We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under theADDRESSESsection. Include “Docket No. FAA-2010-0821; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-30-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, tohttp://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 theFederal Registerpublished on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0097, dated May 26, 2010 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Rolls-Royce plc has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-AG244, Revision 1, dated January 26, 2010. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the United Kingdom, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA, and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 20 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 18 work-hours per engine to perform the inspections in one year's time. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. We estimate that one LP compressor blade per year would need replacement, at a cost of about $82,000. Based on these figures, we estimate the annual cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $112,600. Our cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage.

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.

We 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 this proposed regulation:

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. Will 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 and placed it in the AD docket.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to the address listed under the captionADDRESSES. Include the docket number “FAA-2010-1301, Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-008-AD” at the beginning 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, tohttp://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 rulemaking. Using the search function of the docket web site, you can find and read the comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent or signed the comment. You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in theFederal Registerpublished on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

You may examine the docket that contains the proposed AD, any comments, and other information in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is located in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in theADDRESSESsection. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

On August 20, 2008, we issued Emergency AD (EAD) 2008-18-51, Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-50-AD, for Model 500N, 600N, and MD900 helicopters. That EAD required several actions related to the Yaw Stability Augmentation System (YSAS) for the Model 500N and 600N helicopters and to the VSCS for the Model MD900 helicopters.

We issued superseding EAD 2008-18-52, Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-52-AD, on August 27, 2008. That EAD required, for Model 500N, 600N and MD900 helicopters, turning OFF the VSCS or YSAS switches instead of pulling the circuit breakers and installing placards that limit airspeed to 100 KIAS or VNE,whichever is less. For the Model MD900 helicopters, the EAD also required limiting flight to VFR, prohibiting use of the autopilot, and making changes to the RFM. For all helicopters, the EAD required a terminating action of replacing each tube adapter with an airworthy tube adapter stamped with a date stamp of August 15, 2008, or later.

After issuing EAD 2008-18-52, the replacement tube adapter failed on 2 of the Model MD900 helicopters. Therefore, we separated the AD actions and issued two superseding EADs: 2008-22-52 for the Model 500N and 600N helicopters and 2008-22-53 for the Model MD900 helicopters. Those EADS were published in theFederal Registeras final rules; request for comments. AD 2008-22-52 (73 FR 72326) was published on November 28, 2008. AD 2008-22-53 (73 FR 73165) was published on December 2, 2008.

AD 2008-22-53 does not include specific serial numbers in the applicability section because the unsafe condition can occur on any helicopter with an affected tube adapter installed. The AD also requires turning ON both VSCS switches to reduce pilot workload and to help control the helicopter if a tube adapter fails under normal flight conditions until the helicopter is on final approach. Also, AD 2008-22-53 did not include a terminating action because the manufacturer had not determined the cause of the failures.

Since issuing AD 2008-22-53, the manufacturer has designed a VSCS tube adapter to replace the existing tube adapter. Installing the newly designed tube adapter is optional but, if installed, would constitute terminating action for the requirements of this AD.

We have reviewed MDHI Service Bulletin No. SB900-110R1, dated December 3, 2008 (SB), which specifies replacing each VSCS tube adapter, part number (P/N) 500N7218-1, with an improved tube adapter, P/N 900C2010303-101, to prevent an uncommanded yaw of the helicopter. The SB specifies operating at a decreased speed until the newly designed tube adapters are installed.

This previously described unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of this same type design. Therefore, the proposed AD would supersede AD 2008-22-53, retain the current requirements, and require continuing to operate at a reduced speed until you replace each tube adapter with an improved tube adapter.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 39 helicopters of U.S. registry. It would take about 5.5 hours to install the newly designed tube adapters and 0.5 hours for all other required modifications at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $244 for 2 tube adapters. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $29,406, assuming both tube adapters are replaced on the entire fleet of helicopters.

We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. Additionally, 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 regulation:

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. Will 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 draft economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the AD docket to examine the draft economic evaluation.

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 regulationis 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.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA 2010-1246 and Airspace Docket No. 10-ANM-17) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see “ADDRESSES” section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-1246 and AirspaceDocket No. 10-ANM-17”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page athttp://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (seethe “ADDRESSES” section for the address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Pueblo Memorial Airport, Pueblo, CO, to accommodate en route IFR aircraft at Pueblo Memorial Airport. The southern boundary of the 13,700 foot mean sea level section has a small gap of airspace associated with V-83-210 leaving over a .5 nautical mile gap of unprotected airspace in that area. This action would add the additional controlled airspace area necessary for the safety and management of aircraft operations at Pueblo Memorial Airport, Pueblo, CO.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.

The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Pueblo Memorial Airport, Pueblo, CO.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Designated in 1994, OCNMS is a place of regional, national and global significance. Connected to both the Juan de Fuca Eddy Ecosystem and the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem, OCNMS is home to one of North America's most productive marine ecosystems and to spectacular, undeveloped shorelines. OCNMS's mission is to protect the Olympic Coast's natural and cultural resources through responsible stewardship, to conduct and apply research to preserve the area's ecological integrity and maritime heritage, and to promote understanding through public outreach and education.

The sanctuary encompasses 2,408 square nautical miles (8,259 square kilometers) of marine waters off Washington State's rugged Olympic Peninsula. OCNMS is a highly productive, ocean and coastal environment of high ecological integrity that is important to the continued survival of many ecologically valuable species of fish, seabirds and marine mammals and commercially valuable fisheries. Abundant and diverse biological communities are supported by the several types of habitat that comprise the sanctuary, including: Offshore islands; dense, sheltering kelp beds; numerous and diverse intertidal pools; rocky headlands; seastacks and arches; exposed sand and cobble beaches; submarine canyons and ridges; and the continental shelf. The sanctuary adjoins significant historical resources including American Indian village sites, ancient canoe runs, petroglyphs, American Indian artifacts and numerous shipwrecks. In addition, OCNMS is encompassed by the usual and accustomed fishing grounds of four American Indian tribes who exercise treaty reserved rights within the sanctuary.

Section 304(e) of the NMSA requires NOAA to review the management plan of each sanctuary at regular intervals. NOAA has conducted a review of the OCNMS management plan and determined that it is necessary to revise the management plan and regulations for the sanctuary. Therefore, NOAA is now announcing the availability of a draft management plan (DMP) and draft environmental assessment (DEA) for public review and comment, and publishing this proposed rule requesting comment.

The draft management plan for the sanctuary contains a series of action plans outlining activities to better achieve resource protection, research, education, operations, and evaluation objectives for the next five to ten years. The action plans are designed to address specific issues facing the sanctuary and, in doing so, to achieve the NMSA's primary objective of resource protection (16 U.S.C. 1431(b)(6)) and fulfill the sanctuary's terms of designation (59 FR 24586, May 11, 1994).

This proposed rule revises the OCNMS regulations as described below in the “Summary of the Regulatory Amendments” section. The environmental effects of these proposed revisions are analyzed in the DEA. The public is invited to comment on the DEA, which includes the DMP, and which is available athttp://olympiccoast.noaa.govor may be obtained by contacting the individual listed under the headingFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

This section describes the changes NOAA is proposing to make to the OCNMS regulations.

The size of the sanctuary has been recalculated using improved area estimation techniques and technology, resulting in a new estimate of the size of the sanctuary. There is no proposal to change the boundaries of the sanctuary. This proposed change is technical in nature and would not affect physical, biological or socioeconomic resources because it would not alter the sanctuary's original size or boundaries.

OCNMS regulations that date from 1994 estimate the sanctuary's area as approximately 2,500 square nautical miles (approximately 8,577 square kilometers) (59 FR 24586; May 11, 1994). However, current techniques allow for more accurate area calculations. Without altering the sanctuary's existing boundaries (as defined in the OCNMS terms of designation), NOAA recalculated the area within sanctuary boundaries and found it to be 2,408 square nautical miles (approximately 8,259 square kilometers). This technical change is solely the result of the improved accuracy of area measurement techniques since the sanctuary's size was first estimated in 1994. No change to the sanctuary boundaries is proposed.

This proposed rule change would replace the term “seabed” with the term “submerged lands” in the current regulatory language prohibiting “drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of the sanctuary” (59 FR 24586; May 11, 1994). The current definition of the sanctuary boundary in the OCNMS terms of designation (59 FR 24586; May 11, 1994) recognizes submerged lands as part of the sanctuary. This rule change would make the regulations, which currently use the term “seabed”, consistent with the description of the sanctuary in the terms of designation. This proposed change would also make the regulations consistent with language used in the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1432(3)). Additionally, using the term “submerged lands” uniformly among the NMSA, OCNMS terms of designation, and OCNMS regulations would improve consistency with the regulatory language for the other national marine sanctuaries, which all refer to “submerged lands”. The use of the term “submerged lands” will not alter NOAA's current jurisdiction in OCNMS in any way. This regulatory change would not affect physical, biological or socioeconomic resources because it would not alter the original boundaries or designation of the sanctuary.

OCNMS regulations currently provide an exception for “traditional fishing” operations to three of the regulatory prohibitions. The term “traditional fishing” is defined as “using a fishing method that has been used in the sanctuary before the effective date of sanctuary designation (July 22, 1994), including the retrieval of fishing gear” (59 FR 24586; May 11, 1994). This OCNMS regulation allows fishing operations that were taking place before sanctuary designation to discharge certain fishing-related materials, disturb historical resources, and disturb the seabed. The precise language of these three exceptions is as follows (emphasis added):

• “Discharging or depositing, from within the boundary of the Sanctuary, any material or other matter except fish, fish parts, chumming materials or bait used in or resulting from traditional fishing operations in the Sanctuary;” (15 CFR 922.152(2)(i))

• “Moving, removing or injuring, or attempting to move, remove or injure, a Sanctuary historical resource. This prohibition does not apply to moving, removing or injury resulting incidentally from traditional fishing operations.” (15 CFR 922.152(3))

• “Drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of the Sanctuary; or constructing, placing or abandoning any structure, material or other matter on the seabed of the Sanctuary, except as an incidental result of * * *Traditional fishingoperations.” (15 CFR 922.152(4)(ii))

In addition to replacing “seabed” with “submerged lands,” as described earlier, NOAA proposes to replace the term “traditional fishing” with the term “lawful fishing” in these three places to: (1) Use a term that is more clearly understood; and (2) ensure that there is no distinction between current and future fishing operations. “Lawful fishing” is proposed to be defined as follows: “Lawful fishing means fishing authorized by a tribal, state or federal entity with jurisdiction over the activity.”

Despite the definition provided in the regulation, and because of its varied connotation, the term “traditional” in OCNMS regulations may be incorrectly interpreted (e.g., equating traditional fishing with Native American fishing techniques). By replacing the word “traditional” with “lawful” NOAA unambiguously recognizes fishing activities authorized by fisheries management authorities. This change is also consistent with terms used in the regulations for other national marine sanctuaries on the West Coast.

In addition to being more widely understood and consistent, this change makes clear that fishing activities authorized by regulations lawfully adopted by fishery management agencies are not subject to the prohibitions itemized in the OCNMS regulations. Since the time of Sanctuary designation, OCNMS has refrained from directly regulating fishing, and the proposed adoption of the “lawful fishing” terminology does not alter this approach. (See,generally, Final Environmental Impact Statement (NOAA 1993) and the final rule adopting regulations for OCNMS, 59 FR 24597 (May 11, 1994)).

