology to meet the recordkeeping requirements. Thus, with regard to the reasonable possibility issue, Florida's rules are at least as stringent as the current federal rules ( *see, e.g.* , F.A.C. section 62-212.300). However, another aspect of Florida's recordkeeping requirements is not consistent with the recordkeeping provisions set forth in the federal rules at 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6). As is explained in more detail below, Florida will have to revise its recordkeeping requirements as part of the proposed conditional approval. The 2002 NSR Reform Rules require that state agencies adopt and submit revisions to their SIP permitting programs implementing the minimum program elements of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules no later than January 2, 2006. (Consistent with changes to 40 CFR 51.166(a)(6)(i), state agencies are now required to adopt and submit SIP revisions within 3 years after new amendments are published in the **Federal Register** .) State agencies may meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, with different but equivalent regulations. On February 3, 2006, FDEP submitted a SIP revision for the purpose of revising the State's PSD permitting provisions. These changes were made primarily to adopt EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. These revisions became State-effective on February 2, 2006, and February 12, 2006. Even though Florida currently has nonattainment rules approved in the SIP, this submittal did not include revisions to the NNSR rules because there are currently no nonattainment areas in Florida. Copies of Florida's revised PSD rules, as well as the State's Technical Support Document (TSD), can be obtained from the Docket, as discussed in the ADDRESSES section above. As is discussed in further detail below, EPA believes the revisions contained in the Florida submittal are approvable for inclusion into the Florida SIP so long as the specific changes described below are made within twelve months of the date of EPA's final conditional approval. As a result, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the Florida SIP revisions, consistent with section 110(k)(4) of the CAA. III. What is EPA's Analysis of Florida's PSD program revisions and what are the conditions for full SIP-approval? This section summarizes EPA's analysis of the changes being proposed for inclusion into the Florida SIP. F.A.C. Chapter 62-204, entitled “Air Pollution Control—General Provisions” contains general air pollution control requirements that apply regardless of the type or size of the emissions source. F.A.C. section 62-204.260 sets forth PSD increments for pollutants for which EPA has established such increments. Definitions at section 62-204.200 describe those emissions which affect (i.e. expand or consume) PSD increment. Under previous FDEP rules, some provisions related to increment consumption and expansion were located at section 62-212.400. The current rule revisions consolidate all such provisions in the definitions at section 62-204.200 for greater clarity. In addition, rule language has been amended to more closely reflect the federal rules. F.A.C. Chapter 62-210, entitled “Stationary Sources—General Requirements,” contains definitions of terms used in Chapter 62-212, as well as other stationary source rules. Chapter 62-210 also establishes general permitting, public notice, reporting, and permit application requirements. Chapter 62-212, entitled “Stationary Sources—Preconstruction Review” contains specific preconstruction permitting requirements for various types of air construction permits, including minor source permits, PSD permits, NNSR permits, and the more recently added PAL permits. Revisions were made to these rules to incorporate changes resulting from the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, with the exception that F.A.C. section 62-212.500, entitled, “Preconstruction Review for Nonattainment Areas” was not revised since there are no longer any nonattainment areas in Florida. This rule will need to be amended if nonattainment areas are designated in Florida in the future. F.A.C. section 62-212.400 contains the State's PSD preconstruction review program as required under Part C of title I of the CAA. The PSD program applies to major stationary sources or modifications constructing in areas that are designated as attainment or unclassifiable with respect to the NAAQS. Florida's PSD program was originally approved into the SIP by EPA on December 22, 1983, and has been revised several times. The current changes to F.A.C. Chapters 62-204, 62-210 and 62-212, which EPA is now proposing to conditionally approve into the Florida SIP, were submitted to update the existing Florida regulations to be consistent with the current federal PSD rules, including the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. The SIP revision addresses baseline actual emissions, actual-to-projected-actual applicability tests, and PALs. EPA's evaluation of the Florida SIP submittal included a line-by-line comparison of the proposed revisions with the federal requirements. As a general matter, state agencies may meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, with different but equivalent regulations. While some states choose to incorporate by reference the applicable federal rules, other states (such as Florida) choose to draft rules that track the federal language but contain differences. As part of its February 3, 2006, SIP submittal, Florida provided EPA with an Equivalency Determination and Response to Comments (ED and RTC) that address differences from the federal rules noted by EPA in its comments on Florida's prehearing submittal. As a point of clarification, although FAC section 62-204.800, “Federal Regulations Adopted by Reference,” includes 40 CFR part 52, this Florida rule does not legally “incorporate by reference” the entirety of part 52. According to Florida's ED and RTC, the reference to part 52 does not make those regulations applicable, but rather, other rules, such as the PSD rule currently at issue, define how the elements of part 52 will apply in Florida. Although EPA has determined that some of the differences in Florida's PSD program are acceptable, some differences are not consistent with the federal rules. Therefore, EPA has determined that Florida's PSD program does not meet all the program requirements for the preparation, adoption and submittal of implementation plans for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, set forth at 40 CFR 51.166 and revisions are necessary for full approval. The required changes relate to the definitions of “new emissions unit,” “PSD pollutant,” “significant emissions rate,” and the recordkeeping requirements found at 51.166(r)(6). Consistent with section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA may conditionally approve Florida's SIP revision based on the State's commitment to adopt specific, enforceable measures by a date certain, not to exceed one year after the date of the final conditional approval. A discussion of the specific changes to Florida's rules comprising the SIP revision, as well as the additional changes that must be made by Florida as part of the conditional approval, follows. The discussion addresses both acceptable deviations from the federal rules, as well as the differences that are subject to the conditional approval. 1. New Emissions Unit Florida's definition for “new emissions unit” for PSD purposes is found in F.A.C. section 62-210.200(184). 1 This definition is not consistent with the federal definition found at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(7)(i). Pursuant to federal law, a “new emissions unit” is “any emissions unit that is (or will be) newly constructed and that has existed for less than 2 years from the date such emissions unit first operated.” 40 CFR 51.166(b)(7)(i). Under Florida law, however, a “new emissions unit” is “any emissions unit that is or will be newly constructed and that has enlisted for less than 2 years from the date of *beginning normal operation.* ” See, F.A.C. section 62-210.200(184) (emphasis added). Florida's ED and RTC indicate that the use of the term “beginning normal operation” takes into account that most new units undergo a “shakedown” period during which the unit is operating but may not have normal, representative emissions. FDEP therefore believes that this term clarifies the intent of the federal requirement. EPA disagrees that this language is equivalent to the federal rule. Florida must revise its regulations to better define what is meant by “beginning normal operation,” to ensure that the “shakedown” period does not continue for an unbounded period of time. EPA recommends that Florida adopt the language of the federal rule. However, if Florida chooses otherwise, FDEP will need to provide EPA with an equivalency demonstration supporting the new, more specific, regulation. In addition, EPA also identified a typographical error in this provision that should be addressed. The language “* * * that has *enlisted* for less than * * *” should read “* * * that has *existed* for less than * * *.” F.A.C. section 62-210.200(184) (emphasis added). 1 The references to the Florida regulations in this notice correspond to the numbering in the SIP submittal. Since Chapter 62-210 contains definitions for other stationary source rules and these definitions are maintained in alphabetical order, the references given in this notice do not correspond to the current Florida regulations due to subsequent amendments to Florida stationary rules. This is the case for all definitions being discussed in this notice. 2. Pollution Control Project
(PCP)As mentioned previously, the PCP exemption provisions of the federal rules, including the definition of “pollution control project,” were vacated by the DC Circuit Court. Florida's regulations still include a definition for “pollution control project” (found at F.A.C. section 62-210.200(209)). In its ED and RTC, Florida explains that this term is no longer used anywhere within the Florida regulations and the intent is to exclude clean coal technology demonstration projects from triggering a major modification. However, such projects are excluded at 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(j), and F.A.C. section 62-210.200(161)(c)9. Even though Florida's definition of “pollution control project” is not the same as the vacated federal definition, EPA believes that the use of the term “PCP” in the Florida regulations may be confusing to both the public and the regulated community, and could be misconstrued as the vacated portion of the federal rules. Because the clean coal technology demonstration project exemption is already independently defined and included in F.A.C. section 62-210.200(190)(c)9, EPA recommends that the term “pollution control project” be removed from the rules to be included in the Florida SIP. 3. Regulated NSR Pollutant Florida's definition of “PSD Pollutant” found at F.A.C. section 62-210.200(219) is intended to be equivalent to the federal definition of “Regulated NSR pollutant” at 51.166(b)(49). Florida defines “PSD Pollutant” as “any pollutant listed as having a significant emissions rate as defined in F.A.C. section 62-210.200.” The definition of “significant emissions rate,” found at F.A.C. section 62-210.200(243), includes “a rate listed at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) * * * specifically the following rates,” and proceeds to list rates for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, ozone, lead, fluorides, sulfuric acid mist, hydrogen sulfide, total reduced sulfur, reduced sulfur compounds, municipal waste combustor organics, metals, and acid gases, municipal solid waste landfills emissions, and mercury. The federal definition of “Regulated NSR Pollutant” includes:
(1)Any pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated and any constituents or precursors for such pollutants identified by the Administrator;
(2)any pollutant that is subject to any standard promulgated under section 111 of the Act;
(3)any Class I or II substance subject to a standard promulgated under or established by title VI of the Act; and
(4)any pollutant that otherwise is subject to regulation under the Act. In its ED and RTC, Florida explains that its definition of significant emissions rate includes all pollutants for which a NAAQS has been promulgated thus far, all precursors for such pollutants which have thus far been identified by the Administrator, all pollutants subject to standards promulgated under section 111 of the Act, and all pollutants thus far regulated under the Act. Florida acknowledges that its rules do not include ozone depleting substances (i.e., Class I and Class II substances subject to a standard under title VI of the CAA) in the definition of PSD pollutant. Because ozone depleting substances are regulated NSR pollutants pursuant to federal law, Florida must also regulate such pollutants in order for its PSD program to meet the requirements of the federal program. Therefore, as part of the conditional approval, Florida must revise its rules to include Class I and Class II substances in its list of PSD pollutants. 4. Significant Emissions Rate The definition of “significant emissions rate,” found at F.A.C. section 62-210.200(243), includes “a rate listed at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) * * * specifically the following rates,” and proceeds to list rates for specific pollutants. Federal regulations define “significant” as a rate of emissions that would equal or exceed a pollutant specific list of emissions rates. See, 40 CFR Part 51.166(b)(23)(i). In addition, federal law defines significant as “any emissions rate” of a regulated NSR pollutant that is not listed in § 51.166(b)(23)(i), and “any emissions rate” at a major stationary source constructing within 10 kilometers of a Class I area, which would have an impact on such area equal to or greater than 1 microgram per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) over a 24-hour average. Florida's PSD rules do not include “any emissions rate” for a pollutant that is not listed in the significant emissions rate list, but that could otherwise be considered a regulated NSR pollutant (i.e. “any pollutant that is otherwise subject to regulation under the Act”). In addition, Florida's PSD rules limit the Class I area impact provision to only those pollutants that are listed in the significant emissions rates list. See, F.A.C. section 62-210.200(243)(b). In its ED and RTC, Florida explains that its PSD rules include all pollutants that are currently regulated under the federal rules, and which fall within FDEP's existing statutory authority. For those pollutants which may become regulated NSR pollutants in the future, FDEP commits to adopting those pollutants into the State's PSD rules as soon as possible after EPA's promulgation. EPA agrees that Florida's PSD rules include significant emissions rates for all currently regulated NSR pollutants, except ozone depleting substances (discussed above), and that Florida's approach to adopting any other pollutants as part of its definition of PSD pollutant in an expeditious manner after promulgation by EPA, is an acceptable approach to ensuring that Florida's PSD program is consistent with the federal PSD program. 5. Mercury As a general matter, hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs)are not regulated NSR pollutants unless they are also regulated as a constituent or precursor of a general pollutant listed under Section 108 of the Act. Pursuant to Section 112(b)(6) of the CAA, the PSD provisions of the CAA “shall not apply to pollutants listed in” Section 112. Mercury is specifically listed as a HAP in Section 112(b)(1). As a result, the CAA's PSD program does not apply to mercury. Section 110 of the CAA, governing SIP review and approval, describes what types of regulations should be included in the SIP; specifically, regulations supporting attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Mercury is not identified as a criteria pollutant for which a NAAQS is established, nor is it identified as a constituent of such a pollutant or a precursor of such a pollutant. As a result, regulations governing mercury should not be included in SIPs. As previously mentioned, Florida's definition of “significant emissions rate,” found at F.A.C. section 62-210.200(243), includes “a rate listed at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) * * * specifically the following rates,” and it proceeds to list rates for among other pollutants, mercury. In its ED and RTC, Florida explains that its PSD program has included a significant emission rate for mercury since the 1980s. However, following the enactment of the 1990 amendments to the CAA, EPA advised states to remove HAPs from PSD rules included in the SIP. Florida did remove some HAPs, but retained mercury. Because the 1990 CAA Amendments (and the addition of Section 112(b)(6)) has altered EPA's approach with regard to mercury, EPA is now seeking to remedy the inclusion of mercury in the Florida SIP as a PSD pollutant. Notably, Florida may retain mercury as a regulated pollutant pursuant to State authority and State law. However, mercury cannot be included as a regulated pollutant in the SIP. As part of the conditional approval, Florida must withdraw its request that EPA include a significant emissions rate for mercury in the Florida SIP, specifically section 200.243(a)2 of F.A.C. Chapter 62-210. 6. Recordkeeping Requirements Federal rules at 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6)(i)(c) require that the owner or operator document and maintain a record of the description of the applicability test used to determine that the project is not a major modification for any regulated NSR pollutant, including the baseline actual emissions, the projected actual emissions, the amount of emissions excluded under the definition of “projected actual emissions” (i.e. that portion of the unit's emissions following the project that an existing unit could have accommodated during the consecutive 24-month period used to establish the baseline actual emissions and that are also unrelated to the particular project, including any increased utilization due to product demand growth) and an explanation as to why this amount was excluded, and any netting calculations if applicable. F.A.C. section 62-212.300(3)(a) requires each applicant to provide at a minimum, the nature and amounts of emissions from the emissions unit, including baseline actual emissions and projected actual emissions when used to determine PSD applicability, and when used to establish a PAL. However, Florida rules do not specifically require a record of the amount of emissions excluded pursuant to the projected actual emissions requirements, an explanation as to why these emissions were excluded, and any netting calculations if applicable. As part of the conditional approval, Florida must revise its rules to make the recordkeeping requirements consistent with the federal recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6). 7. Replacement Unit As previously mentioned, on November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA added a definition of “replacement unit” to federal NSR rules. See, 40 CFR 51.166(32). EPA also revised the definition of “emissions unit” to clarify that a replacement unit is considered an existing emissions unit and therefore is eligible for the actual-to-projected-actual test for major NSR applicability determinations. Florida rules do not include a definition of replacement unit, and do not specify in the definition of existing emissions unit that a replacement unit is considered an existing emissions unit. As stated in the preamble to the November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021) rule amendments, the December 2002 rules, “* * * as supplemented by the discussion in the December 2002 preamble, are self-implementing for replacement units.” Florida intends to implement these provisions consistent with federal regulations. In other words, in Florida a replacement unit is considered an existing emissions unit and therefore is eligible for the actual-to-projected-actual test for major NSR applicability test determinations. Therefore, based on Florida's intent to implement these provisions consistent with federal regulations, EPA does not believe that this difference from the federal regulations makes Florida's PSD program less stringent than the federal program. 8. Malfunction Emissions Federal regulations require the inclusion of emissions associated with malfunctions in the calculation of “projected actual emissions” and “baseline actual emissions.” Florida's definitions of “projected actual emissions” and “baseline actual emissions” at F.A.C. sections 62-210.200(34) and
(215)respectively, do not require the inclusion of emissions associated with malfunctions. Florida will be relying only on quantifiable emissions that can be verified. Given that Florida will be consistently applying this approach for both “projected actual emissions” and “baseline actual emissions” and that this approach will not prevent malfunctions from being exceedances of applicable standards, EPA has determined that this difference does not make Florida's PSD program less stringent than the federal program. These changes do not affect source obligations regarding excess emissions related notifications that may be required by State or federal law. 9. Major Stationary Source One of the changes proposed in the Florida submittal is to replace the State definition of “major stationary source” with the federal definition contained at 40 CFR 52.21(b). For the most part, the effect of this change is simply to reword the State definition so that it reads the same as the federal definition. EPA notes, however, that in replacing the Florida definition with the federal definition, the State has adopted the phrase “except the activities of any vessel.” This phrase was remanded and vacated by the DC Circuit Court, and Florida had explicitly excluded this language from the State rule when it initially adopted the State PSD regulations. *See, Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA* , 725 F.2d 761 (DC Cir. 1984). This change may have the effect of excluding activities that were previously covered by the state rule. Hence, EPA requests clarification as to whether it is the state's intention to amend the SIP to include this language, or whether it was an unintended consequence of adopting the federal definition verbatim. In summary, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve, into Florida's SIP, revisions to Florida's PSD permitting program. As part of the conditional approval mechanism, within twelve months of EPA's final action on the conditional approval, the State must:
(1)Revise the definition of “new emissions unit” to be consistent with the federal definition or revise the definition to define what is meant by “beginning normal operation” and provide an equivalency demonstration supporting the revised definition;
(2)revise the definition of “significant emissions rate” to include ozone depleting substances;
(3)withdraw the request that EPA include a significant emissions rate for mercury in the Florida SIP, specifically section 200.243(a)2 of F.A.C. Chapter 62-210; and
(4)revise the recordkeeping requirements at F.A.C. section 62-212.300 to be consistent with federal requirements. If Florida fails to comply with these four requirements in the specified period of time, EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. IV. What is the background of prior EPA action on Florida's PSD program for electric power plants? For reasons described further below, electric power plants subject to the Florida PPSA have historically been permitted by FDEP (through a federal delegation of authority from EPA) under the federal PSD program rather than the Florida SIP-approved PSD permitting program. With the reasons for the necessity of such delegation of federal authority removed, Florida requests that electric power plants within the State now be permitted under the State's SIP-approved PSD permitting program. Because EPA agrees with Florida that the necessity for such federal delegation no longer exists, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's request to make the State's PSD permitting program (rather than the federal PSD permitting program) applicable to electric power plants in the State. As noted earlier, Part C of the CAA establishes the PSD permitting program—a preconstruction review program that applies to areas of the country that have attained the NAAQS. CAA 160-169, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7479. In such areas, a major stationary source may not begin construction or undertake certain modifications without first obtaining a PSD permit. In broad overview, the program
(1)limits the impact of new or modified major stationary sources on ambient air quality and
(2)requires the application of state-of-the-art pollution control technology, known as best available control technology. CAA 165, 42 U.S.C. 7475. EPA has promulgated two largely identical sets of regulations to implement the PSD program. One set, at 40 CFR 52.21, contains EPA's own federal PSD program under which EPA is the permitting authority in states operating without an EPA-approved state program. The other set of regulations contains minimum requirements that state PSD programs must meet to be approved by EPA as part of a SIP. 40 CFR 51.166. Over time, most states have received EPA approval for their PSD programs. In order to comply with the established minimum requirements of the CAA, Florida adopted its own PSD regulations on June 10 and October 28, 1981. The Florida PSD program was proposed for approval on December 14, 1982 (47 FR 55964) and initially approved by EPA into the Florida SIP on December 22, 1983 (48 FR 52713). The approval transferred to FDEP the legal authority to process and issue PSD permits to sources in Florida that are required to obtain PSD permits. One category of sources not covered by EPA's 1983 approval of Florida's PSD program was electric power plants. This was because, at the time, a separate Florida law known as the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA), Florida Statutes Section 403.501 *et seq.* , required permits for electric power plants to be issued solely by the Power Plant Site Certification Board under the PPSA, rather than by FDEP under Florida's PSD regulations. Such a conflict between the PPSA and Florida's PSD program created impediments to implementation and enforcement of the State's PSD program by FDEP for such power plants and precluded EPA's SIP-approval of Florida's PSD program as to these sources. As a result, on November 5, 1985, EPA delegated partial authority to FDEP to conduct the technical and administrative portion of the federal PSD program for power plants subject to the Florida PPSA (with EPA retaining final permitting authority). Letter from Jack E. Ravan, EPA Region 4, to Victoria J. Tschinkel, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (November 5, 1985). On July 1, 1986, the Florida Legislature amended the PPSA in an effort to extricate the implementation of PSD regulations from the State's non-SIP power plant siting regulations and thereby allow FDEP to issue PSD permits to those sources subject to the PPSA. On its face, the 1986 Florida legislative amendment appeared to provide FDEP with authority to fully implement (i.e., issue and enforce) federal PSD regulations for sources subject to the PPSA. Thus, on September 25, 1986, EPA restored full delegation of federal authority to Florida for these sources. Public notice of this restoration of full federal delegation was published on October 27, 1986 (51 FR 37972). Although full federal delegation was restored to FDEP in October 1986, Florida did not subsequently submit to EPA a SIP revision requesting approval to apply its SIP-approved State PSD program to electrical power plants subject to the PPSA (in lieu of the fully delegated federal PSD program). Thus, FDEP continued to issue permits to sources subject to the PPSA under its federally-delegated authority until 1992. However, in February 1992, EPA became aware of an issued Florida court opinion wherein the state court expressly declared that Florida's 1986 legislative amendments to the PPSA did not confer on FDEP the authority to issue federally-enforceable PSD permits containing conditions which differed from those imposed by the PPSA Siting Board during the source's site certification. Letter from Greer C. Tidwell, EPA Region 4, to Carol M. Browner, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (February 5, 1992); *TECO Power Services Corp. v. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation* , First District Court of Appeal, Case No, 91-300 (December 20, 1991). In response to EPA's inquiries concerning this state court opinion, FDEP responded that “the practical effect of the decision is to render ineffective the 1986 amendments and return the law to the same essential configuration as it appeared in 1985. Therefore, in the absence of further amendment to the PPSA, it would appear necessary for EPA to resume final permitting authority over PSD for new PPSA sources.” Letter from Carol M. Browner, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, to Greer C. Tidwell, EPA Region 4 (April 27, 1992). EPA agreed with FDEP, and consequently, on August 7, 1992, we revoked Florida's full federal delegation of PSD authority for PPSA sources. FDEP, however, retained partial federal delegation to conduct the technical and administrative portion of the federal PSD program for power plants subject to the Florida PPSA (with EPA again retaining final permitting authority). Letter from Greer C. Tidwell, EPA Region 4, to Carol M. Browner, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (August 7, 1992). In 1993, the Florida Legislature again amended the PPSA to address concerns over the inappropriate influence of the Florida Power Plant Siting Board's certification decisions on the PSD permitting process. The amendments, which took effect on April 22, 1993, expressly provided that the “Department's action on a federally required new source review or prevention of significant deterioration permit shall differ from the actions taken by the siting board regarding the certification if the federally approved state implementation plan requires such a different action to be taken by the department. Nothing in this part the PPSA shall be construed to displace the federally approved permit program.” In light of this 1993 amendment to the PPSA, FDEP requested that EPA grant it full federal delegation of PSD permitting authority for sources subject to both the federal PSD regulations and the PPSA. Letter from Virginia B. Wetherell, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, to Patrick Tobin, EPA Region 4 (September 27, 1993) . Because the 1993 PPSA amendment made clear that FDEP is the final permitting authority for PSD and new source review permits and can act in a manner different from the PPSA Siting Board if Florida's PSD or new source review regulations require such a different action, EPA once again granted full federal delegation to FDEP on October 26, 1993. Letter from Patrick Tobin, EPA Region 4, to Virginia Wetherell, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (October 26, 1993). The statutory amendment to the PPSA made by the Florida Legislature in 1993 forms the basis of the State's 2006 request for EPA approval to make Florida's SIP-approved State PSD program, rather than the federal PSD program, applicable to sources subject to the PPSA. In addition, during EPA's review of this request, the PPSA was again amended (on June 19, 2006), to among other things, further extricate Florida's PSD permitting process from its PPSA process. See, Florida Public Health Code 403.0872. Specifically, language requiring that a PPSA application for certification include “documents necessary for the department to render a decision on any permit required pursuant to any federally delegated or approved permit program” was deleted from the PPSA; language requiring that FDEP's action on a PSD permit be based on the recommended order of the PPSA certification hearing was removed; and requirements that administrative procedures used in the issuance of PSD and operating permits follow the administrative procedures of the PPSA were also removed. Following our review of both the 1993 and June 19, 2006, amendments to the PPSA, the Agency published a direct final rule on May 25, 2007, finding that the PPSA amendments provided FDEP the authority to fully implement and enforce Florida's PSD program for electric power plants located within the State and we granted it full approval to implement the State's PSD program for electric power plants subject to the PPSA. 72 FR 29287 (May 25, 2007). However, because adverse comments on the direct final rule were received, we withdrew the rule on June 28, 2007 (72 FR 35355) and indicated that the rule would not take effect. V. What is the basis for EPA's proposed SIP-approval of the inclusion of electric power plants in Florida's PSD program? EPA continues to believe, for the reasons detailed above, that the 1993 and June 2006 Florida legislative amendments to the State's PPSA rectified past concerns that the Florida PPSA infringed on FDEP's authority to issue State PSD permits to sources subject to both the State's PSD regulations and the Florida PPSA in such a manner that SIP-approval of the State's PSD program for those sources was precluded. We also believe that by proposing this SIP-approval through this rulemaking (rather than by direct final rulemaking) and in conjunction with our proposed action on the Florida PSD program SIP revisions, we have addressed the main concerns raised by commenters in response to our May 25, 2007, direct final rule. For example, a number of environmental organizations, in jointly submitted comments, expressed concern that a direct final rulemaking was not the proper process for this particular SIP action because of public interest in providing comments, that any SIP-approval to make the State's PSD program, rather than the federal PSD program, applicable to electric power plants in Florida required a full review of the State's PSD regulations to ensure compliance with federal law, and that any such SIP-approval should be done in conjunction with a review of the State's PSD regulatory revisions made for purposes of addressing EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. While EPA disagrees that our previous direct final rulemaking for this matter was not procedurally appropriate and that a wholesale revisiting of all Florida PSD regulations is required in order to make the State's PSD program applicable to sources covered by the PPSA, we believe that there is value-added to the public's review of this matter by including it with our proposed action on the State's current PSD revisions. In addition, we have, in response to other comments made on our May 2007 direct final rule, added more detail and Docket material in this proposed rulemaking action in support of the various delegations of federal authority made to FDEP since 1985 in response to the PPSA problem. Finally, with regard to several remaining comments on the May 2007 direct final rule, EPA notes that SIP approval actions, whether done through a direct final rulemaking process or a proposed/final rulemaking process are not Section 307(d) rulemakings under the CAA and do not require the inclusion of elements listed in Section 307(d)(3). Rather, EPA chooses to use the Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment rulemaking process to ensure public notice of EPA action. In any event, we believe that today's proposed rulemaking includes all information necessary for informed public comment on the proposed approval. VI. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to conditionally approve revisions to the Florida SIP (F.A.C. Chapters 62-204, 62-210 and 62-212) submitted by FDEP on February 3, 2006. As part of the conditional approval, Florida must
(1)revise the definition of “new emissions unit” to be consistent with the federal definition or revise the definition to define what is meant by “beginning normal operation” and provide an equivalency demonstration supporting the revised definition;
(2)revise the definition of “significant emissions rate” to include ozone depleting substances;
(3)withdraw the request that EPA include a significant emissions rate for mercury in the Florida SIP, specifically section 200.243(a) 2 of F.A.C. Chapter 62-210; and
(4)revise the recordkeeping requirements at 62-212.300 to be consistent with federal requirements. In addition to and in conjunction with the proposed conditional approval of Florida's PSD SIP revisions, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's concurrent February 3, 2006, request to make the State's PSD permitting program applicable to electric power plants subject to the Florida PPSA. Any final approval of this request would mean that Florida's SIP-approved PSD permitting program, including any final conditional approval of the State's PSD revisions noted above, would apply to electric power plants in Florida in lieu of the current federally delegated PSD program. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), these proposed actions are not “significant regulatory actions” and therefore are not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, these actions are also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). These proposed actions merely propose to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that the proposed approvals in this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). These proposed actions also do not have Federalism implications because they do not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). These proposed actions merely propose to approve State rules implementing a Federal standard, and do not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves State rules implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: March 27, 2008. J.I. Palmer, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. E8-7073 Filed 4-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 300 and 635 [Docket No. 080221247-8166-01] RIN 0648-AU88 International Fisheries; Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 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 to modify permitting and reporting requirements for the Highly Migratory Species
(HMS)International Trade Permit
(ITP)to improve program efficacy and enforceability, and implement the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) bluefin tuna catch documentation
(BCD)program. The modified regulations would also require that shark fin importers, exporters, and re-exporters obtain the HMS ITP to assist NMFS in monitoring trade of shark fins, and would implement the new definition of “import” contained in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents must be received on or before May 5, 2008. Comments sent to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)on the information collection requirements of the proposed rule must also be received on or before May 5, 2008. The public hearings will be held in April (see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further details). ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by “A0648-AU88”, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* • Fax: 978-281-9340, Attn: Dianne Stephan • Mail: Dianne Stephan, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1), NMFS, One Blackburn Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930 Copies of the supporting documents including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Regulatory Impact Review are available by sending your request to Dianne Stephan at the mailing address specified above. This document is also available via the internet at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/breaking_news.htm* . Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address, or may be submitted to the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, by email to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* or by fax to