This rule proposes to modify the regulations prohibiting discharging or depositing any material or other matter as follows:

a. Prohibit discharges/deposits of treated and untreated sewage and graywater from cruise ships. For the purpose of this regulation and consistency with regulations in other West Coast national marine sanctuaries, cruise ships would be defined as a vessel with 250 or more passenger berths for hire and graywater would be defined as galley, bath, and shower water, per section 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA; 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387). These revisions address NOAA's concerns about possible impacts from large volumes of sewage and graywater discharges in the sanctuary, whether treated or not, from cruise ships. Currently, legal discharges from vessels, including cruise ships, transiting or engaging in activities in OCMNS have the potential to negatively impact water quality, as well as pose health risks to humans who use the area. These proposed modifications to OCNMS regulations would also make OCNMS discharge/deposit prohibitions consistent with the cruise ship discharge/deposit prohibitions already in effect within the other four West Coast national marine sanctuaries.

Vessel sewage discharges typically are more concentrated than domestic land-based sewage. They may introduce disease-causing microorganisms (pathogens), such as bacteria,protozoans, and viruses, into the marine environment (EPA 2007). They may also contain high concentrations of nutrients that can lead to eutrophication, which has been linked to harmful algal blooms and oxygen-depleted “dead zones” in aquatic environments, and may yield unpleasant esthetic impacts to the sanctuary (diminishing sanctuary resources and its ecological, conservation, esthetic, recreational and other qualities).

Graywater discharges also have potential to degrade water quality. Graywater can contain a variety of substances including (but not limited to) detergents, oil and grease, pesticides and food wastes (Eley 2000). Graywater discharges from cruise ships can have constituent levels in a similar range to untreated domestic waste water, and levels for nutrients, biological oxygen demand, fecal coliforms, and food pulper wastes may be many times higher than typical domestic graywater. Additionally, fecal coliform concentrations in graywater often exceed the 200 fecal coliforms/100 ml performance standard for marine sanitation devices (MSDs) (EPA 2008a).

Very little research has been done on the impacts of graywater on the marine environment, but many of the chemicals commonly found in graywater are known to be toxic (Casanovaet al.2001). Furthermore, studies of graywater discharges from cruise ships in Alaska (prior to strict state effluent standards for cruise ship graywater discharges) found very high levels of fecal coliform in graywater (far exceeding the federal standards for fecal coliform from Type II MSDs). These same studies also found high total suspended solids concentrations in some graywater sources (exceeding the federal standards for total suspended solids from Type II MSDs).

Wastewater treatment systems used on large cruise ships discharging in Alaskan waters, which constitute most cruise ships that transit through OCNMS, have generally performed well at treating effluent constituents to the levels required by Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the U.S. Coast Guard since 2001 (ADEC 2010). Monitoring is conducted for constituents such as fecal coliform bacteria (an indicator of pathogens), pH, chlorine, biological oxygen demand, and total suspended solids. In 2009, exceedance of discharge standards applicable to cruise ships occurred most commonly with ammonia, less frequently for nickel, copper and zinc, and rarely or never for other contaminants (ADEC 2010).

Analysis of the actual time cruise ships transited OCNMS in 2009 and estimated wastewater generation rates provides a range of potential discharge volumes from 0.2 to 1.3 million gallons of treated sewage and from 1.5 to 5.0 million gallons of graywater. Evaluation of potential environmental impacts of these discharges is complicated. The nutrient and chemical concentrations in wastewater discharges varies depending on both the type of wastewater treatment system being used as well as the ongoing functional performance of individual systems. Also, the volume of wastewater actually discharged from cruise ships in the sanctuary is uncertain. While industry representatives have stated that cruise ships currently avoid all discharges in the sanctuary, this has not been verified. Thus, it is difficult to quantify specific reductions in individual nutrients or chemicals that would be achieved under this proposed rule.

The water quality of the sanctuary is generally considered to be good and influenced primarily by natural processes (ONMS 2008). Thus, this proposed regulatory change would result in a less than substantial improvement of water quality. However, naturally occurring harmful algal blooms and low dissolved oxygen events associated with deepwater upwelling often occur during the summer months off the coast of Washington and Oregon. Because cruise ship traffic volume through the sanctuary is highest during this same period, there has been some concern that discharge of nutrient rich sewage and graywater by cruise ships may exacerbate these natural phenomena. Elimination of nutrient contributions from cruise ship discharges would ensure that water quality conditions in the sanctuary are not degraded by additional nutrients and biological and chemical oxygen demand associated with these wastewater discharges.

Most cruise ships have sufficient holding tank capacity to hold sewage and graywater while within the sanctuary. As for other large oceangoing ships, given the small crew size (on average, large oceangoing ships carry crews of approximately twenty people, but crew size may range from five to fifty people, the treated sewage and graywater volumes generated by such ships are far less than those from cruise ships. Therefore, the proposed regulation specifically prohibits discharges from cruise ships and does not address discharges from other large oceangoing vessels.

Additional analysis of the potential impacts to biological, physical and socioeconomic resources from graywater and sewage discharges/deposits are provided in the DEA, which is available athttp://olympiccoast.noaa.govor may be obtained by contacting the individual listed under the headingFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

b. Adopt a definition of “cruise ship.” A definition of “cruise ship” would be added to OCNMS regulations as follows: “Cruise ship means a vessel with 250 or more passenger berths for hire.” This proposed definition is consistent with the vessel discharge regulations governing the other four national marine sanctuaries on the West Coast.

c. Adopt a definition of “clean.” The definition of “clean” would be added to OCNMS regulations as follows: “Cleanmeans not containing detectable levels of harmful matter.” This proposed definition is consistent with the vessel discharge regulations governing the other four national marine sanctuaries on the West Coast.

Under the current regulations, ONMS can issue a permit to conduct an activity otherwise prohibited if it finds that the activity will meet criteria identified in the regulations. One of the criteria listed for permit issuance is to “promote the welfare of any Indian tribe adjacent to the sanctuary.” This provision is ambiguous and could be interpreted as allowing an entity not affiliated with a tribe to apply for a permit that it alleges could promote the welfare of an Indian tribe adjacent to the sanctuary. The concept of “promote the welfare of any Indian tribe” is not defined or explained further in the regulations, the terms of sanctuary designation or the 1993 Final EIS. As a result there has been a reluctance to implement this provision.

NOAA is proposing to modify the regulation to clarify that a permit under this provision is available only to American Indian tribes adjacent to the sanctuary (i.e., Hoh, Makah, and Quileute Tribes and the Quinault Indian Nation). In addition, NOAA proposes to replace the phrase “or promote the welfare of any Indian tribe adjacent to the Sanctuary.” with a more descriptive basis for permit issuance. NOAA intends to consider permit applications made by adjacent Indian Tribes “to promote or enhance tribal self-determination, tribal government functions, the exercise of treaty rights or tribal economic development.” NOAA acknowledges its trust responsibility to federally recognized Indian tribes. These permit criteria are consistent withExecutive Order 13175 on Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments.

a. NOAA proposes deleting the definition for the term “Federal project”. The current OCNMS regulation that cites this definition refers to “Federal projects in existence on July 22, 1994”. However, there is only one project that fits this definition (the Quillayute River Navigation Project). For clarity, NOAA would revise the OCNMS regulations to reference the Quillayute River project specifically. The definition for “Federal Project” would be deleted because the term would no longer be used in the regulations. The term “Quillayute River Navigation Project” would be used in § 922.152(a)(1)(E) and § 922.152(h).

b. The mailing address for permit applications in § 922.153 would be updated to reflect the new OCNMS office location.

NOAA has prepared a draft environmental assessment to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed rulemaking. Copies are available at the address and web site listed in theADDRESSESsection of this proposed rule. Responses to comments received on this proposed rule will be published in the final environmental assessment and preamble to the final rule.

Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA; 16 U.S.C. 1456) requires Federal agencies to consult with a state's coastal program on potential Federal regulations having an effect on state waters. Because the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary encompasses a portion of the Washington State waters, NOAA intends to submit a copy of this proposed rule and supporting documents to the State of Washington Coastal Zone Management Program for evaluation of Federal consistency under the CZMA.

Under Executive Order 12866, if the proposed regulations are “significant” as defined in section 3(f) of the Order, an assessment of the potential costs and benefits of the regulatory action must be prepared and submitted to the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866.

NOAA has concluded that this regulatory action does not have federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132. Members of the OCNMS Advisory Council, Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy Council, the Washington Department of Ecology, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Washington Department of Natural Resources, the Washington State Ocean Caucus and Pacific Fishery Management Council have been closely involved with the development of the draft management plan for OCNMS and proposed regulatory changes. In addition, OCNMS staff have consulted with staff from all of the previously mentioned state agencies, along with the Washington State Historic Preservation Office, on development of the DEA that supports the proposed rule. The State of Washington Governor's Office, as a member of the Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy Council, has also been involved in developing the draft management plan, DEA and the proposed rule.

This proposed rule was developed after consultation and collaboration with representatives from the Makah, Hoh, and Quileute Tribes and the Quinault Indian Nation through their membership on the Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy Council and the OCNMS Advisory Council.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is as follows:

Small businesses operating within the sanctuary include approximately 400 commercial fishermen, 30 consumptive recreational charter businesses, 7 non-consumptive recreational charter businesses, and one aviation business.

The replacement of the term “seabed” with “submerged lands” in the language prohibiting “drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of the sanctuary” would not have a significant adverse impact on small entities within the sanctuary because there is no change in the sanctuary's protective measures for submerged lands and therefore no impact on any businesses. The current definition of the sanctuary boundary in the terms of designation (59 FR 24586; May 11, 1994) recognizes submerged lands as part of the sanctuary. Similarly, the proposed correction of the estimate of the size of the sanctuary would not impact any of the small entities operating within the sanctuary because the proposed correction is merely descriptive in nature. The proposed change does not alter the boundaries of the sanctuary or the scope of its jurisdiction but rather is a more accurate estimate of its size.

The proposed change from the term “traditional fishing” to “lawful fishing” would not affect the small entities who conduct fishing activities in the sanctuary because the proposed change would not alter the regulatory jurisdiction of the sanctuary, nor would it affect the prosecution of current fisheries in the sanctuary. The change to the term “lawful fishing” makes clear that fishing activities authorized by fishery management agencies with jurisdiction over such fisheries are not subject to certain prohibitions identified in the sanctuary regulations. Since this regulatory change would not alter the status quo, there would not be an impact on small fishing businesses as a result of this regulatory change.

The proposed prohibition on sewage and graywater discharges from cruise ships would not have a significant adverse impact on small entities because cruise ship companies, which operate under an annual budget of higher than $7 million, are generally large businesses that do not fit the definition of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 603(a)). The Small Business Administration does not provide a category of business for the cruise ship industry in their list of size standards for small businesses; however, it provides a category for “sporting goods store” and “marina”, which can be used to approximate the size standards for the businesses affected by this rule. According to the SBA, a small business in the sporting goods or marina industries is one that has annual receipts of less than $7 million. None of the cruise ship businesses affected by this proposed rule falls under the SBA's definition of a “small entity” for the purposes of this action.

The modification of permit issuance criteria is proposed to clarify that only American Indian tribes adjacent to the sanctuary are eligible to seek permits for activities otherwise prohibited in the sanctuary for purposes of enhancingtribal self-determination, tribal government functions, the exercise of treaty rights or tribal economic development. This modification would not have an effect on the American Indian tribes adjacent to the sanctuary because it would continue to offer the same opportunity to Tribes to obtain a sanctuary permit as is currently available. This modification could have an adverse effect on other entities that may have had an interest in proposing a project requiring a permit from the Sanctuary Superintendent; however, NOAA has no indication that any such project would be proposed by a small businesses or entities in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the proposed modification is not expected to have a significant adverse affect on any small entities, particularly tribal entities.

All other regulatory amendments to the OCNMS regulations proposed in this rulemaking are either technical changes or are not expected to have any measurable impact, economic or otherwise, on the resources and people of the United States of America.

Because this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, no initial regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared.