(202)395-7285. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for hearing locations. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dianne Stephan, 978-281-9260. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The United States, which includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and all other U.S. commonwealths, territories, or possessions, is a member of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). The United States has implemented statistical document programs under the HMS ITP program regulations per recommendations of regional fishery management organizations (RFMOs), and U.S. authorizing legislation as outlined below. This rule replaces the ICCAT bluefin tuna statistical document program with the initial implementation of the ICCAT BCD program recommended at the 2007 ICCAT annual meeting. Other objectives of the rule are to adjust the HMS ITP regulatory program, as informed by NMFS and industry experiences since the program was implemented, and to adopt the new definition of import contained in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Lastly, the rule proposes to require permitting of shark fin traders under the HMS international trade regulations to help NMFS monitor trade of shark fins. Consignment Document Programs Several RFMOs have implemented consignment tracking such as statistical document trade tracking programs to combat illegal, unregulated, and unreported
(IUU)fishing of internationally managed species, as well as to further understand trade and markets effects on commerce of these species. Statistical documents are required when a product is exported and include information on the shipped product such as product type, species, amount, and flag nation of the harvesting vessel. The documents must accompany the product until the product is sold to a consumer, and participating nations must collect the final statistical documents and submit summarized data to the relevant RFMO for use in fishery management. A statistical document program for Atlantic bluefin tuna was implemented in the United States (60 FR 14381; March 17, 1995) pursuant to ICCAT Recommendation 92-01 and set a precedent for tracking trade from all ocean areas for recommendations pertaining to a single geographic region. The 1992 ICCAT recommendation for tracking Atlantic bluefin tuna commerce only included statistical document requirements for imports and exports of frozen product. In 1993, the program was expanded to cover fresh products (ICCAT Recommendation 93-03), and in 1997, ICCAT recommended the addition of a re-export certificate to the program (97-04). The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) implemented a statistical document program for SBT and requested non-members such as the United States to support this program. The United States implemented this program in 2005 (69 FR 67268, November 17, 2004). Based on the experience gained with the Bluefin tuna statistical document program, ICCAT recommended statistical document programs for frozen bigeye tuna and swordfish in 2000 (00-22) and established these programs in 2001 (ICCAT Recommendations 01-21 and 22, respectively). The swordfish statistical document program replaced the previously required swordfish certificate of eligibility, which had been established to enforce a minimum size on imported product and monitor trade of Atlantic swordfish (64 FR 12903, March 16, 1999). The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (Recommendation 01/06) and IATTC (Recommendation C-03-01) both adopted a statistical document program for frozen bigeye tuna similar to the ICCAT program. The United States implemented these statistical document programs for swordfish and frozen bigeye tuna in 2005 (69 FR 67268, November 17, 2004). ICCAT adopted Recommendation 07-10 at its 2007 annual meeting. The recommendation implements the BCD program. The BCD program expands the ICCAT bluefin tuna statistical document program to further track bluefin tuna consignments, beginning at the point of catch and including transit through Mediterranean farming operations, unlike the previous statistical document program, which only tracked consignments through trade to the final importer. As implemented in the previous statistical document program, the BCD program would continue to track bluefin tuna consignments through trade to the final importer. The intent of this program expansion is to further reduce IUU fishing, obtain better catch and farming data, and more effectively implement the Atlantic bluefin tuna recovery program. The United States implemented several statistical document programs in 2005 (69 FR 67268, November 17, 2004). The same rulemaking served to consolidate the new and previously existing statistical document programs into one place in the regulations (50 CFR part 300 subpart M), and unify parts of their administrative implementation. Under the 2005 rulemaking, individuals who imported, exported, or re-exported any of the covered species (bluefin tuna, swordfish, SBT, frozen bigeye tuna) were required to obtain the HMS ITP. Associated reporting requirements included completion and filing of statistical documents, re-export certificates, and biweekly reports. Since implementation of the unified program, NMFS has identified a number of adjustments that are necessary to improve the program's effectiveness and enforceability. These adjustments, along with the initial implementation of the BCD program and several other proposed actions in this rule, are classified into three areas: permitting, reporting, and regulatory structure and clarifications. Permitting Several possible adjustments in permitting requirements under the HMS ITP program were considered for the proposed rule. First, the proposed rule considers whether or not to maintain the current requirement that the entity responsible for obtaining the HMS ITP is the “consignee” as indicated on U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)entry documentation. Several alternative entities were considered for this responsibility, in order to clearly and appropriately identify the entity that would have the most consistent access to the records necessary for reporting. Ultimately, the “consignee” was identified as the individual who has the best access to necessary records; maintaining this requirement would also provide continuity with existing regulations. Second, the proposed rule would adjust the regulations to clarify that if a foreign entity is importing to, or exporting from, the United States, their U.S. resident agent or U.S. resident corporate surety provider would be required to obtain the HMS ITP. Further, a resident agent or corporate surety provider would be required to have a U.S. tax identification number to obtain an HMS ITP. These clarifications are necessary to provide consistency with CBP regulations, support regulatory enforcement, and clarify operational procedures for foreign companies wishing to trade product covered by the HMS ITP program in the United States. Third, the proposed rule would synchronize ITP regulations with the NMFS Southeast Region regulations by requiring permit holders to submit their application at least 30 days before the date upon which the applicant wants the permit to be in effect. It would also remove the regulatory language that requires NMFS to issue an ITP no later than 30 days after a complete application is received. The proposal would provide consistency within NMFS regulations, and give the applicant more input over when the permit is issued. The fourth permitting issue addressed in the proposed rule would require that shark fin importers, exporters, and re-exporters (traders) obtain an HMS ITP for entry for consumption. Export of shark fins drives much of the Atlantic shark fishery and has contributed to the overfishing of several species and landing of prohibited species in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)(72 FR 41392, July 27, 2007) states that dealers may receive up to $50 per pound for shark fins (dry weight). Several shark stock assessments were completed in 2005 and 2006 that determined that dusky sharks (landing of which is currently prohibited) and sandbar sharks are overfished with overfishing occurring, and that porbeagle sharks are overfished (71 FR 65086, November 7, 2006). Dusky sharks (before their landing was prohibited in 2000) and sandbar sharks have been heavily commercially exploited because of the high value of their fins. Draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP proposes management measures to rebuild these overfished stocks and prevent overfishing (72 FR 41392, July 27, 2007), and NMFS has previously implemented regulations to control the shark fishery by limiting the amount of shark fins that can be landed relative to the total weight of sharks landed (67 FR 6194, February 11, 2002). Once shark fins pass beyond the first-receiver of the shark products, it is difficult to track compliance with the shark fishery regulations or trace shark fins to their eventual export. Through this proposed rule, NMFS is proposing to identify the individuals involved in the shark fin trade to gain a better understanding of shark fin commerce, as well as assist with domestic enforcement of shark fishery regulations. Although the shark fin trade appears to primarily drive the shark fisheries in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, limiting the permitting requirement to traders of shark fins from these areas could make it easier to circumvent the regulations. Therefore, NMFS is proposing to require an ITP for traders in shark fins from all ocean areas. Reporting Three reporting issues are addressed in the proposed rule. The first proposed regulatory adjustment would clarify that reports must be received by NMFS by the 10th or 25th of each month (depending upon the reporting period), rather than postmarked by those dates, and would provide for the use of FAX for submitting HMS ITP reports. This adjustment was proposed to clarify the HMS ITP regulations regarding use of faxes, and to establish consistency within HMS regulations regarding the use of the date NMFS receives a document (received-by date) rather than postmark date, since it has also been proposed in Draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP (72 FR 41392, July 27, 2007). The use of a received-by date is preferred because postmark dates are not provided on a consistent basis. This adjustment is also proposed in this rule for biweekly reporting by Atlantic Tunas Dealer Permit holders. NMFS also considered removing the requirement for copies or originals of import statistical documents to be provided within 24 hours of consignment entry; however, the proposed rule would maintain the requirement to better support regulatory enforcement and provide continuity in the regulations. The second issue considered for the proposed rule includes the initial implementation of the Atlantic BCD program under ICCAT Recommendation 07-10. The BCD program would expand the ICCAT bluefin tuna statistical document program to incorporate consignment tracking beginning with documentation of vessel catch/harvest. The proposed rule would initially implement the BCD program for U.S. Atlantic bluefin tuna commercial fisheries, and all bluefin tuna imports, exports and re-exports. The United States has a sophisticated reporting program already in place that requires provision of commercial Atlantic bluefin tuna landings data to NMFS within 24 hours of landing, and identifies each landed fish with a unique, non-transferable tag assigned to the permitted dealer who receives the fish. The operational adjustments for implementing the BCD program for U.S. commercial fisheries and trade are expected to be relatively small and attainable by the international implementation date of July 1, 2008, which reflects the commitment under the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Third, the rule would provide HMS ITP holders that export domestically landed bluefin tuna with the option of reducing their reporting burden by coordinating with the Atlantic Tunas Dealer Permit
(ATDP)holder who first purchased the bluefin tuna (frequently these are the same individuals). The rule proposes to allow the HMS ITP holder to forgo biweekly reporting of domestically landed bluefin tuna exports as long as all information required for bluefin tuna exports on the International Trade biweekly is submitted on the biweekly report from the ATDP holder. The purpose of this regulatory adjustment is to clarify reporting responsibilities and reduce reporting burden. Regulatory Structure and Clarifications The first regulatory change under this heading in the proposed rule would adopt the new definition of “import” included in the Magnuson-Stevens Act as amended by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Magnuson- Stevens Reauthorization Act), Pub. L. 109-479 (2007). This new definition could be interpreted more broadly than the current definition included in the HMS ITP regulations at 50 CFR part 300 subpart M, and could result in an unintended interpretation of the HMS ITP regulations to require statistical documentation for products moving between the United States and its insular possessions with separate customs territories. Therefore, the proposed rule clarifies the new definition to ensure that the intent of the HMS ITP program to exclude products imported between the U.S. and insular possessions from this proposed rule's permitting and reporting requirements. The other alternatives would not adopt the definition included in the statute, or would adopt the definition without the additional clarification. Second under this category, the proposed rule addresses verification of the identity of foreign officials who validated statistical documents. ICCAT has established a password-protected website that identifies officials authorized to validate statistical documents. NMFS considered using this website to ensure that imports under the HMS ITP program were properly validated, including requiring importers to verify the applicable information included on the website. However, that alternative would compromise the privacy of the website by requiring release of the password to HMS ITP holders, and would increase the reporting burden on U.S. importers. Therefore, for this issue the proposed rule would not require any regulatory adjustments at this time, and multilateral discussions at ICCAT would be pursued to establish a consistent international approach for determining the validity of statistical document validation, including the possibility of allowing importer access to the ICCAT password-protected website. Third, the rule proposes that NMFS codify the new Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS)codes implemented by the U.S. International Trade Commission
(ITC)in Publication 3898, published in December 2006 and made effective by Presidential Proclamation 80-97 (72 FR 453, January 4, 2007) in February 2007. Since all products entering or exiting the United States must be identified by an HTS code, NMFS uses these codes to clearly identify the product to which trade related regulatory text applies. The rule proposes to update NMFS regulatory text at 50 CFR 300.184 with the new HTS codes for swordfish products adopted by the ITC. NMFS also considered adopting a higher hierarchical level of HTS coding to minimize the potential for future regulatory adjustments, but selected the more consistent and clear method for product identification for inclusion in the proposed rule. Fourth, the proposed rule would clarify that all individuals who participate in activities that require an HMS ITP must abide by the reporting requirements, regardless of whether or not the individuals in fact obtain the HMS ITP, as required. Authorities The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act
(ATCA)of 1975 (16 U.S.C. 971 *et seq.* ) authorizes the promulgation of regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to implement ICCAT recommendations. The Tuna Conventions Act of 1950
(TCA)(16 U.S.C. 951 *et seq.* ) authorizes rulemaking to carry out IATTC recommendations. NMFS manages the Atlantic swordfish and tuna fisheries in accordance with the Consolidated HMS FMP (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006). Regulations implementing the Consolidated HMS FMP at 50 CFR part 635 were promulgated under the authorities of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* ) and ATCA. Regulations implementing international trade provisions for HMS at 50 CFR part 300 subpart M were promulgated under the authorities of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and the TCA. NMFS manages swordfish and tuna in the Pacific Ocean under the Western Pacific Pelagics Fishery Management Plan that was prepared by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council. Regulations implementing that plan, at 50 CFR parts 300 and 660, were promulgated under the authorities of the ATCA, TCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, respectively. An FMP for U.S. West Coast HMS was developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (69 FR 18444, April 7, 2004). Other authorities relevant to Pacific management include the South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988 (16 U.S.C. 973 *et seq.* ), the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (16 U.S.C. 5501 *et seq.* ), the U.S.-Canada Albacore Treaty, and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (Public Law 109-479). Customs requirements pertaining to the import and export of product harvested by national and international swordfish and tuna fisheries include those under 19 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.* and CBP regulations, under title 19 of the CFR. Classification Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator
(AA)has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the ATCA, the TCA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. The AA has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule is necessary to implement the recommendations of ICCAT and IATTC, and is necessary for the management of bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna, swordfish, and sharks. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA)was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impacts this proposed rule would have, if adopted, on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of the preamble and the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the economic analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). The proposed programs could affect approximately 406 ATDP holders, 230 HMS ITP holders, and approximately 100 individuals who participate in international trade of shark fins, all of which are considered small entities. According to the RFA, a wholesale fish business is defined as a small entity if it employs 100 or fewer. Impacts to these entities could occur in two areas - permitting and reporting. NMFS expects only minor negative economic impacts from the proposed rule because the proposed measures only involve adjusting the permitting and reporting requirements. A description of the alternatives, associated requirements, and estimated costs follows. The issues addressed by the proposed rule are subdivided into three categories: “permitting,” “reporting” and “regulatory structure and clarification.” Only two of the issues under the category of “permitting” include alternatives that could have economic impacts. For the issue of identification of the entity responsible for obtaining the HMS ITP in importing situations, and thus for fulfilling subsequent reporting requirements, the “No Action” alternative is included in the proposed rule. This would continue to require the consignee as indicated in CBP import documentation to be the responsible party. The annual costs associated with this alternative are the costs associated with permitting (including the cost of the permit, mailing costs and time for filling out the application — estimated at $26.75 per applicant) and the cost of reporting (including filling out and submitting the report forms — estimated at $102 per dealer for biweekly reports and $94 per dealer for trade tracking documentation, for a total of $196 per dealer). Alternative Two would require that the consignee on the bill of lading obtain an HMS ITP in addition to the consignee on CBP entry documentation. The overall negative economic impact for this alternative would increase based on the number of consignees identified on import bills of lading that differ from consignees on CBP documentation. NMFS estimates the cost of this alternative to be twice that of the “No Action” Alternative included in the proposed rule, assuming that there is one additional permit holder for each current permit holder. Costs per dealer would be the same as for the “No Action” Alternative included in the proposed rule. For Alternative Three, which would require the importer of record to obtain the HMS ITP, economic impacts are estimated to be approximately the same as the “No Action” Alternative included in the proposed rule, using the assumption that there would be approximately the same number of importers of record identified on CBP entry documentation as consignees for consignments of products addressed under HMS ITP regulations. The second permitting issue with alternatives that could have economic impacts is shark fin trader permitting. The proposed rule would require that shark fin traders obtain an HMS ITP. NMFS anticipates that approximately 100 entities are expected to require the HMS ITP for shark fin trading. Since there would be no reporting requirements associated with this permit, the only costs are for obtaining the permit ($26.75 per dealer). The other alternative considered for this issue was the “No Action” Alternative. The permitting ($26.75) and reporting ($196) related costs of this alternative would apply for each current ITP holder. The second category of issues addressed in the proposed rule is under the heading of “Reporting.” None of the alternatives for these issues would change the number of entities required to obtain an HMS ITP, so there would be no permitting related costs for any of these issues. The first issue under the category of “Reporting” that has reporting-associated economic impacts includes alternatives that would adjust reporting requirements for when and how report submission would be required. Alternative One is the “No Action” alternative, and would not change any reporting regulations or associated annual costs, which are estimated at $196 per dealer. Alternative Two would rescind the requirement for copies of import statistical documents to be faxed to NMFS within 24 hours of receipt by an importer. This alternative would provide a slightly positive economic benefit in the form of a slightly reduced time burden for import reporting. Dealers would still be required to fill out and mail import statistical documents twice per month. The Preferred (third) Alternative would adjust HMS ITP and ATDP reporting regulations to use a “received-by” date rather than a postmark date for determining dealer compliance with required report submittal schedules. The ITP regulations would also be clarified to indicate when use of a fax machine would be an acceptable method for submitting a report. This alternative is expected to have no economic consequences, since it would not impact reporting frequency. The second reporting-related issue considers alternatives to initially implement ICCAT Recommendation 07-10 and the new BCD program. The proposed rule (Preferred Alternative) would implement preliminarily the program for commercial U.S. Atlantic bluefin tuna fisheries and bluefin tuna imports, exports and re-exports as part of a program that will apply to all ICCAT member nations. The BCD program would require the use of new forms with fields similar to the ICCAT bluefin tuna statistical document that was in place before the BCD program was implemented. The change in reporting burden would only affect HMS ITP holders that re-export untagged bluefin tuna. When re-exporting an untagged bluefin tuna, the HMS ITP holder would be required to send a copy of the re-export certificate to the ICCAT Secretariat and importing nation within five working days via addresses and information provided by NMFS. The costs per transaction could range from zero for electronic transmission of the documents, to approximately $100 for mailing, for an average of $50 per transaction. In 2006, 17 consignments would have been subject to this additional cost. In addition, a time burden of .25 hours per consignment would have resulted in an additional 4.25 aggregate hours for a total annual cost of $64, or $3.75 per transaction. There would be no additional costs for the No Action alternative, with current annual average costs for statistical document program reporting at $196 per dealer. The last issue under this category addresses reporting of Atlantic bluefin tuna exports. The Preferred Alternative would provide a positive economic impact, reducing the current reporting burden for individuals who hold both an ATDP and HMS ITP by clarifying that bluefin tuna exports would only need to be reported on one biweekly report. This action could positively affect the 64 individuals who concurrently hold an ATDP and HMS ITP and could save an estimated $51 per dealer per year. In addition, this alternative could reduce the reporting burden for HMS ITP holders who purchase bluefin tuna from an ATDP holder, with an estimated savings similar to those for individuals holding both permits. Alternative One, the “No Action” alternative, would continue to require reporting for both permits, and is estimated to cost each impacted dealer approximately $102 per year. Alternative Two would require that operational procedures were adjusted to mirror the current regulations. The economic impact of Alternative Two would be the same as that estimated for the “No Action” alternative. The last category of issues addressed in the proposed rule is “Regulatory Structure and Clarification,” and includes two issues that could have economic consequences. The first issue is the implementation of the new definition of “import” included in the Magnuson-Stevens Act as amended by the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act. Both the “No Action” Alternative and the Preferred Alternative would have the same economic consequences, which would be the permitting and reporting costs associated with the current HMS ITP program, averaged at $222.75 per dealer per year. The second alternative would adopt the Magnuson-Stevens Act definition of “import,” without distinguishing that consignments between the United States and its insular possessions with separate customs territories would be considered domestic interactions, as intended by RFMO consignment programs. If such consignments did require permitting and reporting under the HMS ITP program, negative economic consequences would occur which are currently unknown but, based in part on the amount of product and number of participating dealers, are expected to be minor in nature. For example, an average of four consignments from Guam to ports under U.S. Customs authority have occurred each year from 2002 through 2007. The estimated annual impact per dealer (approximately four dealers) would be $223. The last issue considered in this proposed rule that could have economic impacts addresses the verification of foreign validating officials for imports. The proposed rule includes no regulatory changes for this issue. Under the Preferred Alternative, NMFS would pursue further international coordination on this issue, and there would be no economic related consequences. Likewise, the “No Action” Alternative would not have economic consequences since it does not require any current or additional action. Alternative Two could have considerable negative economic consequences since it would require that importers check the password-protected ICCAT website to determine whether validating officials are authorized government representatives. This alternative would require computer hardware and software with Internet access. Fishermen, fish dealer permit holders, and fishery managers involved in these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, domestic laws, regulations and FMPs. These include, but are not limited to, the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. NMFS strives to ensure consistency among the regulations with Fishery Management Councils and other relevant agencies. NMFS does not believe that the proposed alternatives would conflict with any relevant regulations, federal or other. One of the requirements of an IRFA is to describe any alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives and which minimize any significant economic impacts. Economic impacts are discussed above and below. Additionally, the RFA Section 603(c)(1)-(4)) lists four categories of options which should be discussed. These categories are:
(1)establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;
(2)clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;
(3)use of performance rather than design standards; and
(4)exemptions from coverage of the rule for small entities. Under the first and fourth categories listed above, NMFS considers all dealers to be “small entities.” Thus, in order to meet the objectives of this proposed rule and address management concerns, NMFS cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements for small entities. Category Two includes options for clarifying, simplifying, and consolidating compliance and reporting requirements for small entities. Many of the measures proposed in this rule satisfy the goal of Category Two by simplifying or clarifying the existing dealer permitting or reporting structure in several instances, and by seeking further international clarity for several issues that cannot be implemented under the current program. Specifically, the proposed rule would clarify who is the entity responsible for obtaining the HMS ITP in cases involving foreign importers and would synchronize requirements between HMS ITPs and NMFS regional permits. Although alternatives are considered for modifying the entity responsible for obtaining a permit based on CBP entry documentation, the proposed rule does not modify the current regulations, which is in effect the simplest of the alternatives considered. The proposed rule would reduce and simplify reporting requirements so that reporting may be combined in certain instances when an individual holds both the HMS ITP and the ATDP, which have similar reporting requirements. A dealer holding one of these permits can also coordinate with a dealer who handles the same individual bluefin tuna but holds the other corresponding permit. The proposed rule would also clarify the use of faxes for report submission and would further consistency with other HMS regulations by establishing the “received by” date as the date used for compliance determinations. There would be some increase in reporting burden and cost because of the requirement for international communication of consignment documents directly to the ICCAT secretariat and importing nation's government agency, however costs should be minimized since affected businesses are encouraged to submit the required documentation electronically. The proposed rule also directly addresses issues of regulatory structure and clarification. The proposed rule would update certain HTS codes which would serve in part to clarify reporting. The proposed rule would also adopt the Magnuson-Stevens Act definition of import, with a clarifying caveat that consignments of affected product between insular possessions and the United States are not considered imports. Finally, the proposed rule would clarify that the regulatory requirements in 50 CFR part 300 subpart M would apply to all entities engaging in covered activities, rather than just those who obtain the required permit. Alternatives for verification of validating authorities are also considered, but because of technical difficulties, no action requiring verification of validation is included in the proposed rule. The third category identified in the RFA, “use of performance rather than design standards,” is not applicable, since ICCAT has very specific requirements for implementation of the trade tracking programs addressed in this action. Although the shark fin trade is not currently covered by an ICCAT recommendation, in order to address category two and maintain a simple structure for HMS trade permits, shark fin traders would be required to obtain an HMS ITP under the proposed rule. This proposed rule contains revisions to collection-of-information requirements previously approved by OMB under the HMS Permitting Family of Forms (0648-0327) and the HMS Dealer Reporting Family of Forms (0648-0040). The revisions are subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, and have been submitted to OMB for approval. In the HMS Permitting Family of Forms, the instrument being revised is the application for the HMS ITP for Atlantic coast dealers that import, export, or re-export bluefin tuna, southern bluefin tuna, frozen bigeye tuna, and swordfish, the public reporting burden for which is estimated at 0.08 hours (5 minutes) per response. In the HMS Dealer Reporting Family of Forms, the instruments being revised are the bluefin tuna statistical document and re-export certificate, the public reporting burden for which is estimated at .08 hours (5 minutes) per form. The statistical document will be replaced by a catch document with an equivalent reporting burden. The reporting burden for re-exports of untagged bluefin tuna is estimated to be an additional .25 hours (15 minutes) per form. These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Public comment is sought regarding: whether each of these proposed information collections is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS at the ADDRESSES above, and e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or fax to
(202)395-7285. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. Public Hearings Public hearings will be held as follows: 1. April 23, 2008, 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., NMFS Southwest Regional Office, Santa Rosa Field Office, 777 Sonoma Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95404. 2. April 24, 2008, 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., NMFS Southwest Regional Office, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. 3. April 25, 2008, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., NMFS Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 4. April 28, 2008, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., Embassy Suites Hotel, 3974 Northwest South River Drive, Miami, FL 33142. 5. April 29, 2008, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 3500 Delwood Beach Road, Panama City, FL 32408. The hearing locations are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Dianne Stephan at
(978)281-9260, at least 7 business days prior to the meeting. List of Subjects 50 CFR Part 300 Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties. 50 CFR Part 635 Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties. Dated: March 31, 2008. James W. Balsiger Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300 subpart M and part 635 are proposed to be amended as follows: CHAPTER III PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS Subpart M—International Trade Documentation and Tracking Programs for Highly Migratory Species 1. The authority citation for subpart M of part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 951-961 and 971 *et seq.* ; 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 300.181, the definitions for “Fish or fish products regulated under this subpart”, “Import”, and “Tag” are revised, and the definitions of “BCD”, “BCD tag”, “Consignment document”, “Consignment documentation programs”, and “Shark fin” are added in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 300.181 Definitions. *BCD tag* means a numbered tag affixed to a bluefin tuna issued by any country in conjunction with a catch statistics information program and recorded on a (BCD). *Bluefin Tuna Catch Document (BCD)* means an ICCAT bluefin tuna catch document. *Consignment document* means either an ICCAT Atlantic BCD or a catch document issued by a nation to comply with the ICCAT BCD program; or an ICCAT, IATTC, IOTC, or CCSBT statistical document or a statistical document issued by a nation to comply with such statistical document programs. *Consignment documentation programs* means the ICCAT, IOTC, IATTC or CCSBT catch document or statistical document programs. *Fish or fish products regulated under this subpart* means bluefin tuna, frozen bigeye tuna, southern bluefin tuna and swordfish and all such products of these species, except parts other than meat (e.g., heads, eyes, roe, guts, and tails), and shark fins. *Import* means to land on, bring into, or introduce into, or attempt to land on, bring into, or introduce into, any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, whether or not such landing, bringing or introduction constitutes an importation within the meaning of the customs laws of the United States. Import, for purposes of this subpart, does not include any activity described in the previous sentence with respect to fish caught in the exclusive economic zone or by a vessel of the United States. For purposes of this subpart, goods brought into the United States from a U.S. insular possession, or vice-versa, are not considered imports. *Shark fin* , for purposes of this subpart, means any fin removed from a shark, which is an animal of the Linnaean taxonomic superorder Selachimorpha, subclass Elasmobranchii, class Chondrichthyes. *Statistical document* means an ICCAT, IATTC, IOTC, or CCSBT statistical document, or a statistical document issued by a nation to comply with such statistical document programs. *Statistical document program* means either the ICCAT, IOTC, IATTC or CCSBT statistical document program. *Tag* means either a dealer tag or a BCD tag. 3. In § 300.182, paragraphs (a),
(b)and
(c)are revised to read as follows: § 300.182 HMS international trade permit.
(a)*General.* An importer, entering for consumption fish or fish products regulated under this subpart from any ocean area into the United States, or an exporter exporting or re-exporting such product, must possess a valid trade permit issued under this section. Importation of fish or fish products regulated under this subpart by nonresident corporations is restricted to those entities authorized under 19 CFR 141.18. A resident agent or resident corporate surety provider, as specified under 19 CFR 141.18, must possess a valid trade permit when acting on behalf of a nonresident corporation when entering for consumption, exporting, or re-exporting fish or fish products regulated under this subpart from any ocean area.
(b)*Application.* A person must apply for a permit in writing on an appropriate form obtained from NMFS. The application must be completed, signed by the applicant, and submitted with required supporting documents, at least 30 days before the date on which the applicant wants to have the permit made effective. Application forms and instructions for their completion are available from NMFS.
(c)*Issuance.* NMFS will notify the applicant of any deficiency in the application, including failure to provide information or reports required under this subpart. If the applicant fails to correct the deficiency within 30 days following the date of notification, the application will be considered abandoned. 4. Section 300.183 is revised to read as follows: § 300.183 Permit holder reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(a)*Biweekly reports.* Any person required to obtain a trade permit under § 300.182 must submit to NMFS, on forms supplied by NMFS, a biweekly report of entries for consumption, exports and re-exports of fish and fish products regulated under this subpart except shark fins.
(1)The report required to be submitted under this paragraph
(a)must be received within 10 days after the end of each biweekly reporting period in which fish or fish products regulated under this subpart except shark fins were entered for consumption, exported, or re-exported. The bi-weekly reporting periods are the first day to the 15 th day of each month, and the 16 th day to the last day of each month.
(2)Each report must specify accurately and completely the requested information for each consignment of fish or fish products regulated under this subpart, except shark fins, that is entered for consumption, exported, or re-exported.
(3)A biweekly report is not required for export consignments of bluefin tuna when the information required on the biweekly report has been previously supplied on a biweekly report submitted under § 635.5(b)(2)(i)(B) of this title, provided the person required to obtain a trade permit under § 300.182 retains, at his/her principal place of business for a period of 2 years from the date on which each report was submitted to NMFS, a copy of the biweekly report which includes the required information and is submitted under § 635.5(b)(2)(i)(B) of this title.