This rule does not contain any new information collection requirements or revisions to the existing information collection requirement that was approved by OMB (OMB Control Number 0648-0141) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.

Send comments regarding the burden estimate for this data collection requirement, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NOAA (see ADDRESSES) and by e-mail toOIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285. Notwithstanding any other provision of 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 Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

NOAA requests comments on this proposed rule for 60 days after publication of this notice.

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request (see ADDRESSESsection).

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration proposes to amend 15 CFR part 922 as follows:

The No Child Left Behind School Facilities and Construction Negotiated Rulemaking Committee was established to prepare and submit to the Secretary a catalog of the conditions at Bureau-funded schools, and to prepare reports covering: the school replacement and new construction needs at Bureau-funded school facilities; a formula for the equitable distribution of funds to address those needs; a list of major and minor renovation needs at those facilities; and a formula for equitable distribution of funds to address those needs. The reports are to be submitted to Congress and to the Secretary. The Committee also expects to draft proposed regulations covering construction standards for heating, lighting, and cooling in home-living (dormitory) situations.

The following items will be on the agenda:

• Review and approve October 2010 meeting summary;

• Review report requirements and logistics;

• Review and discuss report sections addressing renovation repairs and school construction and replacement;

• Review and discuss dormitory standards language;

• Review and discuss updated findings from Complementary Educational Facilities and FMIS surveys and catalogue of facilities;

• Draft executive summary and key lessons;

• Identify next steps; and

• Receive public comments.

Written comments may be sent to the Designated Federal Official listed in theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection above. All meetings are open to the public; however, transportation, lodging, and meals are the responsibility of the participating public.

A notice of public hearing that appeared in theFederal Registeron Friday, December 10, 2010 (75 FR 76940), announced that a public hearing was scheduled for January 14, 2011, at 10 a.m., in the auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public hearing is under section 300 of the Internal Revenue Code.

The public comment period for these regulations expired on January 10, 2011. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the hearing were due on January 5, 2011. The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of Wednesday, January 12, 2011, the taxpayer, who wished to present oral comments, has requested to withdraw. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for January 14, 2011, is cancelled.

On October 19, 2010 (75 FR 64412), MSHA published a proposed rule, Lowering Miners' Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust, Including Continuous Personal Dust Monitors. In response to requests from interested parties, MSHA is extending the comment period from February 28, 2011, to May 2, 2011. In support of their requests, commenters noted the comprehensive, extensive nature of the proposal. All comments and supporting documentation must be received or postmarked by May 2, 2011.

MSHA solicits comments from the mining community on all aspects of the proposed rule.

MSHA is interested in commenters' views on what actions should be taken by MSHA and the mine operator when a single shift respirable dust sample meets or exceeds the Excessive Concentration Value (ECV). In this situation, if operators use a CPDM, what alternative actions to those contained in the proposed rule would you suggest that MSHA and the operator take? MSHA is particularly interested in alternatives to those in the proposal and how such alternatives would be protective of miners.

A commenter at the first public hearing suggested that the timeframe for miners' review of the Continuous Personal Dust Monitor (CPDM) Performance Plan be expanded. For clarification, MSHA, in developing the proposed rule, relied on the timeframe and process in the existing requirements for mine ventilation plans. In the proposal, MSHA did not intend to change the existing timeframe and process and stated that the proposed rule is consistent with ventilation plan requirements and would allow miners' representatives the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the process.

States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and request EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

We conclude that Minnesota's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we propose to grant Minnesota final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Minnesota has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Minnesota, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

The effect of this decision, once finalized, is that a facility in Minnesota subject to RCRA would have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Minnesota has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for RCRA violations, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:

1. Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports; and

1. Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits.

This action will not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Minnesota is being authorized are already effective, and will not be changed by EPA's final action.

If EPA receives adverse comments on this authorization, we will address all public comments in a laterFederal Register. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time.

Minnesota initially received Final (base) authorization on January 28, 1985, effective February 11, 1985 (50 FR 3756) to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to Minnesota's program on July 20, 1987, effective September 18, 1987 (52 FR 27199); on April 24, 1989, effective June 23, 1989 (54 FR 16361) amended June 28, 1989 (54 FR 27170); on June 15, 1990, effective August 14, 1990 (55 FR 24232); on June 24, 1991, effective August 23, 1991 (56 FR 28709); on March 19, 1992, effective May 18, 1992 (57 FR 9501); on March 17, 1993, effective May 17, 1993 (58 FR 14321); on January 20, 1994, effective March 21, 1994 (59 FR 2998); and on May 25, 2000, effective August 23, 2000 (65 FR 33774). Minnesota also received authorization for the U.S. Filter Recovery Services Project XL on May 22, 2001, effective May 22, 2001 (66 FR 28085), and for the Joint Powers Agreement with Hennepin County on October 23, 2008 (73 FR 63074), effective October 23, 2008.

On June 2, 2010, Minnesota submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We are now proposing to authorize, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, Minnesota's hazardous waste program revision. We propose to grant Minnesota final authorization for the following program changes:

Minnesota has excluded the non-delegable Federal requirements at 40 CFR 268.5, 268.6, 268.42(b), 268.44, and 270.3. EPA will continue to implement those requirements. In this action, Minnesota has chosen to remain more stringent in the Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements, (Checklist 175 above) by choosing not to adopt 40 CFR 270.79 through 270.230 which allow for Remedial Action Plans (RAP). The RAP is considered to be less stringent. Minnesota is more stringent in checklist 108, as it does not recognize the list of excluded processes, nor does it have provision to waive the double liner requirement in 40 CFR 265.301(d). In rule revision (Checklist) 118, Minnesota does not allow any liquids in landfills even as provided for in 40 CFR 264.314. In rule revision (Checklist) 142, Minnesota does not contain a provision to add a Universal Waste under 40 CFR 273.80 or 260.23.

Minnesota will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until they expire or are terminated. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table above after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Minnesota is not yet authorized.

Minnesota is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in “Indian Country,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Indian Country includes:

1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian Reservations within or abutting the State of Minnesota, including:

a. Bois Forte Indian Reservation

b. Fond Du Lac Indian Reservation

c. Grand Portage Indian Reservation

d. Leech Lake Indian Reservation

e. Lower Sioux Indian Reservation

f. Mille Lacs Indian Reservation

g. Prairie Island Indian Reservation

h. Red Lake Indian Reservation

i. Shakopee Mdewankanton Indian Reservation

j. Upper Sioux Indian Reservation

k. White Earth Indian Reservation

2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and

3. Any other land, whether on or off an Indian reservation that qualifies as Indian Country.

Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. Minnesota's rules, up to and including those revised June 7, 1991, as corrected August 19, 1991, have previously been codified through incorporation by reference effective February 4, 1992 (57 FR 4162) .

This proposed rule only authorizes hazardous waste requirements pursuant to RCRA 3006 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by State law (seeSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, Section A. Why are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?). Therefore this rule complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from its review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).

This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.).

This rule authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those required by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.).

Because this rule approves 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).

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) does not apply to this rule because it will not have federalism implications (i.e.,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).

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) does not apply to this rule because it will not have tribal implications (i.e.,substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, or 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.)

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because the EPA does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866.

EPA approves State programs as long as they meet criteria required by RCRA, so it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, in its review of a State program, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that meets requirements of RCRA. 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 to this rule.

As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.

EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 18, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings issued under the executive order.

Because this rule proposes authorization of pre-existing State rules and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other information required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801et seq.) to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in theFederal Register.A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in theFederal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This is a summary of the Commission's Public Notice in WT Docket No. 10-254 and DA 10-2388, released on December 28, 2010. In theHearing Aid Compatibility Second Report and Order and Further NPRMreleased on August 5, 2010, in WT Docket No. 07-250, 75 FR 54508 and 75 FR 54546 (Sept. 8, 2010), theCommission reiterated its intention, first stated in 2008, to initiate a review of the hearing aid compatibility rules for digital wireless services and handsets in 2010. In this review, the Bureau will comprehensively evaluate the operation of the current hearing aid compatibility rules, 47 CFR 20.19, and their success in making a broad selection of wireless phones accessible to people who use hearing aids and cochlear implants, as well as in making information about those phones available to the public. On the basis of this evaluation, the Bureau will consider whether to recommend to the Commission both rule revisions and non-regulatory measures to ensure that persons with hearing loss will continue to have broad access to evolving modes of wireless communication, consistent with the three principles the Commission set forth in theHearing Aid Compatibility Second Report and Order and Further NPRMto guide its hearing aid compatibility policies:

• Ensuring that developers of new technologies consider and plan for hearing aid compatibility at the earliest stages of the product design process;

• Accounting for technological feasibility and marketability in the Commission's rules pertaining to hearing aid compatibility, thereby maximizing conditions for innovation and investment; and

• Providing industry with the ability to harness innovation to promote inclusion by allowing the necessary flexibility for developing a range of solutions to meet consumers' needs while keeping up with the rapid pace of technological advancement.

The Commission is required by law to ensure that persons with hearing loss have access to telephone service. The Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988, 47 U.S.C. 610, required all telephones manufactured or imported for use in the United States to meet established technical standards for hearing aid compatibility, with certain exceptions, among them an exception for telephones used with mobile wireless services. To ensure that the Act kept pace with the evolution of telecommunications technology, Congress granted the Commission authority to “revoke or otherwise limit” the wireless telephone exception, based on considerations of public interest, adverse effect on individuals with hearing loss, technological feasibility, and marketability of compliant wireless telephones.

In2003,the Commission determined that continuation of a complete exemption for wireless telephones would have an adverse effect on individuals with hearing loss, and that limiting the exemption was technologically and economically feasible and in the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission promulgated rules to ensure that all manufacturers and service providers offer consumers a selection of wireless handsets that are compatible with hearing aids. These rules were later modified and strengthened in 2008 and in August 2010.

In theHearing Aid Compatibility Second Report and Order and Further NPRM,the Commission sought comment on proposed changes to the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules in three specific areas: (1) Whether to extend the hearing aid compatibility requirements beyond the currently covered class of commercial mobile radio services to include handsets used to provide wireless voice communications over any type of network among members of the public or a substantial portion of the public; (2) whether to extend the in-store testing requirement to include retail outlets other than those owned or operated by service providers; and (3) whether to generally permit a user-controlled reduction of power as a means to meet the hearing aid compatibility standard for operations over the Global System for Mobile (GSM) air interface in the 1900 MHz band. The Commission will address these matters in a Report and Order in WT Docket No. 07-250, and the Bureau urges commenters not to repeat their comments on these matters in response to this document. To the extent any comments made in the rulemaking docket are relevant to the questions asked in this document, commenters should restate those points in response to the questions below.

On October 8, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (Communications Accessibility Act), Public Law 111-260, ensuring that individuals with disabilities have access to emerging Internet Protocol-based communications and video programming technologies in the 21st Century. Among other provisions, the Communications Accessibility Act extends hearing aid compatibility requirements to customer premises equipment “used with advanced communications services that is designed to provide 2-way voice communications via a built-in speaker intended to be held to the ear in a manner functionally equivalent to a telephone.” The Communications Accessibility Act preserves the exemption of mobile handsets from the requirement that all telephones be hearing aid-compatible, while maintaining the Commission's authority to revoke or limit such exemption. The Commission will address in WT Docket No. 07-250 whether changes to its rules are necessary to effectuate the hearing aid compatibility provisions of the Communications Accessibility Act. Commenters should consider the context of the new legislation in framing their responses to this document.

All parties with knowledge and interest are encouraged to file. In addition to written responses, the Bureau encourages submission of any data, charts or proposed plans that can be entered into the public record for purposes of building a record on this subject.

In order to assist the Commission in evaluating the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules, the Bureau ask commenters specifically to address the questions set forth below. To the extent feasible, commenters may want to organize their responses alphabetically/numerically as set forth below in order to facilitate Commission review.