(b)*Recordkeeping.* Any person required to obtain a trade permit under § 300.182 must retain, at his/her principal place of business, a copy of each biweekly report and all supporting records for a period of 2 years from the date on which each report was submitted to NMFS.
(c)*Other requirements and recordkeeping requirements.* Any person required to obtain a trade permit under § 300.182 is also subject to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements identified in § 300.185.
(d)*Inspection.* Any person authorized to carry out the enforcement activities under the regulations in this subpart (authorized person) has the authority, without warrant or other process, to inspect, at any reasonable time: fish or fish products regulated under this subpart, biweekly reports, statistical documents, catch documents, re-export certificates, relevant sales receipts, import and export documentation, or other records or reports made, retained, or submitted pursuant to this subpart. A permit holder must allow NMFS or an authorized person to inspect and copy, for any fish or fish products regulated under this subpart, any import and export documentation and any reports required under this subpart, and the records, in any form, on which the completed reports are based, wherever they exist. Any agent of a person issued a trade permit under this part, or anyone responsible for importing, exporting, storing, packing, or selling fish or fish products regulated under this subpart, shall be subject to the inspection provisions of this section.
(e)*Applicability of reporting and recordkeeping requirements.* Reporting and recordkeeping requirements in this subpart apply to any person engaging in activities that require a trade permit, as set forth in § 300.182(a), regardless of whether a trade permit has been issued to that person. 5. In § 300.184, the section heading, introductory text, and paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text, (b)(1) introductory text, (c)(1) introductory text, and (d)(1) are revised and paragraph
(e)is added to read as follows: § 300.184 Species subject to permitting, documentation, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. The following fish or fish products are subject to the requirements of this subpart, regardless of ocean area of catch.
(a)* * *
(1)The requirements of this subpart apply to bluefin tuna products including those identified by the following subheading numbers from the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS):
(b)* * *
(1)The requirements of this subpart apply to southern bluefin tuna products including those identified by the following subheading numbers from the HTS:
(c)* * *
(1)The requirements of this subpart apply to frozen bigeye tuna products including those identified by the following subheading numbers from the HTS:
(d)* * *
(1)The requirements of this subpart apply to swordfish products including those identified by the following subheading numbers from the HTS:
(i)Fresh or chilled swordfish, steaks (No. 0302.67.00.10).
(ii)Fresh or chilled swordfish (No. 0302.67.00.90), excluding fish fillets, steaks, and other fish meat of HTS heading 0304.
(iii)Frozen swordfish, steaks (No. 0303.61.00.10).
(iv)Frozen swordfish (No. 0303.61.00.90), excluding fillets, steaks and other fish meat of HTS heading 0304.
(v)Fresh, or chilled swordfish, fillets and other fish meat (No. 0304.11.00.00).
(vi)Frozen swordfish, fillets (No. 0304.21.00.00).
(vii)Swordfish in bulk or in immediate containers weighing with their contents over 6.8 kg each (No. 0304.91.10.00).
(viii)Swordfish, other (No. 0304.91.90.00).
(e)*Shark fin.* The permitting requirements of this subpart apply to shark fin products including those identified by the following subheading number from HTS: No. 0305.59.20.00. 6. In § 300.185: A. The section heading and paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2(i) through (iv), (a)(3), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(3) and
(d)are revised. B. Paragraph
(e)is redesignated as paragraph (f). C. New paragraphs (a)(2)(v) through (a)(2)(ix) and
(e)are added. The revisions and additions read as follows: § 300.185 Documentation, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for consignment documents and re-export certificates.
(a)* * *
(1)*Applicability of requirements.* The documentation requirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this section apply to all imports of fish or fish products regulated under this subpart, into the Customs territory of the United States, except shark fins, or except when entered as a product of an American fishery landed overseas (HTS heading 9815). For insular possessions with customs territories separate from the Customs territory of the United States, documentation requirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this section apply only to entries for consumption. The reporting requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this section do not apply to fish products destined from one foreign country to another which transit the United States or a U.S. insular possession and are designated as an entry type other than entry for consumption as defined in § 300.181.
(2)* * *
(i)All fish or fish products except for shark fins, regulated under this subpart, imported into the Customs territory of the United States or entered for consumption into a separate customs territory of a U.S. insular possession, must, at the time of presenting entry documentation for clearance by customs authorities (e.g., CBP Forms 7533 or 3461 or other documentation required by the port director) be accompanied by an original, completed, approved, validated, species-specific consignment document.
(ii)Imports of bluefin tuna which were re-exported from another nation, must also be accompanied by an original, completed, approved, validated, species-specific re-export certificate.
(iii)Imports of fish or fish products regulated under this subpart, other than shark fins, that were previously re-exported and were subdivided or consolidated with another consignment before re-export, must also be accompanied by an original, completed, approved, validated, species-specific re-export certificate.
(iv)All other imports of fish or fish products regulated under this subpart, except shark fins, that have been previously re-exported from another nation, should have the intermediate importers certification of the original statistical document completed.
(v)Consignment documents must be validated as specified in § 300.187 by a responsible government official of the flag country whose vessel caught the fish (regardless of where the fish are first landed). Re-export certificates must be validated by a responsible government official of the re-exporting country.
(vi)A permit holder may not accept an import without the completed consignment document or re-export certificate as described in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(v) of this section.
(vii)For fish or fish products except shark fins regulated under this subpart that are entered for consumption, the permit holder must provide on the original consignment document that accompanied the consignment the correct information and importer's certification specified in § 300.186, and must note on the top of the consignment document the entry number assigned at the time of filing an entry summary (e.g., CBP Form 7501 or electronic equivalent) with customs authorities.
(viii)Bluefin tuna, imported into the Customs territory of the United States or entered for consumption into the separate customs territory of a U.S. insular possession, from a country requiring a BCD tag on all such bluefin tuna available for sale, must be accompanied by the appropriate BCD tag issued by that country, and said BCD tag must remain on any bluefin tuna until it reaches its final destination. If the final import destination is the United States, which includes U.S. insular possessions, the BCD tag must remain on the bluefin tuna until it is cut into portions. If the bluefin tuna portions are subsequently packaged for domestic commercial use or re-export, the BCD tag number and the issuing country must be written legibly and indelibly on the outside of the package.
(ix)Customs forms can be obtained by contacting the local CBP port office; contact information is available at *www.cbp.gov* . For a U.S. insular possession, contact the local customs office for any forms required for entry.
(3)*Reporting requirements.* For fish or fish products regulated under this subpart, except shark fins, that are entered for consumption and whose final destination is within the United States, which includes U.S. insular possessions, a permit holder must submit to NMFS the original consignment document that accompanied the fish product as completed under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, to be received by NMFS along with the biweekly report as required under § 300.183(a). A copy of the original completed consignment document must be submitted by said permit holder, to be received by NMFS, at an address designated by NMFS, within 24 hours of the time the fish product was entered for consumption into the Customs territory of the United States, or the separate customs territory of a U.S. insular possession.
(b)* * *
(1)*Applicability of requirements.* The documentation and reporting requirements of this paragraph
(b)apply to exports of fish or fish products regulated under this subpart, except shark fins, that were harvested by U.S. vessels and first landed in the United States, or harvested by vessels of a U.S. insular possession and first landed in that possession. This paragraph
(b)also applies to products of American fisheries landed overseas.
(2)*Documentation requirements.* A permit holder must complete an original, approved, numbered, species-specific consignment document issued to that permit holder by NMFS for each export referenced under paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Such an individually numbered document is not transferable and may be used only once by the permit holder to which it was issued to report on a specific export consignment. A permit holder must provide on the consignment document the correct information and exporter certification. The consignment document must be validated, as specified in § 300.187, by NMFS, or another official authorized by NMFS. A list of such officials may be obtained by contacting NMFS. A permit holder requesting U.S. validation for exports should notify NMFS as soon as possible after arrival of the vessel to avoid delays in inspection and validation of the export consignment.
(3)*Reporting requirements.* A permit holder must ensure that the original, approved, consignment document as completed under paragraph (b)(2) of this section accompanies the export of such products to their export destination. A copy of the consignment document must be received by NMFS, at an address designated by NMFS, within 24 hours of the time the fish product was exported from the United States or a U.S. insular possession.
(c)* * *
(1)*Applicability of requirements.* The documentation and reporting requirements of this paragraph
(c)apply to exports of fish or fish products regulated under this subpart, except shark fins, that were previously entered for consumption into the Customs territory of the United States or the separate customs territory of a U.S. insular possession, through filing the documentation specified in paragraph
(a)of this section. The requirements of this paragraph
(c)do not apply to fish or fish products destined from one foreign country to another which transit the United States or a U.S. insular possession and which are designated as an entry type other than entry for consumption as defined in § 300.181.
(2)* * *
(i)If a permit holder re-exports a consignment of bluefin tuna, or subdivides or consolidates a consignment of fish or fish products regulated under this subpart, other than shark fins, that was previously entered for consumption as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the permit holder must complete an original, approved, individually numbered, species-specific re-export certificate issued to that permit holder by NMFS for each such re-export consignment. Such an individually numbered document is not transferable and may be used only once by the permit holder to which it was issued to report on a specific re-export consignment. A permit holder must provide on the re-export certificate the correct information and re-exporter certification. The permit holder must also attach the original consignment document that accompanied the import consignment or a copy of that document, and must note on the top of both the consignment documents and the re-export certificates the entry number assigned by CBP authorities at the time of filing the entry summary.
(ii)If a consignment of fish or fish products regulated under this subpart, except bluefin tuna or shark fins, that was previously entered for consumption as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section is not subdivided into sub-consignments or consolidated, for each re-export consignment, a permit holder must complete the intermediate importer's certification on the original statistical document and note the entry number on the top of the statistical document. Such re-exports do not need a re-export certificate and the re-export does not require validation.
(3)*Reporting requirements.* For each re-export, a permit holder must submit the original of the completed re-export certificate (if applicable) and the original or a copy of the original consignment document completed as specified under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, to accompany the consignment of such products to their re-export destination. A copy of the completed consignment document and re-export certificate (if applicable) must be submitted to NMFS, at an address designated by NMFS, and received by NMFS within 24 hours of the time the consignment was re-exported from the United States. Within five days of re-export of untagged Atlantic bluefin tuna, the permit holder must email, fax, or mail a copy of the completed consignment document and re-export certificate to the ICCAT Secretariat and the importing nation, at addresses designated by NMFS.
(d)*Document completion.* To be deemed complete, a consignment document or re-export certificate must be filled out according to the corresponding instructions for each document with all requested information provided.
(e)*Recordkeeping.* A permit holder must retain at his or her principal place of business, a copy of each consignment document and re-export certificate required to be submitted to NMFS pursuant to this section, and supporting records for a period of 2 years from the date on which it was submitted to NMFS. 7. In § 300.186 the section heading and paragraphs
(a)and
(b)are revised and paragraphs
(c)through
(h)are removed to read as follows: § 300.186 Completed and approved documents.
(a)*NMFS-approved consignment documents and re-export certificates.* A NMFS-approved consignment document or re-export certificate may be obtained from NMFS to accompany exports of fish or fish products regulated under this subpart from the Customs territory of the United States or the separate customs territory of a U.S. insular possession.
(b)*Nationally approved forms from other countries.* A nationally approved form from another country may be used for exports to the United States if that document strictly conforms to the information requirements and format of the applicable RFMO documents. An approved consignment document or re-export certificate for use in countries without a nationally approved form to accompany consignments to the United States may be obtained from the following websites, as appropriate: *www.iccat.org* , *www.iattc.org* , *www.ccsbt.org* , or *www.iotc.org* . 8. In § 300.187, paragraphs (a), (b), and
(d)through
(f)are revised to read as follows: § 300.187 Validation requirements.
(a)*Imports.* The approved consignment document accompanying any import of any fish or fish product regulated under this subpart must be validated by a government official from the issuing country, unless NMFS waives this requirement pursuant to an applicable RFMO recommendation. NMFS will furnish a list of countries for which government validation requirements are waived to the appropriate customs officials. Such list will indicate the circumstances of exemption for each issuing country and the non-government institutions, if any, accredited to validate statistical documents and re-export certificates for that country.
(b)*Exports.* The approved consignment document accompanying any export of fish or fish products regulated under this subpart must be validated, except pursuant to a waiver described in paragraph
(d)of this section. Validation must be made by NMFS or another official authorized by NMFS.
(d)*Validation waiver.* Any waiver of government validation will be consistent with applicable RFMO recommendations concerning validation of consignment documents and re-export certificates. If authorized, such waiver of government validation may include exemptions from government validation for Pacific bluefin tuna with individual BCD tags affixed pursuant to paragraph
(f)of this section or for Atlantic bluefin tuna with tags affixed pursuant to § 635.5(b) of this title. Waivers will be specified on consignment documents and re-export certificates or accompanying instructions, or in a letter to permit holders from NMFS.
(e)*Authorization for non-NMFS validation.* An official from an organization or government agency seeking authorization to validate consignment documents or re-export certificates accompanying exports or re-exports from the United States, which includes U.S. commonwealths, territories, and possessions, must apply in writing, to NMFS, at an address designated by NMFS for such authorization. The application must indicate the procedures to be used for verification of information to be validated; list the names, addresses, and telephone/fax numbers of individuals to perform validation; procedures to be used to notify NMFS of validations; and an example of the stamp or seal to be applied to the consignment document or re-export certificate. NMFS, upon finding the applicant capable of verifying the information required on the consignment document or re-export certificate, will issue, within 30 days, a letter specifying the duration of effectiveness and conditions of authority to validate consignment documents or re-export certificates accompanying exports or re-exports from the United States. The effective date of such authorization will be delayed as necessary for NMFS to notify the appropriate RFMO of other officials authorized to validate consignment document or re-export certificates. Non-government organizations given authorization to validate consignment documents or re-export certificates must renew such authorization on a yearly basis.
(f)*BCD tags* -(1) *Issuance.* NMFS will issue numbered BCD tags for use on Pacific bluefin tuna upon request to each permit holder.
(2)*Transfer.* BCD tags issued under this section are not transferable and are usable only by the permit holder to whom they are issued.
(3)*Affixing BCD tags.* At the discretion of permit holders, a tag issued under this section may be affixed to each Pacific bluefin tuna purchased or received by the permit holder. If so tagged, the tag must be affixed to the tuna between the fifth dorsal finlet and the keel.
(4)*Removal of tags.* A tag, as defined in this subpart and affixed to any bluefin tuna, must remain on the tuna until it is cut into portions. If the bluefin tuna or bluefin tuna parts are subsequently packaged for transport for domestic commercial use or for export, the number of each dealer tag or BCD tag must be written legibly and indelibly on the outside of any package containing the bluefin tuna or bluefin tuna parts. Such tag number also must be recorded on any document accompanying the consignment of bluefin tuna or bluefin tuna parts for commercial use or export.