On July 15, 2010, manufacturers of handsets were required to file reports detailing the hearing aid compatibility status of their handset offerings from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010. Twenty-one manufacturers have filed reports pursuant to this provision identifying a total of 302 handset models that they offered as of June 2010. The hearing aid compatibility status of these handsets, sorted according to the air interface(s) incorporated in the handset, is summarized in the table below.

In this section, the Bureau seeks comment on whether hearing aid-compatible handsets are sufficiently available to consumers in the current marketplace, including phones with a full range of different feature sets. In this regard, the Bureau seeks comment on the impact that the Commission's deployment benchmarks and technical standards have had on increasing compatibility between hearing aids and wireless handsets. The Bureau also seeks comment on the impact of the rules on smaller service providers.

a. The Commission's rules currently require handset manufacturers, other than those subject to thede minimisexception, to meet at least an M3 rating for radio frequency (RF) interference reduction for at least one-third of their models (rounded down) over each air interface, with a minimum of two models, and to meet a T3 rating for inductive coupling capability for at least 25 percent of their models (rounded down) over each air interface, with a minimum of two models. The percentage benchmark for inductive coupling capability will increase to one-third on February 15, 2011. Service providers must meet an M3 rating for at least 50 percent of their models or 10 models over each air interface, and must meet a T3 rating for at least one-third of their models or seven models over each air interface. The numerical benchmark for inductive coupling capability will increase to 10 models in 2011. Under these benchmarks, has a selection of hearing aid-compatible handsets become readily available to all consumers across the various air interfaces, including third-generation (3G) air interfaces? Should the benchmarks be increased in future years or restructured in any way? In particular, should the T3 benchmark be increased to equal the M3 benchmark, given the growing number of consumers using hearing aids with telecoils? Commenters should consider the cost to manufacturers and service providers of complying with any changed benchmarks and any effects on innovation as well as the benefits to consumers with hearing loss.

b. In enacting the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act, Congress found that people with hearing loss should have access to the telecommunications network “to the fullest extent made possible by technology and medical science.” In light of this policy, should the Commission be moving toward a goal of ensuring that all wireless handsets meet hearing aid compatibility standards? If the Commission were to institute a 100% compatibility requirement, what would be the effects on investment and innovation?

c. Should the Commission consider applying different benchmarks to different technologies in light of the circumstances surrounding each technology? For example, should higher benchmarks apply to future technologies in order to encourage consideration of hearing aid compatibility in the early stages of product development? Should lower benchmarks be kept in place for the legacy GSM air interface in recognition of the technical challenges to achieving hearing aid compatibility using that technology, as well as the likelihood that it will be phased out over the next several years? The Bureau notes that the ANSI C63.19 standard revision that is under consideration, by measuring RF interference potential directly, would eliminate the need for certain conservative assumptions and make it approximately 2.2dB easier for GSM phone to achieve an M3 rating. Should different benchmarks be adopted for CDMA than for GSM?

d. Are hearing aid-compatible handsets widely available across all market segments, including the prepaid phone market? The Bureau notes that under the current rules, service providers must meet the hearing aid compatibility benchmarks across their entire product line, and are not required separately to account for the phones offered to different market segments, such as prepaid versus postpaid. Is there a need for rules specifically addressing the prepaid market or any other segment, and what would be the effects of any such rules on manufacturers or service providers?

a. The Commission's rules require manufacturers to “refresh” their hearing aid-compatible products by ensuring, in most instances, that at least half their required minimum number of M3-rated phones is met by models introduced within a given calendar year. Service providers must offer hearing aid-compatible models with different levels of functionality. The Bureau seeks comment on whether these rules have succeeded in making hearing aid-compatible handsets available to consumers with different feature sets? For example, do consumers with hearing loss have access comparable to the general population both to handsets with the most advanced features, including smartphones, and to basic models? Is there a concentration of hearing aid-compatible handsets in a particular feature set? Commenters should note any differences in variety specific to particular air interfaces or market segments. Are any additional rules needed to ensure availability of a full range of hearing aid-compatible models?

b. At the same time, are the refresh and level of functionality rules necessary? Given the usual product cycles for wireless handsets, would manufacturers produce and service providers offer hearing aid compatibility in many of the newest models in the absence of these rules simply to meet the benchmarks? What paperwork or other burdens do these rules impose, and are these burdens outweighed by the benefits to consumers? Do these rules remain necessary in the CDMA air interface, given that nearly all CDMA phones produced today meet hearing aid compatibility standards? Should the rules be modified or eliminated for some or all handset lines?

a. When the Commission adopted the current handset deploymentbenchmarks, it provided service providers other than commercial mobile radio service providers with nationwide footprints (Tier I carriers) with an additional three months to meet each benchmark. In addition, businesses that are small entities as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration, unlike larger manufacturers and service providers, are exempt from offering hearing aid-compatible phones over an air interface indefinitely so long as they offer no more than two models. The Bureau requests comment on whether these provisions appropriately accommodate the difficulties faced by smaller service providers in offering hearing aid-compatible handsets.

b. The Bureau seeks information on the burden that hearing aid compatibility requirements impose on smaller service providers. Is there a significant difference in the cost of rule compliance between Tier I carriers and non-Tier I carriers? To what extent are smaller service providers delayed in their ability to obtain new and desirable handsets, or are they able to obtain these handsets at all? Does the extent of any additional costs or delays depend on the size of the service provider, for example, as between a small local company and a sizable regional carrier? Are resellers differently situated than small facilities-based providers?

c. In light of these burdens, is it appropriate to modify the Commission's rules with respect to smaller service providers? For example, would smaller providers need more than three months additional time to meet any future benchmarks the Commission may adopt, or is no additional time warranted? Are the current benchmarks appropriate for non-Tier I carriers, or should they be reduced? Should different rules apply to different tiers of non-Tier I service providers, and if so, on what criteria should these tiers be based? Commenters should address the effect of any such potential rule changes on the customers of smaller service providers, and how their access to hearing aid-compatible handsets can be protected.

d. Similarly, should the Commission consider amending thede minimisrule to exempt some small entities from requirements to offer hearing aid-compatible handset models, even if they offer more than two models per air interface? For example, an exception could be based on a service provider's monthly sales. Would such a rule better reflect market realities, under which small service providers may have access only to small lots of multiple different handset models? Would customers of small carriers, particularly in the most rural areas, still have access to a selection of hearing aid-compatible handsets?

e. Are smaller service providers and manufacturers, particularly new entrants, adequately informed about their obligations under the hearing aid compatibility rules? Is there anything the Commission can and should do to improve communications with these entities?

a. The Commission's rules consider a handset to be hearing aid-compatible for RF interference reduction if it meets at least an M3 rating under ANSI Standard C63.19-2007, and for inductive coupling capability if it meets at least a T3 rating. Are these requirements appropriate to ensure that users of hearing aids and cochlear implants will be able to access wireless communications? Would any other standards be more appropriate? Should there be any requirements to offer handsets that meet M4 and/or T4 ratings? On the other hand, do handsets that are rated less than M3 or T3 provide effective compatibility for some users of hearing aids and cochlear implants, and if so should the Commission's rules recognize their performance?

b. Under the 2007 revision of ANSI Standard C63.19, a handset must meet an acceptable rating for RF interference reduction—i.e.,an M3 or M4 rating under the Commission's rules—in order to be rated T3 or T4 for inductive coupling capability. Would there be benefits to wearers of hearing aids with telecoils if the minimum RF noise threshold requirement to achieve a T3 rating were relaxed? Is there evidence to support such a change that ANSI Accredited Standards Committee C63®(ANSI ASC C63®) should consider?

The hearing aid compatibility rules include several provisions to ensure that device manufacturers and service providers share information on their hearing aid-compatible handset offerings with the Commission and with the public. In this section, the Bureau seeks comment on the value and any negative effects of the information disclosures required in reports to the Commission, on manufacturers' and service providers' Web sites, at the point of sale, and in packaging materials. The Bureau also seeks comment on the in-store testing requirement and on measures that could be taken to improve the availability of information to consumers who purchase their phones from sources other than their service provider.

a. The wireless hearing aid compatibility rules require handset manufacturers and service providers to submit annual reports to the Commission on the status of their compliance. In June 2009, the Bureau introduced the electronic FCC Form 655 as the mandatory form for filing these reports, and since that time both service providers and manufacturers have filed reports using the electronic system. The Bureau seeks comment on the functioning of this system.

b. Does Form 655 collect the necessary information on hearing aid-compatible handset offerings? Is any unnecessary information being collected? Do third-party sources provide information about hearing aid-compatible handsets that may diminish the need for reporting to the Commission? Even if information about hearing aid-compatible handsets is available from other sources, is reporting to the Commission still necessary to ensure compliance with the rules?

c. Is the electronic Form 655 an efficient means of collecting information? What burdens does the reporting impose on device manufacturers and service providers? What changes to the system might improve its operation?

d. Does the reporting requirement impose special burdens on small device manufacturers and service providers? In light of any such burdens, should smaller entities be exempt from some or all reporting requirements? If so, what should be the threshold for such an exemption? What effects would an exemption of smaller entities have on the availability of information to consumers?

e. Is the information collected by the Commission on Form 655 made accessible to the public in an easily usable manner athttp://wireless.fcc.gov/hac? What changes might the Commission make to its Web site to improve the accessibility of this information? Are there measures the Commission could take that would facilitate use of this information by application developers to provide richer information products? Would it be helpful to collect and post the information in XML or any other format? Should the Commissionincorporate the information it receives on Form 655 into the clearinghouse of information on the availability of accessible products and services and accessibility solutions that it is establishing pursuant to new Section 717(d) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 618(d)?

a. The rules require that each handset manufacturer and service provider make available on its Web site a list of its hearing aid-compatible handset models, the hearing aid compatibility ratings of those models, and an explanation of the rating system. Service providers also must include the levels of functionality of their hearing aid-compatible phones and an explanation of their methodology for determining levels of functionality. Do these Web sites contain the required information? Is it posted in a manner that is easily accessible to and understandable by consumers? Would it be helpful to develop best practices or other guidance to promote the most user-friendly approaches? If so, should this guidance be promulgated by the Commission or developed through collaboration among industry and consumer representatives?

b. Is there any additional information that consumers or other stakeholders would find helpful to have posted on manufacturers' or service providers' Web sites? Should the posting of any such information be required by the Commission or should it be voluntary?

a. The rules require that manufacturers and service providers clearly display the hearing aid compatibility ratings on the packaging material of a hearing aid-compatible handset, and that they include an explanation of the rating system in the device's user manual or as a packaging insert. Are manufacturers and service providers supplying this information, and are they doing so in a manner that is clear and helpful to consumers? Are consumers able to understand the hearing aid compatibility rating system? If not, are there any measures the Commission can and should take to improve the disclosures? Should such measures take the form of a rule or voluntary guidance?

b. The rules further require that, for handsets that include operations over an air interface or frequency band for which hearing aid compatibility technical standards do not currently exist, each manufacturer and service provider must disclose to consumers by clear and effective means that such handset has not been rated for hearing aid compatibility with respect to that operation. Effective March 8, 2011, manufacturers and service providers will be required to use specific prescribed language in making this disclosure. The Bureau notes that ANSI ASC C63® is developing a revision of the C63.19 technical standard that would be independent of air interface and cover a broad range of frequency bands. Until such time as the promulgation and adoption of a revised technical standard renders this disclosure unnecessary, is the disclosure effective and should any changes be made?

c. Are consumers adequately informed of the need to activate the hearing aid compatibility functions in their phones, particularly when used with hearing aids containing a telecoil? If not, what actions might the Commission take to promote more effective dissemination of this information?

d. Is there any additional information that should be made available to users of hearing aids or cochlear implants at the point of sale or in product manuals? How should any such additional disclosure be achieved?

The current rules require that service providers offer in-store testing of hearing aid-compatible handset models in each retail store they own or operate. Is the testing offered under this rule effective in helping consumers choose a hearing aid-compatible phone? What challenges have service providers encountered in offering effective in-store testing? Are there any rule changes or other Commission action that would make the testing more effective or efficient?

In theHearing Aid Compatibility Second Report and Order and Further NPRM,the Commission asked whether the in-store testing requirement should be extended to independent retailer outlets not owned or operated by service providers, and whether independent retailers should be required to offer a customer with hearing loss a flexible return policy to ensure that a handset is compatible with the customer's hearing aid. Are there any other measures the Commission might take to assist consumers who purchase their phones from independent retailers in obtaining hearing aid-compatible phones? For example, is there a need for disclosure of hearing aid compatibility information by third-party online vendors? Commenters should address the Commission's authority to adopt these measures and the burdens imposed on retailers as well as the benefits for consumers.

In this section, the Bureau seeks comment on questions relating to technical issues affecting hearing aid compatibility. In particular, the Bureau asks about the need for additional measures to facilitate acoustic coupling compatibility, as well as the effects of display screens, wireless headsets, and simultaneous transmission capabilities in handsets. The Bureau also seeks comment on what the Commission can do to facilitate better operation of hearing aids and cochlear implants with wireless handsets.

a. ANSI Standard C63.19 and the Commission's existing wireless hearing aid compatibility rules address the compatibility of wireless handsets with hearing aids in two respects: (1) RF interference with hearing aids operating in acoustic mode and (2) inductive coupling capability with hearing aids containing a telecoil. However, other obstacles to acoustic coupling compatibility may exist. In particular, a Working Group of the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), WG-11, is studying issues involving volume control and acoustic coupling. The Bureau seeks comment on any measures the Commission should take, in addition to the rules regarding RF interference reduction, to promote acoustic coupling capability between wireless handsets and hearing aids or cochlear implants.

b. Wireline and cordless phones are subject to technical standards and rules regarding volume levels and controls, 47 CFR 68.4. Are similar rules feasible and necessary to ensure that wireless phones will operate at appropriate volumes to achieve acoustic coupling compatibility? If so, what should these rules require? What burdens would these requirements impose on manufacturers and service providers?

c. Is adequate information currently available to consumers and hearing aid manufacturers regarding wirelessphones' volume settings and sound quality? What challenges exist to providing such information? For example, to what extent are volume and sound quality affected by the network rather than the consumer device? Is information about volume and sound quality proprietary to the handset manufacturer or service provider? What actions can and should the Commission take to promote greater availability of this information?

d. Are there any other measures the Commission should take to facilitate acoustic coupling compatibility? For example, wireline phones typically emit a magnetic field that may be sensed by some hearing aids to trigger an acoustic coupling telephone mode. Wireless phones, however, may not emit a magnetic field of similar strength. Do differences between wireline and wireless technology mean that certain hearing aids are not receiving effective signals to activate special acoustic coupling modes for telephone use? If so, are there actions the Commission might take to enable such signaling? What would be the costs of such measures?

In earlier proceedings, concerns have been expressed that the display screens on smart phones emit electromagnetic energy that may interfere with the operation of hearing aids. In light of ongoing experience, are measures needed to address the effects of display screens on hearing aid compatibility? Do the measurement procedures specified in ANSI Standard C63.19 appropriately account for these effects? Might these effects be ameliorated by, for example, programming a handset so that the backlighting fades when it is held close to an object such as the human ear? The Bureau seeks comment on the benefits and costs of regulatory or non-regulatory measures that might be appropriate to promote this and other potential technical solutions.

Consumers are increasingly using Bluetooth and other headset or earpiece technologies to communicate over their wireless phones. Does the use of these technologies pose special challenges for users of hearing aids and cochlear implants? For example, might the headset or earpiece create RF interference with the hearing assistance device? Are there physical difficulties using a headset or earpiece with certain types of hearing aids? What regulatory or non-regulatory measures might be appropriate to address these concerns?

The 2007 revision of ANSI Standard C63.19 does not include a detailed method for testing RF interference when a handset is simultaneously transmitting over more than one air interface or frequency band. Current Commission guidance requires handsets with such capability to be tested over each air interface or frequency band separately. Until a protocol for testing in these situations has been developed, are there other actions the Commission should take?

a. Interoperability between wireless handsets, on the one hand, and hearing aids and cochlear implants on the other involves the functioning of two different devices in a single operating system. In order to help the Bureau best to understand this system, the Bureau encourages commenters to provide information regarding the technical operation of hearing aids and cochlear implants. In particular, the Bureau seeks information on new and emerging technical advances that may affect how hearing aids and cochlear implants interoperate with wireless phones.

b. The Bureau invites public comment on how effectively different types of hearing assistance devices operate with wireless handsets. Do they generally function as anticipated, or is there a substantial amount of uncertainty? Is the functioning different for different types of hearing aids? Are cochlear implants different from hearing aids in this regard?

c. Are there actions that the Commission, in coordination with the Food and Drug Administration, could take to facilitate the dissemination of information about hearing aids and cochlear implants to wireless handset manufacturers, service providers, and consumers of wireless service?

a. As the number and types of features embedded in smartphones and other wireless handsets continue to evolve, new challenges may be posed for hearing aid compatibility. For example, as noted above, simultaneous transmission capabilities pose challenges for measuring RF interference. Are there other emerging or anticipated technological developments that may create similar issues? Do the Commission's rules create appropriate incentives to consider hearing aid compatibility early in the product development cycle, when any concerns can be most efficiently addressed? Are there measures the Commission could take that would better ensure the early consideration of such issues?

b. The Commission's rules assume that wireless handsets will achieve hearing aid compatibility by meeting an M3 and/or T3 rating through features that are built into the handset. Are there other means of achieving hearing aid compatibility, either existing or under development, that may be more efficient or effective? For example, could hearing aid compatibility be achieved through a downloaded application? Do the Commission's rules in any way inhibit development of such innovative solutions? If so, how might the rules be modified to address this without compromising their effectiveness?

c. Are there other technologies, either in existence or on the horizon, that may assist people with hearing loss in using wireless technology? Are there technical developments that may create new obstacles for people with hearing loss?

a. What is the nature and extent of competition among device manufacturers and service providers with respect to hearing aid-compatible phones? Is it similar to competition in the handset and service markets generally? Is the incentive to invest in features for hearing aid-compatible phones comparable to that in the broader handset market?

b. Do the Commission's rules appropriately assign responsibility for hearing aid compatibility compliance in cases of joint ventures and other complex market arrangements? Is there any need for clarification in this regard?

a. In July 2003, the ATIS Incubator Solutions Program #4 (AISP.4) (Incubator), was created to investigate methods of enhancing interoperability and usability between hearing aids and wireless handsets. The Incubator has performed invaluable work in bringing together wireless device manufacturers, service providers, and consumers to discuss and develop solutions to hearing aid compatibility problems and in proposing to the Commission consensus plans to best meet the needs of both the industry and consumers with hearing loss. The Bureau understands that this body is now approaching the end of its institutional life. In the absence of the Incubator, how can the Commission best ensure that the industry and consumers will continue collaborating to address new technological and market developments in a timely manner. Could the Commission's Accessibility and Innovation Initiative, described athttp://www.broadband.gov/accessibilityandinnovation/,provide support for such collaboration?

b. The Bureau also seeks comment on how best to promote increased collaboration between the communications and hearing aid industries. Could the Accessibility and Innovation Initiative be an appropriate venue for these conversations as well?

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as amended (“the Safety Act”), now codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (“Motor Vehicle Safety”), requires imported vehicles to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards (“FMVSS”) as well as bumper and theft prevention standards. Effective January 10, 1968, a regulation jointly issued by NHTSA and the United States Customs Service (“Customs”), 12 CFR 12.80, allowed permanent importation of motor vehicles not originally manufactured to meet applicable FMVSS if, within 120 days, the importer demonstrated that the vehicle had been brought into compliance with those standards.

The Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-562, “the 1988 Act”), which became effective on January 31, 1990, limited the importation of vehicles that did not comply with the FMVSS to those capable of being modified to comply. To enhance oversight, the 1988 Act required that necessary modifications be performed by “registered importers” (“RIs”). RIs are business entities that have proven to NHTSA that they are technically and financially capable of importing nonconforming motor vehicles and of performing the necessary modifications on those vehicles so that they conform to all applicable FMVSS. See generally, 49 U.S.C. 30141-30147.

As mandated by the 1988 Act, the agency issued regulations covering the RI program (49 CFR parts 591 through 594) which superseded 12 CFR 12.80.See54 FR 40069, Sept. 29, 1989.

After about a decade of experience with the initial regulations under the 1988 Act, the agency identified a number of unanticipated difficulties in administering the RI program. To address these difficulties and to ensure that imported vehicles were properly brought into conformance, the agency tentatively concluded that more information from applicants and more specificity about the duties of RIs would be necessary. NHTSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) on November 20, 2000 seeking to clarify RI duties and application requirements. 65 FR 69810, Nov. 20, 2000. The NPRM proposed amendments clarifying the registration, suspension, and revocation procedures for RIs.

After considering the comments to the NPRM, the agency published a final rule amending the importation regulations on August 24, 2004. 69 FR 52070, Aug. 24, 2004. These amendments established new requirements for RI applicants and further delineated the duties of RIs. The amendments also clarified the procedures for suspending or revoking RI registrations.

The statute authorizing the RI program directs the agency to “establish procedures for registering a person who complies with requirements prescribed by the Secretary [of Transportation] by regulation under this subsection [49 U.S.C. 30141(c)] * * * ” As part of its responsibilities, an RI has the duty to ensure that each nonconforming vehicle that it imports or agrees to modify is brought into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety and bumper standards, that an accurate statement of conformity is submitted to NHTSA certifying the vehicle's compliance following the completion of the modifications, and that the vehicle is not released for operation on the public roads until NHTSA releases the conformance bond. The agency approves RIs for the specific purpose of carrying out these important safety responsibilities. In this respect, each RI occupies a position of public trust to ensure that nonconforming vehicles imported under its auspices are properly conformed to all applicable standards before they are operated on public roads in the United States.

Congress provided a non-exhaustive list of requirements that NHTSA should adopt to promote integrity in the RI program. These include record keeping requirements, records and facilities inspection authority, and establishing technical and financial requirements. The statute does not explicitly address denying, suspending, or revoking RI registrations except in circumstances in which a person had failed to comply with motor vehicle regulations, has failed to pay required fees, or has already had a registration revoked.

Conviction of a crime related to the importation, purchase, or sale of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment is, in NHTSA's view, inconsistent with holding a position of public trust such as being an RI.

The 2004 Rule (69 FR 52070, Aug. 24, 2004) required applicants to disclose the Social Security numbers of RI principals so the agency could perform criminal background checks.See69 FR 52074, Aug. 24, 2004. The primary goal of these background checks was to ensure RI accountability and compliance with legal requirements.Id.at 52073-74. Applications that did not disclose Social Security numbers would be denied.Id.Two commenters to that final rule supported denying registration to applicants with a felony record involving motor vehicles or the motor vehicle business; no one opposed it.Id.at 52074.

After adopting the rule, a petition for reconsideration challenged the use of RIs' Social Security numbers to perform background checks.See70 FR 57797, Oct. 4, 2005. In response, the agency reassessed the need for applicants to submit Social Security numbers. NHTSA determined that disclosure of Social Security numbers was unnecessary.Id.Accordingly, the agency amended sections 592.5(a)(4)(ii) and (iii), eliminating requirements that RI applicants disclose Social Security numbers.Id.