(5)*Labeling.* The tag number of a BCD tag affixed to each Pacific bluefin tuna under this section must be recorded on NMFS reports required by § 300.183, on any documents accompanying the consignment of Pacific bluefin tuna for domestic commercial use or export as indicated in § 300.185, and on any additional documents that accompany the consignment (e.g., bill of lading, customs manifest, etc.) of the tuna for commercial use or for export.
(6)*Reuse.* BCD tags issued under this section are separately numbered and may be used only once, one tag per Pacific bluefin tuna, to distinguish the purchase of one Pacific bluefin tuna. Once affixed to a tuna or recorded on any package, container or report, a BCD tag and associated number may not be reused. 9. Section 300.188 is revised to read as follows: § 300.188 Ports of entry. NMFS shall monitor the importation of fish or fish products regulated under this subpart into the United States. If NMFS determines that the diversity of handling practices at certain ports at which fish or fish products regulated under this subpart are being imported into the United States allows for circumvention of the consignment document requirement, NMFS may undertake a rulemaking to designate, after consultation with the CBP, those ports at which fish or fish products regulated under this subpart from any ocean area may be imported into the United States. 10. In § 300.189, paragraphs
(h)through (j), and
(m)are revised and paragraph
(n)is added to read as follows: § 300.189 Prohibitions.
(h)Validate consignment documents or re-export certificates without authorization as specified in § 300.187.
(i)Validate consignment documents or re-export certificates as provided for in § 300.187 with false information.
(j)Remove any NMFS-issued numbered tag affixed to any Pacific bluefin tuna or any tag affixed to a bluefin tuna imported from a country with a BCD tag program before removal is allowed under § 300.187; fail to write the tag number on the shipping package or container as specified in § 300.187; or reuse any NMFS-issued numbered tag affixed to any Pacific bluefin tuna, or any tag affixed to a bluefin tuna imported from a country with a BCD tag program, or any tag number previously written on a shipping package or container as prescribed by § 300.187.
(m)Fail to provide a validated consignment document for imports at time of entry into the Customs territory of the United States of fish or fish products regulated under this subpart except shark fins, regardless of whether the importer, exporter, or re-exporter holds a valid trade permit issued pursuant to § 300.182 or whether the fish products are imported as an entry for consumption.
(n)Import or accept an imported consignment of fish or fish products regulated under this subpart, except shark fins, without an original, completed, approved, validated, species-specific consignment document and re-export certificate (if applicable) with the required information and exporter's certification completed. CHAPTER VI PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES 11. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 635, continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 *et seq.* ; 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* § 635.2 [Amended] 12. In § 635.2, the definition of “Import” is removed. 13. In § 635.5, paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B) is revised to read as follows: § 635.5 Recordkeeping and reporting.
(b)* * *
(2)* * *
(i)* * *
(B)*Bi-weekly reports.* Each dealer with a valid Atlantic tunas permit under § 635.4 must submit a complete bi-weekly report on forms available from NMFS for BFT received from U.S. vessels. For BFT received from U.S. vessels on the 1 st through the 15 th of each month, the dealer must submit the bi-weekly report form to NMFS, to be received by NMFS, not later than the 25 th of that month. Reports of BFT received on the 16 th through the last day of each month must be received by NMFS not later than the 10 th of the following month. [FR Doc. E8-7068 Filed 4-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 071219865-7563-01] RIN 0648-AP60 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Amendment 9 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement measures in Amendment 9 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish
(MSB)Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Amendment 9 was developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) to remedy deficiencies in the FMP and to address other issues that have arisen since Amendment 8 to the FMP became effective in 1999. Amendment 9 would establish multi-year specifications for all four species managed under the FMP (mackerel, butterfish, *Illex* squid ( *Illex* ), and *Loligo* squid ( *Loligo* )) for up to 3 years; extend the moratorium on entry into the *Illex* fishery, without a sunset provision; adopt biological reference points recommended by the Stock Assessment Review Committee
(SARC)for *Loligo* ; designate essential fish habitat
(EFH)for *Loligo* eggs based on best available scientific information; and prohibit bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons. DATES: Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: A final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) was prepared for Amendment 9 that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of Amendment 9, including the FSEIS, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. The FSEIS/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at *http://www.nero.nmfs.gov* . You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AP60, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal *http://www.regulations.gov;* • Fax:
(978)281-9135, Attn: Carrie Nordeen; • Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on MSB Amendment 9.” Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF formats only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978- 281-9272, fax 978-281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This amendment is needed to remedy deficiencies in the FMP and to address other issues that have arisen since Amendment 8 to the FMP (64 FR 57587, October 26, 1999) became effective in 1999. Amendment 8 was only partially approved by NMFS because the amendment inadequately addressed some Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requirements for Federal FMPs. Specifically, the amendment was considered deficient with respect to: Consideration of fishing gear impacts on EFH as they relate to MSB fisheries; designation of EFH for *Loligo* eggs; and the reduction of bycatch and discarding of target and non-target species in the MSB fisheries. An earlier draft of Amendment 9, adopted by the Council on February 15, 2007, contained several management measures intended to address deficiencies in the MSB FMP that relate to discarding, especially as they affect butterfish. Specifically, these management measures would have attempted to reduce finfish discards by MSB small-mesh fisheries through mesh size increases in the directed *Loligo* fishery, removal of mesh size exemptions for the directed *Illex* fishery, and establishment of seasonal Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs). However, these specific management alternatives were developed in 2004, prior to the butterfish stock being declared overfished. In February 2005, NMFS notified the Council that the butterfish stock was overfished and this triggered Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to implement rebuilding measures for the stock. In response, Amendment 10 to the FMP was initiated by the Council in October 2005. Amendment 10 contains a rebuilding program for butterfish with management measures designed to reduce the fishing mortality on butterfish that occurs through discarding. Management measures that reduce the discarding of butterfish are expected to also reduce the bycatch of other finfish species in MSB fisheries. On June 13, 2007, the Council recommended that all management measures developed as part of Amendment 9 to correct deficiencies in the FMP related to bycatch of finfish, especially butterfish, be considered in Amendment 10. Accordingly, no action is proposed in Amendment 9 to address these issues. Through the development and implementation of Amendment 10, each of the measures to reduce the bycatch of finfish will be given full consideration. Additionally, Amendment 10 will include updated analyses on the effects of the alternatives and, as Amendment 10 is expected to be implemented soon after Amendment 9, no meaningful delay in addressing the bycatch deficiencies in the FMP should occur. The final version of Amendment 9 contains alternatives that consider allowing for multi-year specifications and management measures, extending or eliminating the moratorium on entry to the directed *Illex* fishery, revising the biological reference points for *Loligo* , designating EFH for *Loligo* eggs, implementing area closures to reduce gear impacts from MSB fisheries on EFH of other federally-managed species, increasing the incidental possession limit for *Illex* vessels during a closure of the *Loligo* fishery, and requiring real-time electronic reporting via vessel monitoring systems in the *Illex* fishery. The Council held four public meetings on Amendment 9 during May 2007. Following the public comment period that ended on May 21, 2007, the Council adopted Amendment 9 on August 6, 2007. This rule proposes management measures that were recommended by the Council as part of Amendment 9. Specifically, this rule proposes measures that would: Allow for multi-year specifications for all four species managed under the FMP (mackerel, butterfish, *Illex* , and *Loligo* ) for up to 3 years; extend the moratorium on entry into the *Illex* fishery, without a sunset provision; adopt biological reference points for *Loligo* recommended by the SARC; designate EFH for *Loligo* eggs based on best available science information; and prohibit bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons. A Notice of Availability
(NOA)for Amendment 9 was published on March 25, 2008. The comment period on the NOA ends on May 27, 2008. Proposed Measures The proposed regulations are based on the description of the measures in Amendment 9; NMFS seeks comments on all of the measures in Amendment 9. Multi-Year Specifications and Management Measures for MSB Regulations at § 648.21 specify that specifications for mackerel, *Illex* , and butterfish are recommended to the Council on an annual basis, and that specifications for *Loligo* may be specified for up to 3 years, subject to annual review. To streamline the administrative and regulatory process involved in setting specifications and management measures, Amendment 9 considered multi-year specifications for all four species: Mackerel, *Illex* , *Loligo* , and butterfish. Amendment 9 would not establish any specifications measures; rather it would affect the periodocity for specifying such regulatory measures through future Council actions. If the Council chose to propose multi-year specifications, Amendment 9 would require an annual review of updated information on the fishery by the MSB Monitoring Committee, as is the current practice, during the period of the multi-year specifications. The MSB Monitoring Committee would examine data collected from the fishery and resource surveys and would alert the Council of any changes, including those of stock status, that might require a revision to the specifications before the multi-year period elapses. The proposed measure would allow for specifications and management measures for any or all of the four species in the FMP to be set for up to 3 years, subject to annual review. In the past, the specifications and management measures for MSB fisheries have remained fairly constant across years. This proposed measure would still enable the Council to respond to changes in stock status, in any given year, by modifying quotas or management measures. However, if changes were not necessary, the Council and NMFS would not have to recommend and implement annual specifications and management measures. Because this proposed measure is largely administrative, it is not anticipated that there will be effects on the environment. This proposed measure does have the potential to provide MSB fishery participants with an expanded planning horizon for harvesting and processing activities; therefore, it may have positive economic effects for MSB fishery participants. Moratorium on Entry into the *Illex* Fishery A fishery is considered overcapitalized when the harvest potential of the fishing fleet exceeds the harvest at optimum yield (OY). Amendment 9 considers the *Illex* fishery overcapitalized; therefore, this amendment considered alternatives that would limit the potential for increases in the harvest capacity of the large-scale, directed *Illex* fishery. In order to prevent excess harvest capacity from developing in the large-scale, directed *Illex* fishery, a moratorium on new entry into this fishery was established in 1997. In the directed fishery, moratorium-permitted vessels are not subject to any daily *Illex* possession limit. As such, the maximum potential *Illex* landings for moratorium-permitted vessels are unlimited until 95 percent of the annual harvest quota has been achieved in any given year. Once 95 percent of the annual quota has been harvested, the possession limit for vessels with *Illex* moratorium permits becomes 10,000 lb (4.54 mt). The moratorium on new entry was initially scheduled to expire in 2002, but has been extended several times through framework actions. Currently, the moratorium is scheduled to expire in July 2009. Throughout the year, a small-scale, incidental catch fishery for *Illex* is currently provided for through an open-access Federal permit that allows possession of up to 10,000 lb (4.54 mt) of *Illex* on a single trip. In addition to the 10,000-lb (4.54-mt) trip allowance for *Illex* , vessels in possession of this permit are also allowed to land 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of *Loligo* squid and 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of butterfish in a single trip. The Council has not proposed any modifications to this permit in Amendment 9. Under the proposed *Illex* measure, the scheduled expiration of the moratorium would be eliminated. As such, new entry into the directed commercial fishery for *Illex* would be prohibited indefinitely. The transfer of moratorium permits from one participant to another would only be allowed through the transfer of ownership of a permitted vessel. Since its implementation in 1997, there has been a slight decline in the number of vessels issued an *Illex* moratorium permit in any given year, from a maximum of 77 in 1998, to 72 in 2003. Under the proposed action, the size of the directed *Illex* fleet could not expand beyond the number of permitted vessels in the year in which Amendment 9 is implemented, thereby preventing expansion in a fishery that is already overcapitalized and offering the greatest degree of protection to historic participants in the directed *Illex* fishery. The proposed measure is anticipated to have economic benefits for historical participants already possessing *Illex* moratorium permits and the potential to negatively affect those wanting to become an *Illex* fishery participant in the future. Biological Reference Points for *Loligo* Regulations at § 600.315 state that conservation and management measures should be based upon the best scientific information available, and that FMPs should be amended on a timely basis, as new information indicates the necessity for change in objectives or management measures. Therefore, Amendment 9 considered revising the proxies for target and threshold fishing mortality rates, F Target and F Threshold , respectively, for *Loligo* to reflect the analytical advice provided by the most recent *Loligo* stock assessment review committee (SARC 34). While Amendment 9 considered revising the formulas and values for these reference points, the function of the reference points remains unchanged. F Target is the basis for determining OY and F Threshold determines whether overfishing is occurring. Because *Loligo* is a sub-annual species (i.e., has a lifespan of less than 1 year), the stock is solely dependent on sufficient recruitment year to year to prevent stock collapse. The status quo proxies for F Target (75 percent of the fishing morality rate supporting maximum sustainable yield (F Max )) and F Threshold (F Max ) may be too liberal and subject the *Loligo* stock to overfishing. The revised proxies for F Target and F Threshold proposed in this rule are fixed values based on average fishing mortality rates achieved during a time period when the stock biomass was fairly resilient (1987 - 2000). The revised proxies are calculated as follows: F Target is the 75th percentile of fishing mortality rates during 1987 - 2000 and F Threshold is the average fishing mortality rates during the same period. The revised proxy for F Target (0.32 or 0.24 for trimesters and quarters, respectively) would be used as the basis for establishing *Loligo* OY. However, it should be noted that it is currently not possible to accurately predict *Loligo* stock biomass because recruitment, which occurs throughout the year, is highly variable inter-annually and influenced by changing environmental conditions. Biological reference points that ensure an adequate number of spawners produce adequate recruitment in the subsequent year are considered most appropriate for squid species. However, until such reference points can be reliably estimated for the *Loligo* stock, the revised reference points in Amendment 9 and proposed in this rule would serve as an intermediate step for calculating harvest levels that are more robust, with respect to stock sustainability, than status quo reference points. Designation of EFH for *Loligo* Eggs Amendment 9 considered designating EFH for *Loligo* eggs in order to bring the FMP into compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement that FMPs describe and identify EFH for each life history stage of a managed species. The MSB FMP currently identifies and describes EFH for all life stages of MSB species for which information is available, with the exception of *Loligo* eggs. *Loligo* eggs are found attached to rocks and boulders on sand or mud bottom, as well as attached to aquatic vegetation in coastal and offshore bottom habitats from Georges Bank southward to Cape Hatteras. Generally, the following conditions exist where *Loligo* egg EFH is found: Bottom water temperatures between 10° C and 23° C; salinities of 30 to 32 ppt; and depths less than 50 m. Locations of fishery interactions with *Loligo* eggs are reported in Hatfield, E. M. C. and S. X. Cadrin. 2002. Geographic and temporal patterns in size and maturity of the longfin inshore squid ( *Loligo pealeii* ) off the northeastern United States. Fish. Bull. 100 (2): 200-213. This action proposes to add the above description of EFH for *Loligo* eggs to the FMP. Some Council members expressed concern that the proposed *Loligo* egg EFH areas are based on anecdotal information (i.e., interviews with fishermen). Also, they considered it likely that the proposed EFH areas are not constant, but instead shift from year to year. Nevertheless, the information on the locations of *Loligo* eggs provided in Hatfield and Cadrin