We now propose amending the RI regulations to prevent entities convicted of certain crimes from gaining or maintaining RI status. We propose amending 49 CFR 592.5(e)(1) to state that the agency may deny registration to applicants who have been convicted of a crime related to the importation, purchase or sale of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. We also propose amending the regulations to allow the agency to deny registration to an applicant if any person associated with direct or indirect ownership or control of the applying entity, or any person employed by or associated with the applicant or applying entity, has been convicted of a crime related to theimportation, purchase or sale of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. These offenses include, but are not limited to, title fraud, odometer fraud, or the sale of stolen vehicles. For the purposes of this rulemaking, the phrase “convicted of a crime” means a criminal conviction, whether entered on a verdict or plea, including a plea ofnolo contendere,for which sentence has been imposed, whether convicted in U.S. or foreign jurisdictions.

Similarly for RIs seeking to renew their registration, we propose adding a new paragraph (i) to 49 CFR 592.5 that would allow the agency to deny registration renewal to RIs who have been convicted of a motor vehicle related crime.

The integrity of the RI program is also vulnerable to abuse when an entity, after becoming an RI, is convicted of a motor vehicle related crime. A convicted entity, possessing current registration and knowing that its registration will not be renewed, may have little incentive to faithfully follow its duties as an RI. The agency believes waiting until the end of the fiscal year to deny registration renewal to a convicted entity is an unacceptable risk. To protect the program from this risk, we propose amending Section 592.5(f) to state that an existing RI or any person who directly or indirectly owns or controls, or has common ownership or control of the RI's business, must not be convicted of a crime related to the importation, purchase, or sale of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. After the RI has been convicted, RI status may be revoked under Section 592.7(b).

Under 49 CFR 592.5(a)(11), parties applying for RI status must certify that all information provided in the application is true and correct. As noted above, RIs occupy a position of public trust by certifying that imported nonconforming vehicles have been brought into conformity with all applicable safety standards. In deciding whether to register an applicant as an RI, the agency must be able to trust that the information provided in the application is accurate and truthful. If the agency discovers that an applicant submitted false or inaccurate information, the application may be denied. 49 CFR 592.5(e)(1).

NHTSA's regulations require RIs to annually renew their registrations. When evaluating a request for renewal, the Administrator must be able to rely on the accuracy and truthfulness of the annual statement submitted in support of that request, under 49 CFR 592.5(f) and 592.6(k). However, existing RIs are not currently required to certify that the renewal request is truthful. Therefore, we are proposing to amend § 592.5(f) and § 592.6(k) to require an RI to certify that all the information submitted in its annual renewal statement is true and correct. Any RI making a false or inaccurate certification in this statement may have its registration suspended or revoked pursuant to § 592.7(b).

The 1988 Act allows an RI to permanently import nonconforming vehicles if NHTSA has determined that the vehicle can be modified to comply with all applicable FMVSS. RIs must often remove nonconforming motor vehicle equipment items and replace the components with equipment meeting applicable FMVSS. Motor vehicle equipment items subject to the FMVSS include tires, wheels, brake hoses, brake fluid, seat belt assemblies, lighting equipment, and glazing.

NHTSA has previously directed RIs to destroy or export the noncompliant equipment they remove from the vehicles they conform and to certify to NHTSA that they have done so in the statements of conformity that they submit for those vehicles.

Despite these efforts, there have been instances where nonconforming equipment removed from vehicles by RIs has been offered for sale. To help ensure that this noncompliant equipment does not enter interstate commerce, we propose amending § 592.6(d) to require RIs to certify that such equipment has been destroyed or exported. This certification would be made in the statement of conformity RIs submit to the agency upon the completion of all conformance modifications. Failing to certify the destruction or exportation of nonconforming equipment items removed from imported vehicles would result in the agency withholding release of the DOT conformance bond furnished for the vehicle at its time of entry and may also subject the RI to the suspension or revocation of its registration.

A motor vehicle not originally manufactured to meet applicable FMVSS may not be imported on a permanent basis unless NHTSA determines, on its own initiative or upon the petition of an RI, that the vehicle is eligible for importation. 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A).

Two categories of vehicles are eligible for importation under section 30141(a)(1). The first are vehicles that can be readily altered to conform to the FMVSS and are substantially similar to vehicles certified as conforming to those standards (i.e., U.S.-certified counterparts). The second category covers vehicles that do not have a substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart but are capable of being altered to comply with all applicable FMVSS. In the latter category, proof of compliance is based on dynamic test data or evidence that NHTSA decides adequately demonstrates compliance. After NHTSA decides that a particular model and model year vehicle is eligible for importation, the agency assigns the vehicle a unique vehicle eligibility number that permits entry of the vehicle into the United States.

To develop a petition, an RI may need to physically examine at its facility in the United States a motor vehicle that was not certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS and compare that vehicle to a U.S.-certified vehicle of the same model and model year. If there is no substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicle, the RI may need to import as many as two motor vehicles in order to conduct crash tests and submit to NHTSA in conjunction with its petition the resultant test data or other evidence that the agency decides is adequate to show that the vehicle has safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS. NHTSA has previously informed RIs that only one vehicle may be imported for the purpose of preparing an import eligibility petition, unless destructive test data is needed, in which case the agency will authorize the importation of one additional vehicle.

These allowances have been made on anad hocbasis. In May 2006, NHTSA amended the HS-7 Declaration form by including a new Box 13 to permit the entry of nonconforming vehicles by RIs for the purpose of preparing an import eligibility petition. When it amended the form, the agency did not make corresponding amendments to 49 CFR part 591 to reflect the new contents of the HS-7 Declaration form. The agency is now proposing such an amendment to § 591.5.

NHTSA seeks to adopt a rule that will facilitate import eligibility petitionswithout imposing unnecessary burdens on RIs or on the agency. To this end, NHTSA encourages commenters to state whether importing one vehicle is sufficient for the purpose of preparing an import eligibility petition for a substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicle and whether the importation of two vehicles is sufficient where destructive crash test data is required to prove compliance with all applicable FMVSS. Under today's proposal, an RI seeking to import a vehicle needed for preparing an import eligibility petition would inform NHTSA that it will, or has, petitioned the agency for an import eligibility decision. The RI would then need NHTSA's written permission to import the vehicle. RIs would be required to follow this procedure and could not declare the vehicle under Box 3 as one that has already been determined eligible for importation, or enter an agency-assigned vehicle eligibility number on the form. Improper use of an agency-assigned vehicle eligibility number on the HS-7 Declaration form for a vehicle imported to prepare an eligibility petition will be considered a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) and 49 CFR 592.6(a), which requires an RI to assure that the vehicle it imports is eligible for importation pursuant to 49 CFR part 593. Such a violation would subject the RI to the suspension or revocation of its registration.See49 CFR 592.7(b)(1).

Vehicles imported for the purpose of preparing an import eligibility petition would only be authorized to remain in the United States for a limited time. The importing RI would be required to file an import eligibility petition with the agency within 180 days of the vehicle's entry date. The RI would be required to declare that it will destroy, export, or abandon the vehicle to the United States if NHTSA dismisses or denies the petition, if the RI withdraws the petition, or if the RI does not file a petition within 180 days from the date of entry. The RI would be required to have the vehicle destroyed, delivered to Customs for exportation, or abandoned to the United States within 30 days from the date of the dismissal, denial, or withdrawal of the RI's petition, as appropriate, or within 210 days from the date of the vehicle's entry if the RI fails to submit a petition. The RI would also be required to submit to NHTSA documentary proof of the vehicle's destruction, exportation, or abandonment within 15 days from the date of such action.

An RI would not need to obtain a DOT conformance bond when importing a nonconforming vehicle for the purpose of preparing an import eligibility petition because these bonds are only needed when NHTSA has decided that a particular vehicle is capable of being modified to meet U.S. standards. The proposal thus relies on the use of a Temporary Importation Bond (“TIB”). The TIB serves as the RI's promise that the vehicle, which is imported on a temporary basis for up to one year for the purpose of testing or inspection, will be exported or destroyed. The RI must post a TIB with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) for twice the amount of duty, taxes, etc. that would otherwise be due at the time the vehicle is imported. If the RI does not export or destroy the vehicle, it is subject to forfeiture of the TIB and penalties for violations of NHTSA's regulations including civil penalties and the suspension or revocation of the RI's registration.

The agency is also proposing that once an eligibility petition is granted, the RI must furnish a DOT conformance bond, export the vehicle, abandon the vehicle to the United States, or destroy it. If the RI intends to bring the vehicle into compliance, a complete conformance package must be submitted to the agency within 120 days from the date the petition is granted. If the vehicle has been destroyed, the RI must submit documentary proof of the destruction to the agency within 30 days from the date destruction. These recitals would be reflected in the text that the agency is proposing to add to § 591.5.

When an import eligibility petition is based on the substantial similarity of the subject vehicle to a U.S.-certified counterpart, section 30141(a)(1)(A) requires the agency to make the eligibility decision on a model and model year basis. If there is no substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart, the statute does not specify that the decision be made on a model year basis.

Vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States are typically assigned model year designations for marketing purposes. Although the model year traditionally begins on September 1, it can begin on other dates as well. A date that is more important from the agency's perspective is the vehicle's “date of manufacture,” defined as the date on which manufacturing operations are completed on a vehicle at its place of main assembly.See49 CFR 571.7 and 49 CFR 567.4(g)(2). The agency uses a vehicle's date of manufacture to identify the specific FMVSS requirements that the vehicle must be certified to meet. Manufacturers of vehicles intended for sale in the U.S. must affix to those vehicles a label that, among other things, identifies the vehicle's date of manufacture and certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS in effect on that date. 49 U.S.C. 30115; 49 CFR 567.4(g). The model year designation that a manufacturer assigns to a U.S.-certified vehicle has no bearing on the vehicle's compliance with applicable FMVSS.

Many European manufacturers do not use a model year designation for vehicles manufactured for their own markets. Instead, they rely on the calendar year in which the vehicle is produced. Moreover, the countries in which these vehicles are produced generally do not assign model year designations. Although, as previously noted, September 1 through August 31 is commonly accepted as the model year for the purpose of marketing vehicles in the United States, these dates have limited relevance, if any, to vehicles that are produced for sale abroad. Consequently, the agency is proposing to amend 49 CFR 593.4 by deleting “the calendar year that begins on September 1 and ends on August 31 of the next calendar year,” as one of the alternative definitions of the term “model year,” and adopting in its place “the calendar year (i.e., January 1 through December 31) in which manufacturing operations are completed on the vehicle at its place of main assembly.” This language corresponds to 49 CFR 567.4(g)(2), which identifies how the date of manufacture is to be selected for the purpose of a vehicle's certification label.

This change should eliminate much of the confusion now confronting RIs over the issue of whether a given vehicle manufactured for sale abroad has a substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart of the same model year.

After an RI performs all modifications necessary to conform a vehicle to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety and bumper standards, and remedies all noncompliances and defects that are the subject of any pending safety recalls, the RI must permanently affix to the vehicle a certification label that meets the content requirements of 49 CFR 567.4(k). Under 49 CFR 567.4(k)(4)(i), the RI must identify the vehicle's model year or year of manufacture on the label. We propose to amend 49 CFR 567.4(k)(4)(i) to reflect the proposed definition of model year that would be added to 49 CFR 593.4.

In making import eligibility determinations, the agency determines the safety standards applicable to a particular vehicle by, among other things, taking account of the model, model year, the type classification, and the gross vehicle weight rating (“GVWR”) of the vehicle. The various type classifications that a vehicle can be assigned are defined in the agency's regulations at 49 CFR 571.3. Those type classifications include passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle (“MPV”), truck, bus, motorcycle, trailer, and low speed vehicle (“LSV”). The regulations also define GVWR as the loaded weight of the vehicle as specified by the original manufacturer. 49 CFR 571.3.

The agency has ready access to the type classification and GVWR for U.S.-certified vehicles. Manufacturers of U.S.-certified vehicles must identify the type classification on the vehicle's certification label.See49 CFR 567.4. Manufacturers must also identify on the certification label the GVWR they have assigned to the vehicle. 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3). However, determining the type classification and GVWR of a motor vehicle without a substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart can be difficult. The agency may expend considerable time and effort ascertaining this information, thereby delaying the processing of the petition.

To rectify this situation, NHTSA is proposing that all import eligibility petitions must include the type classification and the GVWR assigned to the vehicle by its original manufacturer. Under 49 CFR 593.6(b), petitions must now include the model and model year of the subject vehicle, as well as data, views, and arguments demonstrating that the vehicle has safety features that comply with, or are capable of being modified to comply with, all applicable FMVSS. This proposal would amend 49 CFR 593.6(b) by adding language to require identification of the vehicle's type classification and GVWR as defined in 49 CFR 571.3.

NHTSA is required by statute to establish procedures for revoking or suspending an RI's registration for not complying with a requirement of 49 U.S.C. 30141-30147, or any of 49 U.S.C. 30112, 30115, 30117-30122, 30125(c), 30127, or 30166, or any regulations issued under these sections. 49 U.S.C. 30141(c)(4). Regulations implementing this provision are found at 49 CFR 592.7. The agency amended § 592.7(b) as part of the 2004 rule to list the regulations, if violated, that are grounds for suspension or revocation. These regulations were identified as including, but not being limited to, parts 567, 568, 573, 577, 591, 593, and 594. Part 592 was inadvertently omitted from this list (which was not exclusive); we now propose amending the provision to add Part 592.

49 CFR 592.5(a)(4)(v) requires an application for registration as an RI to include the statement that “the applicant has never had a registration revoked pursuant to § 592.7, nor is it, nor was it, directly or indirectly, owned or controlled by, or under common ownership or control with, a Registered Importer that has had a registration revoked pursuant to § 592.7.” This requirement is also expressed, in identical language, in § 592.5(a)(6). To correct this redundancy, we propose deleting the text at § 592.5(a)(4)(v).

Sections 591.6(f)(1), 592.5(a)(1), 592.8(b), 593.5(b)(2), and 593.10(a), prescribe requirements for submitting information to NHTSA and list the agency's address. The agency will amend these sections to reflect the agency's new street address. This does not require notice and comment but, for ease of administration, we are including it in this notice.

The amendments proposed in this notice would become effective 60 days after issuance of the final rule, apart from those revising provisions that identify the agency's street address.

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), provides for making determinations as to whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) review and subject to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is not significant. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rulemaking document under Executive Order 12886. Further, NHTSA has determined that the rulemaking is not significant under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. NHTSA currently anticipates the costs of the final rule to be so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation. The action does not involve any substantial public interest or controversy. There would be no substantial effect upon State and local governments. There would be no substantial impact upon a major transportation safety program. A regulatory evaluation analyzing the economic impact of the final rule establishing the RI program, adopted on September 29, 1989, was prepared, and is available for review in the docket.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (“SBREFA”), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e.,small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity “which operates primarily withinthe United States.” See 13 CFR 121.105(a). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The agency has considered the effects of this proposed rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and certifies that if the proposed amendments are adopted they would not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.

The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The proposed amendments would primarily affect entities modifying nonconforming vehicles that are small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. At present, 65 such entities are registered with NHTSA. The proposed amendments would not significantly increase operating costs for any of these entities or impose any additional financial burden upon them.

Small governmental jurisdictions would not be affected at all since they are generally neither importers nor purchasers of nonconforming motor vehicles.

NHTSA has examined today's NPRM pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and believes that no additional consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency believes that the NPRM, if made final, would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This NPRM, if made final, would 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.”

NHTSA has analyzed this action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The action would not have a significant effect upon the environment because it is not likely to change the volume of motor vehicles imported through RIs.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 “Civil Justice Reform,” this agency has considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive effect. NHTSA concludes that this proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Judicial review of a rule based on this proposal may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with the base year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written assessment is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and to adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of Section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Because a final rule based on this proposal would not require the expenditure of resources beyond $100 million annually, this action is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:

If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this document.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. Today's NPRM includes collections of information that are part of “Importation of Vehicles and Equipment Subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety, Bumper, and Theft Prevention Standards,” OMB control number 2127-0002. This clearance is valid though November 30, 2010. NHTSA has submitted to OMB a request for renewal of OMB control number 2127-0002. The request for renewal addresses the minor increase in the collection of information that would result if this NPRM is made final.

Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us.

This rulemaking is not economically significant and no analysis of its impact on children is required.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed oradopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (“SAE”). The NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress, through the OMB, with explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

After conducting a search of available sources, we have concluded that there are no voluntary consensus standards applicable to this proposed rule.

Your comments must be written in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.

Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management identified at the beginning of this document, underADDRESSES.

If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.

If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given at the beginning of this document underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given at the beginning of this document underADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation, 49 CFR part 512.

We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date identified at the beginning of this notice underDATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing a final rule, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given at the beginning of this document underADDRESSES.

You may also read the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps:

(1) Go to the Federal Docket Management System (“FDMS”) Web pagehttp://www.regulations.gov.

(2) On that page, click on “search for dockets.”

(3) On the next page (http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main), select NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION from the drop-down menu in the Agency field, enter the Docket ID number and title shown at the heading of this document, and select “RULEMAKING” from the drop-down menu in the Type field.

(4) After entering that information, click on “submit.”

(5) The next page contains docket summary information for the docket you selected. Click on the comments you wish to see. You may download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, instead of the word processing documents, the “pdf” versions of the documents are word searchable. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for new material.

The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (“RIN”) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN that appears in the heading on the first page of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

In consideration of the foregoing, the agency proposes to amend part 567, Certification, part 591, Importation of Vehicles and Equipment Subject to Federal Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards; part 592, Registered Importers of Vehicles Not Originally Manufactured to Conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; and part 593, Determinations that a Vehicle Not Originally Manufactured to Conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is Eligible for Importation, in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The Atlantic bluefish fishery is managed cooperatively by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission). The management unit for bluefish specified in the FMP is U.S. waters of the western Atlantic Ocean. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and J. The regulations requiring annual specifications are found at § 648.16.

The FMP requires the Council to recommend, on an annual basis, a total allowable catch (TAC) and a TAL that will control fishing mortality. An estimate of annual discards is deducted from the TAC to calculate the TAL that can be made during the year by the commercial and recreational fishing sectors combined. The FMP requires that 17 percent of the TAL be allocated to the commercial fishery, as a quota (further allocated to the states from Maine to Florida in specified shares), with the remaining 83 percent of the TAL allocated as an RHL. The Council may also recommend a research set-aside (RSA) quota, which is deducted from the bluefish TAL (after any applicable transfer) in an amount proportional to the percentage of the overall TAL as allocated to the commercial and recreational sectors.

Pursuant to § 648.162, the annual review process for bluefish requires that the Council's Bluefish Monitoring Committee (Monitoring Committee) and Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) review and make recommendations based on the best available data, including, but not limited to, commercial and recreational catch/landing statistics, current estimates of fishing mortality, stock abundance, discards for the recreational fishery, and juvenile recruitment. Based on the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee and SSC, the Council makes a recommendation to the NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator. Because this FMP is a joint plan, the Commission also meets during the annual specification process to adopt complementary measures.

The Council's recommendations must include supporting documentation concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations. NMFS is responsible for reviewing these recommendations to assure they achieve the FMP objectives, and may modify them if they do not. NMFS then publishes proposed specifications in theFederal Register, and after considering public comment, NMFS will publish final specifications in theFederal Register.

According to Amendment 1 to the FMP (Amendment 1), overfishing for bluefish occurs when F exceeds the fishing mortality rate that allows maximum sustainable yield (FMSY), or the maximum F threshold to be achieved. The stock is considered overfished if the biomass (B) falls below the minimum biomass threshold, which is defined as1/2BMSY. Amendment 1 also established that the long-term target F is 90 percent of FMSY(FMSY= 0.19, therefore Ftarget= 90 percent of FMSY, or 0.17), and the long-term target B is BMSY= 324 million lb (146,964 mt).

An age-structured assessment program (ASAP) model for bluefish was approved by the 41st Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC 41) in 2005 to estimate F and annual biomass. In June 2010, the ASAP model was updated in order to estimate the current status of the bluefish stock (i.e., 2009 biomass and F estimates) and enable the Monitoring Committee and SSC to recommend 2011 specifications using landings information and survey indices through the 2009 fishing year. The results of the assessment update were as follows: (1) An estimated stock biomass for 2009, B2009= 343.901 million lb (155,991 mt); and (2) an estimated fishing mortality rate for 2009, F2009= 0.10. Based on the updated 2009 estimate of bluefish stock biomass, the bluefish stock is not consideredoverfished: B2009is greater than the minimum biomass threshold,1/2BMSY= 162 million lb (73,526 mt), and is above BMSY. Biomass has been above the target since 2007, and the stock was declared rebuilt in October 2009, satisfying the rebuilding program requirement to achieve rebuilding by 2010 that was established in Amendment 1. Estimates of F have declined from 0.41 in 1991 to 0.10 in 2009. The updated model results also conclude that the Atlantic bluefish stock is not experiencing overfishing; i.e., the most recent F (F2009= 0.10) is less than the maximum F overfishing threshold specified by SARC 41 (FMSY= 0.19).

The Council's SSC met in July 2010 to review updated stock status and other fishery independent and dependent data to recommend an acceptable biological catch (ABC) for the 2011 bluefish fishing year. Based on the updated bluefish assessment, the SSC recommended an ABC of 31.744 million lb (14,399 mt), which corresponds to an F of 0.15. Following the SSC meeting, the Monitoring Committee met to review the SSC's ABC determination and recommend bluefish management measures for 2011. The MC recommended an Ftargetof 0.15 and a corresponding TAC of 31.744 million lb (14,399 mt). After subtracting an estimate of discards of 4.451 million lb (2,019 mt) (the average annual discard level from 2007-2009) from the TAC, the Monitoring Committee recommended a 2011 TAL of 27.293 million lb (12,380 mt). At its August 2010 meeting, the Council concurred with the recommendation of the Monitoring Committee for a TAC of 31.744 million lb (14,299 mt) and a TAL of 27.293 million lb (12,380 mt). The proposed TAL is a 7-percent decrease from the 2010 TAL of 29.264 million lb (13,274 mt) due to a slight decrease in the 2009 estimate of bluefish stock biomass. The discussion below describes the recommended allocation of TAL between the commercial and recreational sectors, and the proportional adjustments to account for the recommended bluefish RSA quota.

Based strictly on the percentages specified in the FMP (17 percent commercial, 83 percent recreational), the commercial quota for 2011 would be 4.640 million lb (2,105 mt) and the RHL would be 22.653 million lb (10,275 mt) in 2011. However, the FMP stipulates that, in any year in which 17 percent of the TAL is less than 10.500 million lb (4,763 mt), and the recreational fishery is not projected to land its harvest limit for the upcoming year, the commercial quota may be increased up to 10.500 million lb (4,763 mt), provided that the combined projected recreational landings and commercial quota would not exceed the TAL. The RHL would then be adjusted downward so that the TAL would be unchanged.