(2002)is the best scientific information that is currently available. Additionally, EFH designations are meant to include habitat areas used in different years. Failure to designate EFH for *Loligo* eggs in Amendment 9 would be inconsistent with the EFH requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. To the degree that EFH is vulnerable to damage by fishing and/or non-fishing activities, management oversight of these activities in areas designated as EFH for a given life stage of any managed resource will allow for direct and indirect benefits for that resource. That oversight cannot occur, however, without first identifying the geographical locations of EFH. Amendment 9 identifies EFH for *Loligo* eggs based upon documented observations. By implementing this action, fishing and/or non-fishing activities would not be restricted. However, a requirement would be established whereby NMFS must be consulted to determine whether future Federal non-fishing activities would adversely impact *Loligo* egg EFH. Also, potential adverse impacts of MSB fisheries on *Loligo* egg EFH would have to be evaluated in a future management action. A range of habitat protection measures exist that could be implemented if protection of *Loligo* egg EFH is determined to be necessary. The common feature of these measures is that they conserve or enhance EFH. This could be accomplished by preventing or mitigating non-fishing activities in EFH areas or by reducing fishing effort, or restricting the use of certain gear types or configurations in those areas. Habitat protection provided by these actions would also be extended to other species and ecosystem functions that utilize or are affected by *Loligo* egg EFH. Prohibition on Bottom Trawling to Reduce Gear Impacts on EFH by MSB Fisheries Amendment 9 considered reducing gear impacts on EFH by MSB fisheries in order to bring the FMP into compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. The FMP currently lacks adequate analysis of the effects of MSB fisheries on EFH for federally managed species within the geographic scope of the MSB fisheries. Such an analysis has been conducted as part of Amendment 9, and the results indicate that actions could be taken that would reduce impacts to EFH for federally managed species related to the activities of the MSB fisheries by prohibiting bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels. The proposed action is not intended to minimize adverse impacts to EFH for *Loligo* , *Illex* , mackerel, or butterfish, since EFH for the pelagic life stages of these species was determined to be not vulnerable to the effects of fishing. This action proposes to prohibit bottom trawling in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons by MSB-permitted vessels. MSB-permitted vessels transiting these canyons would need to stow all bottom trawl gear. While Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons are only minimally used by vessels with bottom trawl gear, this action will prevent future expansion of MSB fisheries into these canyons. This prohibition was determined to be practicable by the Council and is similar to regulations associated with the New England Fishery Management Council's Monkfish FMP (i.e., vessels on a monkfish day-at-sea are prohibited from entering these canyons). Even though this action does not prohibit bottom trawling by other federally permitted vessels in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons, this prohibition would benefit habitat in these canyons by deceasing localized damage from bottom trawling. Decreased fishery interactions with the managed stocks, non-target species, and protected and endangered species in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons are also expected, and this would correspond to localized benefits to these resources. The areas affected by the proposed measure represent 3 percent of the total EFH for juvenile tilefish, but not more than 2 percent for any other species. Short-term costs to fishery participants are related to the size of the area where bottom trawling would be prohibited and how frequently those areas are utilized by fishery participants (see IRFA for complete economic analysis). The prohibition of bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons is likely to have a minimal impact on revenues both for vessel owners and ports. Other restricted area alternatives considered by the Council would have provided greater habitat protection, but were not practicable because their potential economic impact would be higher. Public comments are being solicited on Amendment 9 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period, May 27, 2008, stated in the NOA for Amendment 9 (73 FR 15716, March 25, 2008). Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by May 27, 2008, the end of the comment period specified in the NOA for Amendment 9, to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by May 27, 2008, whether specifically directed to Amendment 9 or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 9. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove Amendment 9. To be considered, comments must be received by 5 pm, eastern standard time, on the last day of the comment period. Classification Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Council prepared an FSEIS for Amendment 9; a notice of availability was published on March 28, 2008 (73 FR 16672). The FSEIS describes the impacts of the proposed Amendment 9 measures on the environment. The proposed measures that would allow for multi-year specifications and revised biological reference points for *Loligo* are largely administrative. However, they will provide for an expanded planning horizon for harvesting and processing activities and a fixed constant as a basis for the fishing target definition, respectively. The measure to designate EFH for *Loligo* eggs will not directly affect the environment, but it will allow future impacts to EFH for *Loligo* eggs to be identified and mitigated. Extending the moratorium on entry into the *Illex* fishery without a sunset provision and prohibiting bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons will have short-term, negative economic impacts, but are expected to have long-term benefits on the biological and physical environment. The IRFA for this action is summarized below, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble of this rule. A summary of the IRFA follows: Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Would Apply There are no large entities participating in this fishery, as none grossed more than 4 million dollars annually, therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts on small entities. The proposed measures in Amendment 9 would affect all MSB-permitted vessels; however, many of the proposed measures (e.g., multi-year specifications, revised biological reference points for *Loligo* , designation of EFH for *Loligo* eggs) are not expected to have direct economic impacts. Section 6.5 (Human Communities) in Amendment 9 describes the number of vessels, key ports, and revenue information for each of the MSB fisheries; therefore, that information is not repeated here. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements This action does not contain any new collection-of-information, reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action Compared to Significant Non-Selected Alternatives As described previously, several of the proposed measures in Amendment 9 are not anticipated to have direct economic effects on MSB fisheries. Implementing multi-year specifications and management measures for all four managed species has the potential to provide MSB fishery participants with an expanded planning horizon for harvesting and processing activities. Therefore, it may have positive economic effects for MSB fishery participants when compared to the non-selected alternative of no action (annual specifications and management measures for mackerel, *Illex* , and butterfish; multi-year specifications and management measures for *Loligo* ). This could lead to better business plans and ultimately greater economic benefits. Amendment 9 contained two alternatives that would have provided for multi-year specifications and management measures; the proposed action allows for multi-year specifications for up to 3 years, subject to annual review, and a non-selected alternative would have provided for multi-year specifications for up to 5 years, subject to annual review. The 3-year alternative was selected as the proposed action because management based on 3-year stock projections, rather than 5-year stock projections, is likely more appropriate for MSB species, given their relatively brief life spans, but it is difficult to assign a dollar value to this effect. The proposed revisions to biological reference points (F Target and F Threshold ) for *Loligo* are primiarily administrative and are not expected to have direct economic effects on fishery participants. Revising the reference points is consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to use the best scientific information available, as compared to the non-selective alternative of no action (using status quo reference points for F Target and FThreshold), but the economic impacts of the proposed action are difficult to predict. The revised reference points are not expected to result in an immediate change in the *Loligo* quota; the annual quota has been set at 17,000 mt each year since 2001. Consumer demand for *Loligo* will affect *Loligo* prices, which, in turn, will result in economic impacts on *Loligo* harvesters, processors, and consumers that are currently unquantifiable. To those consumers for whom *Loligo* is a desirable food item, increased availability of the resource, if it occurs, would be expected to provide a beneficial effect. If, on the other hand, the *Loligo* stock size decreases such that harvest costs increase, then *Loligo* prices would be expected to increase. Because the revised biological reference points are considered more robust, with respect to stock sustainability, than the status quo reference points, it is expected that there would be some long-term economic benefits associated with the revised reference points as compared to benefits associated with the status quo reference points. Additionally, the proposed measure of designating EFH for *Loligo* eggs is not anticipated to have any direct economic effects on MSB participants, when compared to the non-selected alternative of not designating EFH for *Loligo* eggs. Designating EFH for *Loligo* eggs does not result in an immediate action that would restrict fishing or non-fishing activities. However, a requirement would be established whereby consultation with NMFS would be required for future Federal fishing and non-fishing activities that may adversely affect *Loligo* egg EFH. The proposed meaure has the potential to indirectly impact human communities if, at some point in the future, management actions are implemented in order to reduce fishing effort or decrease non-fishing impacts in those EFH areas. Because the specifics of any future actions are speculative at this point, it is unclear what the nature of the impacts on human communities, if any, would be. In the long term, however, protection of habitat needed by *Loligo* eggs is expected to improve the sustainability of the *Loligo* resource, and other managed resources that share those habitats, indirectly benefitting human communities dependent on those resources. An analysis of the likely impacts of specific future actions would be required prior to their implementation. Amendment 9 contains two proposed measures that may have economic effects on MSB fisheries. The first of these proposed measures is extending the moratorium on entry into the *Illex* fishery, without a sunset provision. Because the present fleet is capable of harvesting in excess of the recent *Illex* quota of 24,000 mt, there is a clear need for a moratorium on entry into the fishery. International market reports suggesting that the world supplies of squid will be tight for several years and, therefore, prices are expected to be high, coupled with the fact that resource productivity is low to moderate, supports making the moratorium permanent. Unfortunately, the benefits and costs of the moratorium options cannot be easily analyzed. The available information suggests that, if the moratorium were terminated (a non-selected alternative) or were allowed to expire in 2009 (a non-selected alternative), and economic and resource conditions remain relatively unchanged from recent levels, there would not be any substantial increase in landings of *Illex* relative to the landings likely to occur, with or without a moratorium. If, however, economic conditions changed to promote increased activity on *Illex* as occurred in 2004, landings of *Illex* would increase. Moratorium alternatives offer protection against risk of an expanding fishery and risk of further depressing the resource. These options, however, do not appear to generate landings, revenue, or potential benefit streams any different that those levels most likely to occur with a removal of the moratorium (given current conditions). Moratorium alternatives (without a sunset provision (proposed action) or without a sunset provision, but allowing new entry through permit transfer (a non-selected alternative)) would impose some short-term costs in that they constrain expansion of the fishery, either until 2009 or permanently. That is, individuals desiring to enter the fishery would be denied the potential revenues that might be realized if they could land more *Illex* , unless they purchased an *Illex* permitted vessel (proposed action) or an existing *Illex* permit (non-selected alternative). Failure to extend the moratorium could result in further overcapitalization of this sector of the fishing industry, which in turn could have negative economic consequences for the vessels and communities that depend upon the *Illex* resource. Extension of the *Illex* moratorium program would provide positive benefits to the communities that are dependent on the commercial *Illex* fishery. The primary ports and surrounding communities where *Illex* are landed would be the most affected by this action (see Section 6.5.1 of Amendment 9 for information on primary ports). The second proposed measure in Amendment 9 that may have economic effects on MSB fisheries is prohibiting bottom trawling in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons by MSB-permitted vessels. The proposed action and non-selected alternatives prohibiting bottom trawling (either at the head of Hudson Canyon or in the tilefish habitat area of particular concern (HAPC)) would benefit habitat in the closed areas by decreasing localized damage from bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels as compared to the no action, non-selected alternative (no new areas closed to bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels). Decreased fishery interactions with the managed stocks, non-target species, and protected and endangered species are also expected to be associated with action alternatives, and this would correspond to localized benefits to these resources. Short-term costs to fishery participants are related to the size of the closure area. Analyses of ex-vessel revenues from MSB-permitted bottom trawl vessels were conducted for 2001-2004. The results indicated that closing tilefish HAPC (non-selected alternative) to bottom otter trawling during that period would have reduced annual revenue from bottom otter trawling by 10 percent or more for about 162 MSB-permitted vessels. With regard to port impacts, ex-vessel revenues from MSB-permitted bottom trawling in the tilefish HAPC area represented large percentages of total revenues (30 - 50 percent) from Point Judith, RI; Point Pleasant, NJ; Montauk, NY; Point Lookout, NY; and Hampton Bays, NY. Closing the Head of Hudson Canyon (non-selected alternative) to bottom otter trawling in 2001-2004 would have reduced ex-vessel revenues by 10 percent or more for about 64 MSB-permitted bottom trawl vessels. Ports that would experience the greatest percentage of revenue loss consist of Belford, NJ (13.9 percent); Elizabeth, NJ (16.5 percent); Point Pleasant, NJ (33.6 percent); and Point Lookout, NY (46.6 percent). Geographical analysis of fishing effort reveals minimal use of bottom trawl gear in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons; therefore, the closure of Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons (proposed action) would likely have minimal impacts on revenues both for vessel owners and ports. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Dated: March 28, 2008. James W. Balsiger, Acting Assistant Administrator For Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(5)(i) is revised to read as follows: § 648.4 Vessel permits.
(a)* * *
(5)* * *
(i)*Loligo* squid/butterfish and *Illex* squid moratorium permits. 3. In § 648.14, paragraph (p)(12) is added to read as follows: § 648.14 Prohibitions.
(p)* * *
(12)Enter or be in the areas described at § 648.23(a)(5). 4. In § 648.20, paragraph
(b)is revised to read as follows: § 648.20 Maximum optimum yield.
(b)*Loligo* - the catch associated with a fishing mortality rate of F Threshold . 5. In § 648.21, paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) are revised to read as follows: § 648.21 Procedures for determining initial annual amounts. (a)* * *
(1)Initial OY (IOY), including research quota (RQ), domestic annual harvest (DAH), and domestic annual processing
(DAP)for *Illex* squid, which, subject to annual review, may be specified for a period of up to 3 years;
(2)IOY, including RQ, DAH, DAP, and bycatch level of the total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF), if any, for butterfish, which, subject to annual review, may be specified for a period of up to 3 years;
(3)IOY, including RQ, DAH, DAP, joint venture processing (JVP), if any, and TALFF, if any, for mackerel, which, subject to annual review, may be specified for a period of up to 3 years. The Monitoring Committee may also recommend that certain ratios of TALFF, if any, for mackerel to purchases of domestic harvested fish and/or domestic processed fish be established in relation to the initial annual amounts.
(4)Initial OY (IOY), including research quota (RQ), domestic annual harvest (DAH), and domestic annual processing
(DAP)for *Loligo* squid, which, subject to annual review, may be specified for a period of up to 3 years; and 6. In § 648.23, paragraph (a)(5) is added to read as follows: § 648.23 Gear restrictions.
(a)* * *
(5)*Mackerel, squid, and butterfish bottom trawling restricted areas* -(i) *Oceanographer Canyon* . No permitted mackerel, squid, or butterfish vessel may fish with bottom trawl gear in the Oceanographer Canyon or be in the Oceanographer Canyon unless transiting. Vessels may transit this area provided the bottom trawl gear is stowed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph
(b)of this section. Oceanographer Canyon is defined by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated (copies of a chart depicting this area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request): Oceanographer Canyon Point N. Lat. W. Long. OC1 40°10.0′ 68°12.0′ OC2 40°24.0′ 68°09.0′ OC3 40°24.0′ 68°08.0′ OC4 40°10.0′ 67°59.0′ OC1 40°10.0′ 68°12.0′
(ii)*Lydonia Canyon* . No permitted mackerel, squid, or butterfish vessel may fish with bottom trawl gear in the Lydonia Canyon or be in the Lydonia Canyon unless transiting. Vessels may transit this area provided the bottom trawl gear is stowed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph
(b)of this section. Lydonia Canyon is defined by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated (copies of a chart depicting this area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request): Lydonia Canyon Point N. Lat. W. Long. LC1 40°16.0′ 67°34.0′ LC2 40°16.0′ 67°42.0′ LC3 40°20.0′ 67°43.0′ LC4 40°27.0′ 67°40.0′ LC5 40°27.0′ 67°38.0′ LC1 40°16.0′ 67°34.0′ [FR Doc. E8-7025 Filed 4-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 66 Friday, April 4, 2008 Notices AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Public Meeting on Proposed Partner Vetting System AGENCY: U.S. Agency for International Development. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: USAID will host a meeting for interested parties regarding the proposed Partner Vetting System. Following our System of Records Notice: July 17-August 27, 2007; Rulemaking Notice: July 20-Sept. 18, 2007; Paperwork Reduction Act Notices: July 23-Dec. 3, 2007; and Congressional consultations, USAID is interested in gathering feedback prior to the issuance of a final rule and initial implementation of the system. The goal of this meeting is to answer concerns raised during the public comment periods on this subject and to touch upon the results of our consultations thus far. DATES: This meeting will be held on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at U.S. Agency for International Development, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Photo ID required for admittance into the Ronald Reagan Building as well as USAID. Note: Due to security RSVP required. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RSVP to Todd Calongne, 202-712-0059, *tcalongne@usaid.gov.* Dated: March 31, 2008. Jeffrey Grieco, Assistant Administrator for Legislative and Public Affairs. [FR Doc. E8-6987 Filed 4-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6116-01-P AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002; Notice On May 15, 2002, Congress enacted the “Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002,” which is now known as the No FEAR Act. One purpose of the Act is to “require that Federal agencies be accountable for violations of antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws.” Public Law 107-174, Summary. In support of this purpose, Congress found that “agencies cannot be run effectively if those agencies practice or tolerate discrimination.” Public Law 107-174, Title I, General Provisions, section 101(1). The Act also requires this agency to provide this notice to Federal employees, former Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment to inform you of the rights and protections available to you under Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws. Antidiscrimination Laws A Federal agency cannot discriminate against an employee or applicant with respect to the terms, conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status or political affiliation. Discrimination on these bases is prohibited by one or more of the following statutes: 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1), 29 U.S.C. 206(d), 29 U.S.C. 631, 29 U.S.C. 633a, 29 U.S.C. 791 and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16. This agency also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. The right to address sexual orientation discrimination derives from Executive Order 13087. If you believe that you have been the victim of unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, parental status or sexual orientation you must contact an Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO)counselor within 45 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory action, or, in the case of a personnel action, within 45 calendar days of the effective date of the action, before you can file a formal complaint of discrimination with the Agency. *See, e.g.* , 29 CFR 1614. If you believe that you have been the victim of unlawful discrimination on the basis of age, you must either contact an EEO counselor as noted above or give notice of intent to sue to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC)within 180 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory action. If you are alleging discrimination based on marital status or political affiliation, you may file a written complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel
(OSC)(see contact information below). In the alternative (or in some cases, in addition), you may pursue a discrimination complaint by filing a grievance through the Agency's administrative or negotiated grievance procedures, if such procedures apply and are available. Whistleblower Protection Laws A Federal employee with authority to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action must not use that authority to take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel action against an employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that individual that is reasonably believed to evidence violations of law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, unless disclosure of such information is specifically prohibited by law and such information is specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs. Retaliation against an employee or applicant for making a protected disclosure is prohibited by 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8). If you believe that you have been the victim of whistleblower retaliation, you may file a written complaint (Form OSC-11) with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel at 1730 M Street, NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036-4505 or online through the OSC Web site *http://www.osc.gov.* Retaliation for Engaging in Protected Activity A Federal agency cannot retaliate against an employee or applicant because that individual exercises his or her rights under any of the Federal antidiscrimination or whistleblower protection laws listed above. If you believe that you are the victim of retaliation for engaging in protected activity, you must follow, as appropriate, the procedures described in the Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws sections or, if applicable, the administrative or negotiated grievance procedures in order to pursue any legal remedy. Disciplinary Actions Under the existing laws, each agency retains the right, where appropriate, to discipline a Federal employee for conduct that is inconsistent with Federal Antidiscrimination and Whistleblower Protection Laws up to and including removal. If OSC has initiated an investigation under 5 U.S.C. 1214, however, according to 5 U.S.C. 1214(f), agencies must seek approval from the Special Counsel to discipline employees for, among other activities, engaging in prohibited retaliation. Nothing in the No FEAR Act alters existing laws or permits an agency to take unfounded disciplinary action against a Federal employee or to violate the procedural rights of a Federal employee who has been accused of discrimination. Additional Information For further information regarding the No FEAR Act regulations, refer to 5 CFR 724. You may also contact the USAID Office of Equal Opportunity Programs (EOP). Additional information regarding Federal antidiscrimination, whistleblower protection and retaliation laws can be found at the EEOC Web site *http://www.eeoc.gov* and the OSC Web site *http://www.osc.gov.* Existing Rights Unchanged Pursuant to section 205 of the No FEAR Act, neither the Act nor this notice creates, expands or reduces any rights otherwise available to any employee, former employee or applicant under the laws of the United States, including the provisions of law specified in 5 U.S.C. 2302(d). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa M. Lawler by telephone at
(202)712-0111; by FAX at
(202)216-3370; or by e-mail at *llawler@usaid.gov.* Dated: March 28, 2008. Jessalyn L. Pendarvis, Director, Office of Equal Opportunity Programs. [FR Doc. E8-6990 Filed 4-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6116-01-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. No. AMS-TM-08-0021; TM-08-04] Notice of Meeting of the National Organic Standards Board AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)is announcing a forthcoming meeting of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). DATES: The meeting dates are Tuesday, May 20, 2008, 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Wednesday, May 21, 2008, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and Thursday, May 22, 2008, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Requests from individuals and organizations wishing to make oral presentations at the meeting are due by the close of business on May 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at The Holiday Inn Inner Harbor Hotel, 301 W. Lombard Street, Baltimore, MD 21201. • Requests for copies of the NOSB meeting agenda, may be sent to Ms. Valerie Frances, Executive Director, NOSB, USDA-AMS-TMP-NOP, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 4008-So., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC 20250-0268. The NOSB meeting agenda and proposed recommendations may also be viewed at *http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop* . • Comments on proposed NOSB recommendations may be submitted by May 5, 2008 in writing to Ms. Frances at either the postal address above or via the internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* only. The comments should identify Docket No. AMS-TM-08-0021. It is our intention to have all comments to this notice whether they are submitted by mail or the internet available for viewing on the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. • Requests to make an oral presentation at the meeting may also be sent by May 5, 2008 to Ms. Valerie Frances at the postal address above, by email at *valerie.frances@usda.gov* , via facsimile at
(202)205-7808, or phone at
(202)720-3252. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Frances, Executive Director, NOSB, National Organic Program (NOP),
(202)720-3252, or visit the NOP Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 2119 (7 U.S.C. 6518) of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 6501 *et seq.* ) requires the establishment of the NOSB. The purpose of the NOSB is to make recommendations about whether a substance should be allowed or prohibited in organic production or handling, to assist in the development of standards for substances to be used in organic production, and to advise the Secretary on other aspects of the implementation of the OFPA. The NOSB met for the first time in Washington, DC, in March 1992, and currently has six subcommittees working on various aspects of the organic program. The committees are: Compliance, Accreditation, and Certification; Crops; Handling; Livestock; Materials; and Policy Development. In August of 1994, the NOSB provided its initial recommendations for the NOP to the Secretary of Agriculture. Since that time, the NOSB has submitted 154 addenda to its recommendations and reviewed more than 327 substances for inclusion on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. The Department of Agriculture
(USDA)published its final National Organic Program regulation in the **Federal Register** on December 21, 2000, (65 FR 80548). The rule became effective April 21, 2001. In addition, the OFPA authorizes the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances and provides that no allowed or prohibited substance would remain on the National List for a period exceeding 5 years unless the exemption or prohibition is reviewed and recommended for renewal by the NOSB and adopted by the Secretary of Agriculture. This expiration is commonly referred to as sunset of the National List. The National List appears at 7 CFR Part 205, Subpart G. The principal purposes of the NOSB meeting are to provide an opportunity for the NOSB to receive an update from the USDA/NOP and hear progress reports from NOSB committees regarding work plan items and proposed action items. The last meeting of the NOSB was held on November 28-30, 2007 in Arlington, VA. At its last meeting, the Board recommended the addition of 3 materials to the National List § 205.601 for use in crops and § 205.605 for use in handling. In addition, the Board also nearly completed the sunset review process for 11 of the 13 materials for use in crops and handling which are due to expire on November 3, 2008 and November 4, 2008. Of these 11 materials, there are 9 substances for use in crops and handling placed on the National List on November 3, 2003, and are scheduled to expire on November 3, 2008. Four substances for use in handling were placed on the National List on November 4, 2003, and are scheduled to expire on November 4, 2008. They will be making final recommendations on these 11 materials at this meeting. Two forms of Tartaric acid, for use in handling in § 205.605(a) and
(b)for which the Board has not completed its review, were placed on the National List on November 3, 2003, and are scheduled to expire on November 3, 2008. The sunset review process for these two forms of Tartaric acid must be concluded no later than November 3, 2008. If renewal is not concluded by this date, the use or prohibition of these 2 forms of Tartaric acid will no longer be in compliance with the National Organic Program. The Policy Development Committee will present recommendations regarding revisions to the NOSB Policy and Procedures Manual and the Guide for new NOSB members as well as discuss their on-going collaboration with the NOP to review the NOP responses to prior NOSB recommendations. The Compliance, Accreditation, and Certification Committee and the Crops Committee will jointly present their recommendation offering guidance for accredited certifying agents regarding annual commercial availability determinations for organic seed sourcing by farmers under § 205.204. The Crops Committee will present recommendations on the materials Tetracycline, Cheesewax, Dextrin, and Sorbitol octanoate petitioned for use on § 205.601. The Committee will also present their recommendations on the continued use or prohibition of Copper sulfate, Ozone gas, Peracetic acid, and EPA List 3—Inerts of unknown toxicity, with their respective annotations and limitations. These exemptions are due to expire on November 3, 2008, from § 205.601. The Committee will also present their recommendation on the continued use or prohibition of Calcium chloride for use as a brine-sourced foliar spray. Calcium chloride is otherwise considered a prohibited natural substance in § 205.602 and is also due to expire on November 3, 2008. The Crops Committee and the Livestock Committee will jointly present their recommendation on the development of standards for organic aquatic plants in organic aquaculture. The Livestock Committee will present its recommendation on the material Fenbendazole petitioned for use in § 205.603. The Committee will present its recommendations on the petition to remove the expiration date of October 21, 2008 on the following three substances: DL-Methionine, DL-Methionine-Hydroxy Analog; and DL-Methionine-Hydroxy Analog Calcium—for use only in organic poultry production in § 205.603. The Committee will also present recommendations on the use of fish feed and open net pens in regards to the development of organic aquaculture standards for finfish. The Handling Committee will present their recommendations on the materials Sodium chlorite, acidified and Calcium, derived from seaweed petitioned for inclusion in § 205.605 for use in organic products. The Committee will present their recommendations on the 24 materials Black Pepper, Buck Hull Powder, Camu Camu Extract, Caramel Color, Chinese Thistle Daisy Extract, Chlorella algae, Codonopsis Root Extract, Dumontiacae algae, Ginger Root Extract, Jujube Fruit Extract, Kombu seaweed, Ligusticum Root Extract, Marsala Cooking Wine, Oatbran, Okra, Pectin, low methoxy, non-amidated, Peony Root Extract, Polygala Root Extract, Polygonum Root Extract, Poria Fungus Extract, Rehmannia Extract, Sherry Cooking Wine, Tangerine Peel Extract, and Tragacanth Gum petitioned for inclusion in § 205.606 for use in organic products depending on final commercial availability determinations performed by accredited certifying agents. The Handling Committee will present their recommendations on the continued use or prohibition of the material exemptions in § 205.605(a) which is Agar-agar and due to expire on November 3, 2008, and Animal enzymes, Calcium sulfate, and Glucono delta-lactone, with their respective annotations and limitations, due to expire on November 4, 2008. The Committee will also present their recommendations on the continued use or prohibition of the material exemption in § 205.605(b) which is Cellulose with its respective annotations and limitations, due to expire on November 4, 2008. They will also present their recommendations on the continued use or prohibition of the material exemptions for the two forms of Tartaric acid in § 205.605(a) and
(b)which are due to expire on November 3, 2008. *The Meeting is Open to the Public* . The NOSB has scheduled time for public input for Tuesday, May 20, 2008, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., Wednesday, May 21, 2008, from 3:45 p.m. to 5 p.m., and Thursday, May 22, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Individuals and organizations wishing to make oral presentations at the meeting may forward their requests by mail, facsimile, email, or phone to Valerie Frances as listed in ADDRESSES above. Individuals or organizations will be given approximately 5 minutes to present their views. All persons making oral presentations are requested to provide their comments in writing. Written submissions may contain information other than that presented at the oral presentation. Anyone may submit written comments at the meeting. Persons submitting written comments are asked to provide 30 copies. Interested persons may visit the NOSB portion of the NOP Web site at *http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop* to view available meeting documents prior to the meeting, or visit *http://www.regulations.gov* to submit and view comments as provided for in ADDRESSES above. Documents presented at the meeting will be posted for review on the NOP Web site approximately 6 weeks following the meeting. Dated: April 1, 2008. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. 08-1097 Filed 4-1-08; 4:21pm]
Connectionstraces to 39
Traces to 39 documents
U.S. Code
23 references not yet in our index
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 36 CFR 1280
  • Pub. L. 108-383
  • 118 Stat. 2218
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 42 USC 7470-7515
  • 42 USC 7470-7492
  • 42 USC 7501-7515
  • 413 F.3d 3
  • 40 CFR 51
  • 725 F.2d 761
  • 42 USC 7470-7479
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 50 CFR 300
  • Pub. L. 109-479
  • 50 CFR 300.184
  • 50 CFR 635
  • 16 USC 951-961
  • 50 CFR 648
  • Pub. L. 107-174
  • 29 CFR 1614
  • 5 CFR 724
  • 7 CFR 205
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 106
C.F.R.§ 39.19
U.S.C.§ 2903
U.S.C.§ 2102
C.F.R.§ 1254.20
C.F.R.§ 1254.48
C.F.R.§ 1254.90
F. App'x413 F.3d 3
F. App'x725 F.2d 761
Cite14 CFR 39
Cites 62 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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