The Council postponed projections of estimated recreational harvest for 2011 until Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) harvest data through Wave 5 of 2010 became available (six “Waves” of data are released each year by MRFSS). In the meantime, the 3-year average of annual recreational harvest from 2007 through 2009 (17.882 million lb (8,111 mt)) was applied as the estimated recreational harvest for 2011. As such, it was expected that a transfer of up to 4.772 million lb (2,164 mt) from the recreational sector to the commercial sector could be approved. This option represents the preferred alternative recommended by the Council in its specifications document.

Northeast Regional Office staff recently updated the recreational harvest projection using 2010 MRFSS data through Wave 5. Using the best available data, the 2011 recreational harvest was estimated to be 16.992 million lb (7,707 mt), or approximately 62 percent of the TAL. Consistent with the Council's recommendation, this would allow for a transfer of 4.772 million lb (2,164 mt) from the recreational sector to the commercial sector. This would result in an adjusted commercial quota of 9.411 million lb (4,269 mt) and an RHL of 17.882 million lb (8,111 mt).

Two research projects that would utilize bluefish RSA quota have been preliminarily approved and forwarded to NOAA's Grants Management Division. A 105,000-lb (48-mt) RSA quota is preliminarily approved for use by these projects during 2011. Proportional adjustments of this amount to the commercial and recreational allocations would result in a final commercial quota of 9.375 million lb (4,253 mt) and a final RHL of 17.813 million lb (8,080 mt). NMFS staff will update the commercial and recreational allocations based on the final 2011 RSA awards as part of the final rule for the 2011 specifications.

The Council recommends, and NMFS proposes, to maintain the current recreational possession limit of up to 15 fish per person to achieve the RHL.

The proposed state commercial allocations for the recommended 2011 commercial quota are shown in Table 1, based on the percentages specified in the FMP. These quotas do not reflect any adjustments for quota overages that may have occurred in some states in 2010. Any potential deductions for states that exceeded their quota in 2010 will be accounted for in the final rule.

Amendment 1, implemented in 2000, established a rebuilding schedule to rebuild the bluefish stock biomass to its biomass target using a graduated step reduction in fishing mortality over a 9-year period. Amendment 1 specified a target F of 90 percent of FMSY, to become effective after the rebuilding period. The regulations at § 648.160(a) state that the Council must set the TAL to “achieve the target fishing mortality rate (F) specified in the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Bluefish for the upcoming fishing year or the estimated F for the fishing year preceding the Council submission of the recommended specifications, whichever F is lower.” These regulations reflect the annual specification process during the rebuilding period; however, the regulations do not reflect the intent of the FMP for specification of the TAL after the rebuilding period. The “whichever F is lower” provision was only intended to apply to annual specifications during the rebuilding period. Therefore, this rule proposes to eliminate the “whichever F is lower” provision to more clearly reflect the intent of the FMP.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Bluefish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this preamble and in theSUMMARY. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council (seeADDRESSES).

Small businesses operating in commercial and recreational (i.e., party and charter vessel operations) fisheries have been defined by the Small Business Administration as firms with gross revenues of up to $4.0 and $6.5 million, respectively. The categories of small entities likely to be affected by this action include commercial and charter/party vessel owners holding an active Federal permit for Atlantic bluefish, as well as owners of vessels that fish for Atlantic bluefish in state waters. All federally permitted vessels fall into the definition of small businesses; thus, there would be no disproportionate impacts between large and small entities as a result of the proposed rule.

An active participant in the commercial sector was defined as any vessel that reported having landed one or more lb (0.45 kg) in the Atlantic bluefish fishery in 2009 (the last year for which there are complete data). The active participants in the commercial sector were defined using two sets of data. The Northeast dealer reports were used to identify 688 vessels that landed bluefish in states from Maine through North Carolina in 2009. However, the Northeast dealer database does not provide information about fishery participation in South Carolina, Georgia, or Florida. South Atlantic Trip Ticket reports were used to identify 908 vessels1 that landed bluefish in North Carolina and 685 vessels that landed bluefish on Florida's east coast. Bluefish landings in South Carolina and Georgia were near zero in 2009, representing a negligible proportion of the total bluefish landings along the Atlantic Coast. Therefore, this analysis assumed that no vessel activity for these two states took place in 2009. In recent years, approximately 2,063 party/charter vessels may have been active in the bluefish fishery and/or have caught bluefish.

There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action. In addition, NMFS is not aware of any relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.

The IRFA in the Draft EA analyzed three alternatives (including a no action/status quo alternative) for the 2011 Atlantic bluefish fishery. All quota alternatives considered in this analysis are based on various commercial harvest levels for bluefish (a low, medium, and high level of harvest). For analysis of impacts of each alternative, the maximum potential RSA quota of 3 percent of the TAL (818,797 lb (371 mt)) was used. For analysis of impacts of Alternatives 1 and 3, the recommended transfer of 4.772 million lb (2,164 mt) from the recreational sector to the commercial sector was used. Under Alternative 2, no transfer of bluefish would be made from the recreational sector to the commercial sector, and the allocation of the TAL would be based strictly on the percentages specified in the FMP (17 percent commercial, 83 percent recreational).

Alternatives 1 and 2 would implement a TAL of 27.293 million lb (12,380 mt). Alternative 3 would implement status quo management measures for 2011, which would result in a TAL identical to the 2010 TAL, or 29.264 million lb (13,274 mt). The proposed 2011 Atlantic bluefish specification alternatives are shown in Table 2, along with the resulting commercial quota and RHL after any applicable transfer described earlier in the preamble and after deduction of the RSA quota. Alternative 1 (Council's preferred) would allocate 9.129 million lb (4,141 mt) to the commercial sector and 17.345 million lb (7,868 mt) to the recreational sector. Alternative 2 would result in the most restrictive commercial quota and would allocate 4.501 million lb (2,041 mt) to the commercial sector and 21.974 million lb (9,967 mt) to the recreational sector. Alternative 3 (status quo) would allocate 10.051 million lb (4,559 mt) to the commercial sector and 18.335 million lb (8,317 mt) to the recreational sector. The commercialquota and RHL under Alternative 3 would be slightly different than those in 2010 due to differences in the RSA quota.

Table 2. Proposed 2011 Atlantic Bluefish Specification Alternatives for TAL, Commercial Quota, and RHL (million lb).

To assess the impact of the alternatives on commercial fisheries, the Council conducted a threshold analysis and analysis of potential changes in ex-vessel gross revenue that would result from each alternative, using Northeast dealer reports and South Atlantic Trip Ticket reports.

Under Alternative 1, the recommended commercial quota for 2011 is approximately 40 percent higher than 2009 commercial landings. When this commercial quota is distributed to the states from Maine to Florida (based on the percentages specified in the FMP), each state's 2011 quota is higher than its 2009 landings, except for New York and New Jersey. New York and New Jersey both fully harvested their initial bluefish quota and received commercial quota transfers from other states in 2009. Therefore, New York and New Jersey's 2009 landings were greater than their initially allocated 2009 commercial quota. Results of the threshold analysis from dealer data estimated that, coast wide, there would be no revenue change for 449 vessels, while 219 vessels could incur slight revenue losses of less than 5 percent. Approximately 20 vessels could incur revenue losses of more than 5 percent. A larger number of these vessels have home ports in New York than in any other state. Of the 20 vessels that may experience revenue losses of more than 5 percent, 15 percent had gross sales of $1,000 or less, and 80 percent had gross sales of $10,000 or less. This likely indicates that the dependence on income from fishing for some of these vessels is very small. If commercial quota is transferred from a state or states that do not land their entire bluefish quota for 2011, as was done in 2010 and frequently in previous years, the number of affected entities described above could decrease, thus decreasing the adverse economic impact on vessels landing in the state(s) receiving quota transfers.

Alternative 2 would result in a commercial quota 31 percent below the 2009 commercial landings. Although the overall commercial quota would be lower than 2009 commercial landings, when distributed to the states, each state's 2011 quota is higher than its 2009 landings, except for Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and North Carolina. For these states, 2011 commercial landings would be constrained by the 2011 commercial quota under Alternative 2. The threshold analysis projected that 566 vessels could incur revenue losses of less than 5 percent and 61 vessels could incur revenue losses of 5 percent or more. Of the vessels likely to be impacted with revenue reductions of 5 percent or more, 36 percent had gross sales of $1,000 or less and 61 percent had gross sales of $10,000 or less, which may indicate that the dependence on fishing for some of these vessels is small. A larger number of impacted vessels have home ports in New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, which may indicate a higher dependence on bluefish for these states.

Under Alternative 3, the 2011 commercial quota is approximately 54 percent higher than the 2009 commercial landings. Most states show a similar directional change in fishing opportunities under this alternative; however, New York's 2011 commercial quota would be lower than its 2009 commercial landings. Analysis of Alternative 3 concluded that, coast wide, 565 vessels would likely have no change in revenue relative to 2009, but 8 vessels were projected to incur revenue losses of more than 5 percent. Of the vessels projected to incur revenue losses of more than 5 percent, 88 percent had gross sales of $10,000 or less, likely indicating that the dependence on fishing for some of these vessels is small. No revenue reduction would be expected for vessels that land bluefish in North Carolina or Florida under Alternative 3. If commercial quota is transferred from a state or states that do not land their entire bluefish quota for 2011, as was done in 2010 and frequently in previous years, the number of affected entities described above could decrease, thus decreasing the adverse economic impact on vessels landing in the state(s) receiving quota transfers.

For Alternative 1, the recommended RHL for the recreational sector (17.345 million lb, 7,868 mt) is approximately 28 percent above the recreational landings for 2009 and 7 percent below the RHL implemented for 2010 (18.631 million lb (8,451 mt)). The proposed 2011 RHL is approximately 3 percent less than the projected 2011 recreational landings. There is little empirical evidence regarding the sensitivity of charter/party anglers to fishing regulations. However, under Alternative 1, given the recreational landings in recent years, it is possible that the proposed RHL may cause a slight decrease in recreational satisfaction. In addition, if the proposed measures discourage trip-taking behavior, the demand for party/charter boat trips may be slightly negatively impacted as a result of the proposed 2011 RHL under Alternative 1. Some anglers may reduce their effort in 2011 as a result of the RHL, and are likely to transfer this effort to alternative species, resulting in little change in overall fishing effort. The IRFA analyzed the maximum transfer amount from the recreational sector to the commercial sector, but future updates of recreational harvest projections could result in a lesser transfer amount.

The 2011 RHL under Alternative 2 would be 62 percent higher than the recreational landings in 2009 and 18 percent higher than the 2010 RHL. In addition, the 2011 RHL is 23 percent higher than the projected recreational landings for 2011. Under Alternative 3, the 2011 RHL would be 35 percent higher than 2009 recreational landings and 2 percent lower than the 2010 RHL. The 2011 RHL would be approximately3 percent higher than the projected 2011 recreational landings. Thus, Alternatives 2 and 3 are not expected to have any negative effects on recreational fishermen or the demand for party/charter boat trips. In addition, neither of these alternatives are expected to result in recreational landings in excess of the RHL.

For analysis of each alternative, the maximum RSA quota amount (3 percent of the TAL) was deducted from the initial overall TAL for 2011 to derive the adjusted 2011 commercial quota and RHL under each alternative. Thus, the threshold analyses for each alternative accounted for overall reductions in fishing opportunities due to RSA. Specification of RSA quota for 2011 is expected to benefit all participants in the fishery as a result of improved data and information for management or stock assessment purposes.

The Council recommended Alternative 1 over Alternatives 2 and 3 because it is projected to achieve the target F in 2011, while providing the second least restrictive commercial quota among the alternatives analyzed. Alternative 2 was not recommended by the Council because it would yield the lowest commercial fishing opportunities among the alternatives due to an absence of a quota transfer under this alternative. Alternative 3 was not selected because it would result in a TAC above the level recommended by the SSC and Monitoring Committee.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows: