        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 210211-0020]
        RIN 0648-BJ82
        Pacific Island Fisheries; Mariana Archipelago Bottomfish Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This rulemaking proposes to establish annual catch limits (ACL) and annual catch targets (ACT) for bottomfish in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and accountability measures (AM) to correct or mitigate any overages by reducing the ACL and or ACT for the subsequent year. The proposed ACLs, ACTs, and AMs would be effective for fishing years 2020-2022 in Guam and for fishing years 2020-2023 in the CNMI. The proposed action supports the long-term sustainability of the bottomfish fishery in the Mariana Islands.

          DATES:
          NMFS must receive comments by March 15, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2020-0119, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2020-0119, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Send written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

            Instructions: NMFS may not consider comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          NMFS prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) that describes the potential impacts on the human environment that could result from the proposed ACLs and AMs. The draft EA and other supporting documents are available from www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sarah Ellgen, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5173.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Guam and CNMI bottomfish fisheries target an assemblage, or complex, of 13 bottomfish management unit species (BMUS), including emperors, snappers, groupers, and jacks. NMFS and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) manage the bottomfish fisheries in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (generally 3-200 nautical miles (nm) from shore) around Guam and the CNMI through the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Mariana Archipelago (FEP), under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The FEP contains a process for the Council and NMFS to specify ACLs, ACTs, and AMs, codified at 50 CFR 665.4.
        The regulations require NMFS to specify an ACL and AM for each stock and stock complex of management unit species, as recommended by the Council, and considering the best available scientific, commercial, and other information about the fishery. If a fishery exceeds an ACL, the regulations require the Council to take action, which may include reducing the ACL for the subsequent fishing year by the amount of the overage, or other appropriate action. The specification of an ACT, which is set below the ACL, can help ensure that the catch does not exceed the ACL. When used, an ACT also serves as the basis for invoking accountability measures.

        The Council and NMFS manage bottomfish as a single multi-species stock complex that is assessed as one unit whether the fish are in territorial or Federal waters. As a result, while most fishing for BMUS occurs in territorial waters, generally from the shoreline out to 3 nm, catches from both territorial waters and Federal waters around the territories would be counted towards the specified ACT and ACL that applies only to Federal waters.
        The Council recommended that NMFS specify ACLs for BMUS in Guam at 27,000 lb (12,247 kg) for each fishing year 2020-2022 and in the CNMI at 84,000 lb (38,102 kg) for each fishing year 2020-2023. The 2020 fishing year ended December 31, 2020. The Council also recommended an ACT of 78,000 lb (35,380 kg) for CNMI BMUS for the same period. The fishing year for bottomfish in the Mariana Islands is the calendar year. The Council based its recommendations on a 2019 benchmark stock assessment by the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC), and in consideration of the best available scientific, commercial, and other information about the fishery, and in accordance with the ACL process set forth in the FEP.
        NMFS proposes to implement the Council's recommended AM to Guam and CNMI BMUS, which is to apply a three-year average catch to evaluate fishery performance against the ACLs and in the event of overage to adjust the ACL and or ACT for the subsequent year. Specifically, under the proposed AMs, NMFS and the Council would use the average catch of the past three fishing years to evaluate fishery performance against the ACL for a particular fishery. At the end of each fishing year, if NMFS and the Council determine that the average catch of the past three years for any fishery exceeds the specified ACL, NMFS would, by separate rulemaking, reduce the ACL in the subsequent year for that fishery by the amount of the overage. NMFS may also specify an ACT that is below the ACL, as recommended by the Council. When used, the ACT serves as the basis for invoking the AM. For CNMI, the ACT would also be subject to the same adjustment as the ACL for the subsequent fishing year. If the average catch from the most recent three-year period exceeds the ACT but remains below the ACL, then an overage adjustment would not be applied.
        The 2019 stock assessment concluded that, in 2017, the Guam BMUS stock was overfished, but not subject to overfishing. NMFS adopted the findings of the assessment and notified the Council in February 2020. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council to prepare and implement an FEP, FEP amendment, or proposed regulations to rebuild the stock within two years of that notification (that is, by February 2022). Thus, the proposed Guam ACL will cover the period of 2021 through 2022, during which time the Council will develop the necessary action to rebuild the stock.
        The 2019 stock assessment estimated the overfishing limit for Guam BMUS to be 36,000 lb (16,329 kg). The proposed Guam ACL corresponds to a 31 percent probability of overfishing, which is more conservative than the 50 percent risk threshold allowed under NMFS guidelines for National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (NS1). It is likely that annual catch in 2020 through 2022 would not only approach the proposed ACL, but the three-year average of catch would exceed the proposed ACL. If the catch exceeds the three-year average, then the proposed post-season adjustment would be implemented to reduce the ACL in the subsequent year. The proposed ACLs and AMs are meant to prevent overfishing in accordance with NS1. ACLs designed to rebuild Guam bottomfish will be part of a subsequent Council rebuilding plan.
        The 2019 stock assessment also concluded that in 2017 the CNMI BMUS stock was not overfished and did not experience overfishing. The assessment estimated the overfishing limit for CNMI BMUS to be 98,000 lb (44,452 kg). The CNMI ACL and ACT correspond to 39 percent and 34 percent probability of overfishing, respectively, which are more conservative than the 50 percent risk threshold allowed under NMFS guidelines for NS1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS does not anticipate that the CNMI fishery will reach the proposed ACT or ACL in any fishing year, nor will fishing for bottomfish be constrained during the fishing year.

        NMFS will consider public comments on this proposed rule and will announce the final ACLs, ACTs, and AMs in the Federal Register. NMFS must receive any comments by the date provided in the DATES heading. NMFS may not consider any comments not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date. Regardless of the final ACLs, ACTs and AMs, all other management measures will continue to apply in the fisheries.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed action is consistent with the FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities
        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. A description of the proposed action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for it are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule.
        The proposed rule would implement ACLs, ACTs, and AMs for the bottomfish in Guam and the CNMI. These measures would apply in 2020-2022 for Guam and in 2020-2023 for the CNMI. The Council recommended the proposed measures based on the most recent stock assessment for bottomfish in Guam and the CNMI, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and in accordance with the ACL process set forth in the FEP.
        For the CNMI, NMFS proposes an ACL of 84,000 lb (38,102 kg), which is associated with a 39 percent risk of overfishing, which is more conservative than the 50 percent threshold allowed by the NS1 guidelines. The proposed ACL is a 63 percent reduction from the 228,000 lb (103,419 kg) ACL set in 2016 and 2017. This reduction is based on the most recent stock assessment, which incorporated several changes that resulted in markedly different outputs compared to the previous assessment that informed the 2016 and 2017 ACL. As described in the 2019 stock assessment and discussed at the October 2019 Council meeting, these changes included using a new species list, filtering data in a new way, and standardizing data for covariates that may affect the catch rate. NMFS did not specify ACLs for 2018 and 2019 while the Council and NMFS completed Amendment 5 to the FEP, which reclassified certain management unit species as ecosystem component species. Taking into account social, economic, and ecological considerations and management uncertainty, NMFS proposes to set an ACT at 78,000 lb (35,380 kg), which is associated with a 34 percent risk of overfishing.

        For Guam, NMFS proposes an ACL of 27,000 lb (12,247 kg), which is associated with a 31 percent risk of overfishing and is a 59 percent reduction from the 66,000 lb (29,937 kg) ACL set in 2016 and 2017. Like in the CNMI, this reduction is based on the most recent stock assessment, which incorporated several changes that resulted in markedly different outputs compared to the previous assessment. Additionally, according to the recent stock assessment, the stock is overfished, but not subject to overfishing. The previous assessment indicated the stock was fished at sustainable levels. NMFS adopted the findings of the assessment and so notified the Council in February 2020. ACLs designed to rebuild will be part of the Council's rebuilding plan.
        The fishing year for bottomfish in Guam and the CNMI begins January 1 and ends December 31. NMFS would count bottomfish catches from both territorial waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone toward the ACL and ACT. Because real-time catch data are not currently available for this fishery, the Council and NMFS consider post-season AMs only. Specifically, for Guam, if NMFS and the Council determine that the average catch from the most recent three-year period exceeds the ACL, NMFS would reduce the ACL in the subsequent fishing years by the amount of the overage. For the CNMI, if NMFS and the Council determine that the average catch from the most recent three-year period exceeds the ACL, NMFS would reduce the ACL and ACT in the subsequent fishing year by the amount of the overage. If the average catch from the most recent three-year period exceeds the ACT, but is below the ACL, NMFS would not apply a post-season AM.
        The bottomfish fisheries in Guam and the CNMI share many similarities in terms of gear, fishing methods, and species targeted. Many people who participate in the bottomfish fishery are either subsistence or part-time commercial fishermen, and they generally do not sell all of their catch. The majority of fishermen operate vessels less than 25 ft long, but a few longer vessels also participate in the fishery. Commercial vessels tend to concentrate effort on deepwater bottomfish at offshore banks, but they face higher operating costs than the shallow-water fishery operating closer to shore. In addition to sales to seafood dealers, some bottomfish sales are within community social networks.
        In Guam, the number of vessels landing BMUS increased from 29 vessels in 2012 to 52 vessels in 2019. Annual BMUS catch is variable, but has been trending upwards over the past eight years, ranging from a low of 10,882 lb (4,936 kg) in 2015 to a high of 37,701 lb (17,101 kg) in 2019. The annual catch for three out of the last eight years has exceeded the proposed ACL, and the average annual catch from 2017 to 2019 was 26,906 lb (12,204 kg), which is 99.6 percent of the proposed ACL. Data on the amount sold and revenue in 2019 are not available due to confidentiality requirements. Applying the 2018 percent sold (11 percent) and price per pound ($5.05) to the 2019 estimated catch, yields a projection that 4,147 lb (1,881 kg) was sold in 2019 with an estimated revenue of $20,942.
        In the CNMI, the number of vessels landing BMUS has fluctuated from a high of 51 vessels in 2005 to a low of two vessels in 2018. In 2019, eight vessels landed BMUS. The average annual catch of BMUS from 2017 to 2019 was 23,223 lb (10,534 kg). In 2019, the fishery landed 21,012 lb (9,531 kg), which is 27 percent of the ACL and 30 percent of the ACT, respectively, so the fishery is unlikely to reach the ACL or ACT in future years. We estimate that the 2019 revenue for this fishery was $35,840.
        NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in excess of $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all vessels engaging in the Guam and CNMI commercial and non-commercial bottomfish fisheries (NAICS Code: 114111) are small entities. That is, they are engaged in the business of finfish harvesting, independently owned or operated, not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $11 million. Therefore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Furthermore, NMFS has determined that there would be no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of vessels based on gear, home port, or vessel length.
        Even though this proposed action would apply to a substantial number of vessels, this action is not expected to result in significant adverse economic impact to individual vessels. While the fisheries could reach or exceed the ACL or ACT, the catch data are not available until six months after the local resource agencies have collected the data. Therefore, the proposed rule would not subject the fisheries to an in-season AM, such as a fishery closure and, without an in-season AM, fishing activity is not likely to be constrained.
        The proposed action does not duplicate, overlap or conflict with other Federal rules and is not expected to have significant impact on small entities (as discussed above), organizations or government jurisdictions. The proposed action also will not place a substantial number of small entities at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities. For the reasons above, NMFS does not expect the proposed action to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As such, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665
          Accountability measures, Annual catch limits, Bottomfish, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Mariana Archipelago, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Islands.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: February 12, 2021.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 665 as follows:

          PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

        1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 665 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        2. Add § 665.408 to read as follows:

          § 665.408
          Annual Catch Limits (ACL) and Annual Catch Targets (ACT).

          (a) In accordance with § 665.4, the ACL and ACT for Guam and CNMI bottomfish MUS fisheries for each fishing year are as follows:

            Table 1 to Paragraph (a)

              2020
              2021
              2022

              Guam

              ACL (lb)
              27,000
              27,000
              27,000

            Table 2 to Paragraph (a)

              2020
              2021
              2022
              2023

              CNMI

              ACL (lb)
              84,000
              84,000
              84,000
              84,000

              ACT (lb)
              78,000
              78,000
              78,000
              78,000

          (b) If the average catch of the three most recent years exceeds the specified ACL or ACT in a fishing year, the Regional Administrator will reduce the ACL and or ACT for the subsequent year by the amount of the overage in a separate rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 2021-03240 Filed 2-19-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
        30 CFR Part 950
        [SATS No. WY-035-FOR]
        Wyoming Regulatory Program

          AGENCY:
          Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening and extension of public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment.

          SUMMARY:
          We are announcing the receipt of additional explanatory information pertaining to a previously proposed amendment to the Wyoming regulatory program (hereinafter, “the Wyoming program”) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). In lieu of changing the proposed rule language, as we suggested in our issue letter, Wyoming has submitted additional explanatory information about its self-bonding rules (Rule Package 1-U) with respect to the inclusion of foreign assets as part of a company's tangible net worth and the eligibility of foreign companies to self-bond or guarantee a self-bond. We are seeking input on whether the Wyoming explanation provides sufficient basis for us to approve the proposed amendment.

          DATES:
          We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4 p.m., m.d.t. August 15, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by “SATS No. WY-035-FOR” by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: JFleischman@osmre.gov. Include “SATS No. WY-035-FOR” in the subject line of the message.
          • Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Jeffrey W. Fleischman, Director, Casper Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Federal Building,   150 East B Street, Rm 1018,   Casper, Wyoming 82601-1018,   307/261-6550.
          • Fax: 307/261-6552.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

            Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and “SATS No. WY-035-FOR.” For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Comment Procedures” heading under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

            Docket: Access to the docket, to review copies of the Wyoming program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document, may be obtained at the addresses listed below during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may receive one free copy of the amendment by contacting the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's (OSM) Casper Field Office. In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular business hours at the following locations:

          Jeffrey W. Fleischman, Director, Casper Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Federal Building,   150 East B Street, Rm. 1018,   Casper, Wyoming 82601-1018,   307/261-6550,   E-mail: JFleischman@osmre.gov.

          John V. Corra, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Herschler Building, 122 West 25th Street,   Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002,   307/777-7046,   E-mail: jcorra.state.wy.us.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jeffrey W. Fleischman, Telephone: 307/261-6550; E-mail: JFleischman@osmre.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          I. Background on the Wyoming Program
          II. Description of the Proposed Amendment
          III. Public Comment Procedures

        I. Background on the Wyoming Program

        Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its State program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Wyoming program on November 26, 1980. You can find background information on the Wyoming program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval of the Wyoming program in the November 26, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 78637). You can also find later actions concerning Wyoming's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 950.11, 950.12, 950.15, 950.16, and 950.20.
        II. Description of the Proposed Amendment

        By letter dated March 7, 2006, Wyoming submitted an amendment to its program proposing revisions to and additions of rules concerning self-bonding requirements (Administrative Record No. WY-40-01) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Wyoming sent the amendment to reflect changes made at its own initiative. The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES.

        We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the April 21, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 20604), provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on its substantive adequacy, and invited public comment on its adequacy (Administrative Record No. WY-40-07). Because no one requested a public hearing or meeting, none was held. The public comment period ended on May 22, 2006. We received comments from two industry groups and one Federal agency.

        During our review of the amendment, we identified concerns relating to the newly-created provisions of Wyoming's Coal Rules and Regulations at Chapter 11, Section 2(a)(xii)(D) and (E) that would authorize the Administrator to accept guarantees from foreign companies for self-bonds for domestic mining companies and allow the inclusion of foreign assets as part of a company's tangible net worth when determining eligibility to guarantee a self-bond. We notified Wyoming of our concerns by letter dated May 26, 2006 (Administrative Record No. WY-40-08). Wyoming responded in a letter dated June 23, 2006, by submitting additional explanatory information (Administrative Record No. WY-40-09).
        The additional explanatory information pertains to Chapter 11, Section 2(a)(xii)(D), which allows an operator to include foreign assets when calculating tangible net worth if the operator provides the information required under newly-created subsection (E), and Chapter 11, Section 2(a)(xii)(E), which details the additional requirements that apply before the Administrator may accept a foreign parent or non-parent corporate guarantee. Based on the additional explanatory information, Wyoming suggests that no further changes in the rule language are necessary.
        Specifically, Wyoming states that Sections 2(a)(xii)(D) and (E) are a subset of a larger set of financial information required as part of the self-bond application process, and that the Administrator's approval is conditioned on the applicant's submission of additional financial data set forth in Sections 2(a)(xii)(A)-(E). Wyoming also maintains that Section 2(a)(xii)(E)(I), which requires “A legal opinion from a firm recognized to do business in the country of the firm's international headquarters concerning the collectability of a self-bond in the foreign country,” serves to verify that the self-bond can in fact be collected and will also explain how it is to be collected. Lastly, Wyoming explains that the availability of methods it plans to utilize for collecting assets of non-parent foreign guarantors will be addressed as part of the legal opinion required by Section 2(a)(xii)(E)(I), which must address the collectability of the bond or guarantee.
        III. Public Comment Procedures
        Written Comments

        Send your written comments to OSM at the address given above. Your written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. We will not consider or respond to your written comments when developing the final rule if they are received after the close of the comment period (see DATES). We will make every attempt to log all comments into the administrative record, but comments delivered to an address other than the Casper Field Office may not be logged in.
        Electronic Comments

        Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: SATS No. WY-035-FOR” and your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive confirmation that we have received your Internet message, contact the Casper Field Office at 307/261-6550. In the final rulemaking, we will not consider or include in the administrative record any electronic comments received after the time indicated under DATES or at e-addresses other than the Casper Field Office.
        Availability of Comments
        We will make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during normal business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments. If individual respondents request confidentiality, we will honor their request to the extent allowable by law. Individual respondents who wish to withhold their name or address from public review, except for the city or town, must state this prominently at the beginning of their comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public review in their entirety.

          List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 950
          Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

          Dated: June 28, 2006.
          Allen D. Klein,
          Director, Western Region.

       [FR Doc. E6-12188 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-05-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 577
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0001]
        RIN 2127-AL66
        Update Means of Providing Recall Notification

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          NHTSA proposes to amend the means of recall notification to owners and purchasers required under the Safety Act to be in an electronic manner, in addition to first class mail, in accordance with Section 30130 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and Section 24104 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). Through this proposed rule, NHTSA also seeks to improve the efficacy of recalls by requiring manufacturers to send additional notifications of defects or noncompliance with applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) if a second notification by the manufacturer does not result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or replacement equipment being returned for remedy.

          DATES:

          Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2016. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking comment on amendments to an information collection. See the Paperwork Reduction Act section under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices below. Please submit all comments relating to the information collection requirements to NHTSA and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section on or before October 31, 2016. Comments to OMB are most useful if submitted within 30 days of publication.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
          • Internet: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Facsimile: (202) 493-2251.
          Regardless of how you submit your comments, please include the docket number of this document.
          You may also call the Docket at (202) 366-9322.

          Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below.

            Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476 at 19477-78).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For substantive issues: Jennifer Timian, Office of Defects Investigation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, at (202) 366-4000. For legal issues: Justine Casselle, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, at (202) 366-2992.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          I. Executive Summary
          II. Notification Requirements Before and After MAP-21 and FAST Act

          III. NHTSA's Proposed Amendment To Require Notification to Owners and Purchasers by Electronic Means in Addition to Notification by First Class Mail
          A. Public Response to NHTSA's ANPRM
          B. Suggested Approaches for Electronic Notification
          C. Limitations to Electronic Notification Approaches
          D. Privacy Considerations and Impacts of Any Existing Laws
          IV. Proposed Changes to Notification Requirements
          V. Proposed Changes to Follow-Up Requirements
          VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
          A. Adjusted Estimates for Current Information Collections
          B. Estimates for New Information Collections

        I. Executive Summary

        In the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Congress enacted a provision authorizing NHTSA to amend the means by which a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment provides notification to owners, purchasers, and dealers that a vehicle or equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS). Public Law 112-141, 31310, 126 Stat. 758 (2012). More recently, Section 24104 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) expressly provided that NHTSA amend 49 CFR part 577 to require notification to owners and purchasers by electronic means in addition to notification by first class mail. Public Law 114-94, 24104 (2015). MAP-21 further authorized NHTSA to improve recall effectiveness by requiring manufacturers to send additional notifications of defects or noncompliance if a second notification by the manufacturer does not result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or equipment being returned for remedy. Public Law 112-141,  31310, 126 Stat. 758 (2012). NHTSA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting comments and supporting information about what NHTSA might require as to electronic notification. See 81 FR 4007 (January 25, 2016). We asked questions to facilitate comments from stakeholders on what means of notification, based on their experience, have been most effective in providing information to customers and motivating customers to have safety recall remedies performed. As part of implementing the MAP-21 and FAST Act notification provisions, and after consideration of comments received in response to the ANPRM, we now propose to amend Part 577 to require electronic notification means in addition to first class mail notification to owners and purchasers. This proposed update is not intended to change the scope of the existing rule, other than as specifically described in this notice, but is intended to aid in efficiently and effectively improving safety recall completion rates.
        II. Notification Requirements Before and After MAP-21 and FAST Act

        49 U.S.C. 30118(c) requires that, in the event of a defect or noncompliance with an applicable FMVSS in a motor vehicle or replacement equipment, manufacturers notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of the vehicle or equipment pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30119. The manner by which this required notice is given to owners, purchasers, and dealers of vehicles or equipment is governed by 49 U.S.C. 30119(d). Prior to MAP-21, for vehicle recalls, section 30119(d) required notice to be sent by first class mail to the registered owner or, if the registered owner could not be identified, to the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer. 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(1)(A)-(B). For recalls of replacement equipment, the statute required notification by first class mail to the most recent purchaser. Id. Manufacturers were also required to notify dealers under the statute “by certified mail or quicker means if available.” 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(4).
        Section 31310 of MAP-21 amended the notice provisions in 49 U.S.C. 30119(d) to allow the Secretary of Transportation, and by delegation NHTSA's Administrator, the flexibility to determine the manner by which notifications about safety recalls under 49 U.S.C. 30118 must be sent. The amended statutory language authorized the Agency to engage in a rulemaking to permit notification to owners and purchasers of safety recalls by means other than first class mail. In December 2015, Congress enacted the FAST Act expounding on this authority by expressly requiring the Agency to amend 49 CFR 577.7 to include notification to owners and purchasers by electronic means in addition to notification by first class mail.1

            1 Notification to dealers and distributors is generally required to be sent “by certified mail, verifiable or electronic means such as receipts or logs from electronic mail or satellite distribution system, or other more expeditious and verifiable means.” 49 CFR 577.7(c)(2). Dealers and distributors are not notified by first class mail. Therefore, the FAST Act did not require the Agency to change the means of notification for dealers and distributors, and we are not proposing to do so.

        Section 31310 of MAP-21 aimed to improve the efficacy of recalls not just through updating the means of notification, but also through allowing the Secretary to order additional notifications when necessary. Previously, 49 U.S.C. 30119(e) authorized the Secretary to order a second notification if the Secretary determined that the first notification failed to result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or items of equipment being returned for remedy. The statute was silent, however, as to whether additional notifications beyond a second notification could be required. Section 31310 resolved this question by amending 49 U.S.C. 30119(e), which now, under 49 U.S.C. 30119(e)(2)(A)(i), authorizes the Secretary to order additional notifications if the Secretary determines that a second notification also failed to result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or items of equipment being returned for remedy.
        III. NHTSA's Proposed Amendment To Require Notification to Owners and Purchasers by Electronic Means in Addition to Notification by First Class Mail
        In the ANPRM, NHTSA invited comments and supporting information on how the Agency can best leverage the new flexibilities given under MAP-21 and the FAST Act to update the required means manufacturers use, whether as a first notification or as a follow-up notification, to successfully notify their customers and urge them toward seeking the free remedies offered. The ANRPM posed several questions about the variety of means and methods manufacturers use to communicate with their customers. Additionally, the ANPRM posed several questions about general owner knowledge and behavior, and asked commenters to present any data on owner behavior in the recall context, including whether owners were responsive to incentives and to the currently prescribed content and layout of the notifications.
        A. Public Response to NHTSA's ANPRM

        We received 16 comments in response to the ANPRM regarding our proposed update of Part 577. Comments were submitted by Advocates for Highway Safety; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance); American Automotive Leasing Association; IHS Automotive (IHS); FCA US LLC (FCA); General Motors LLC (GM); Global Automakers (Global); NAFA Fleet Management Association (NAFA); National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA); National Independent Automobile Dealers Association (NIADA); Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA); Pandora Media, Inc. (Pandora); Tire Industry Association (TIA); Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA); New Jersey Gasoline, C-Store, and Automotive Association (NJGCA); and Tesla Motors (Tesla).
        Many of the comments addressed general owner knowledge and behavior and proposed potential changes to the specific information provided to owners and the layout of the notifications. Many also proposed that NHTSA should conduct studies on these matters. Although the comments were insightful, NHTSA is not proposing additional or changed requirements as to the specific content and layout of notifications at this time. This NPRM is limited to updating the means of notification by requiring electronic notification.
        B. Suggested Approaches for Electronic Notification
        Most commenters generally supported the use of electronic means and provided suggestions on which types would be best suited for recall notifications. Advocates for Highway Safety stated its belief that email and text message notification should be required, as both methods allow for delivery receipt. It also suggested that newspaper, radio, television, internet, and social media be required methods of notification. Finally, it suggested that manufacturers use direct-to-vehicle communications to notify owners.
        IHS suggested that social media, digital radio broadcasts, and connected car applications are “future looking applications of reaching audiences who may not respond to direct mail or even email notices.” IHS further commented that some manufacturers use a method called Voice Broadcast which is a “notice in advance of the mailing or other communication to alert the consumer to the forthcoming first class mail communication.”
        The Alliance recommended that the Agency permit a multi-tiered approach that allows manufacturers to use a variety of electronic communication methods. The Alliance noted that manufacturers already use multiple electronic communication methods such as “robo-calls, agent-assisted calls, Facebook notifications, and other means,” especially when recall completion rates are low.
        Similar to the Alliance's comments, GM suggested that any changes to Part 577 be flexible, allowing for new technologies as they arise, and further commented that the demographics of the vehicle and the particular recall issue must be better understood as they each play a key role in recall completion rates. GM noted that it has used robo-calls, live calls, in-vehicle calls, and social media to reach out to its owners. The company found social media effective for the purpose of raising awareness, but could not tie it to significant gains in recall completion.
        Tesla provided a contextual example of successful electronic notifications used in a recent recall. As Tesla has every Tesla customer's email address, email notifications were sent to every customer two weeks before the physical mailings were ready to be mailed. Thirty percent of Tesla customers had their vehicle remedied by the time the physical mailings were sent via first class mail. Tesla agrees that electronic notification is instantaneous but, though very effective, should be supplemental to the current first class mail standard.
        NAFA agreed that electronic notification should be added to the existing first class mail notification.
        NIADA suggested that NHTSA move away from a “one-sized fits all approach,” and allow notification means such as email, text messaging, internet, OnStar, Blue Link, and other technologies. NIADA commented broadly that it supports strategies that expand how owners are reminded of recalls.
        Pandora noted that it worked with GM in the past to notify targeted owners with audio notifications about open recalls. Pandora further shared that its notifications are interactive and can connect a user directly to scheduling or to a manufacturer's Web site.
        EMA shared that many fleets and dealers already use a variety of electronic means to connect with owners, such as email, telephone, text messages, direct service database flags, and more.
        TIA and NJGCA provided no data as to the effectiveness of first class mail notifications, but opined that “change-of-address” impacts notifications. TIA further commented that tire manufacturers “could use the Internet and social media to notify owners about safety recalls . . .” but tire manufacturers currently only provide first class mail notifications and sometimes a press release.
        C. Limitations to Electronic Notification Approaches
        Not all commenters supported the use of electronic means during the recall notification process and some commenters highlighted some concerns or limitations with various methods of electronic communications.
        Survey results provided by the Alliance and Global included information about the success of various means of notification. Per the results, neither was able to correlate recall completion rates with a specific outreach method. The Alliance and Global noted that there is no ability to connect social media outreach to particular VINs and no guarantee that owners will not treat emails from manufacturers as SPAM or JUNK, even with a valid delivery receipt.
        GM also recognized some concerns such as the difficulty of obtaining owner email addresses without paying a third-party and social media privacy policies. GM did not recommend that email notification replace first class mail notification, and noted that delivery rates through first class mail can be as high as 96%.
        The American Automotive Leasing Association stated its position that a change to Part 577 should not burden lessors with requirements to send any additional notifications, email or otherwise, to vehicle lessees.
        EMA commented that existing first class mail notification is very effective for commercial vehicle recalls because the owner records are typically better kept amongst the commercial vehicle market. Additionally, EMA does not believe social media notifications will be useful for the commercial vehicle market.
        D. Privacy Considerations and Impacts of Any Existing Laws
        Three (3) commenters, the Alliance, GM, and TIA, commented on specific privacy concerns or existing state and Federal laws that might be impacted by the use of electronic recall communications.
        GM noted that the expertise to market via electronic communications is often housed in the manufacturer's marketing department. While a specific legal restriction was not cited, GM did suggest that owner data from state registrations would need housing in a “safe haven” where the manufacturer could only use that data within legal constraints. GM further mentioned that some social media privacy policies restrict the amount of feedback the vehicle manufacturer can obtain and some publishers do not offer any feedback at all. As such, it would be difficult to measure the effectiveness of some social media recall notifications.

        The Alliance commented that some forms of social media, like Twitter, restrict the amount of content shared to users. For example, a recall communication containing a summary of the recall, safety risk, available remedy, and contact information would be difficult to transmit given Twitter's 140 character limit restriction. Also, the Alliance recommended an additional study needed to ensure new means of notification do not conflict with the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM Act), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act as amended.
        TIA cautioned the Agency in requiring additional personal information to be provided back to the tire manufacturers in order to facilitate electronic recall notifications. TIA noted that 49 CFR part 574 prohibits manufacturers from using registration information for marketing purposes; however, TIA claims tire manufacturers have circumvented this prohibition and TIA worries any additional data that tire retailers must collect (such as customer email addresses) may create a competitive disadvantage to independent tire retailers.
        IV. Proposed Changes to Notification Requirements
        After considering the relevant comments provided, we propose to amend 49 CFR 577.7 to require notification by electronic means in addition to first class mail every time a recall notification is required. The proposal gives the recalling manufacturer the flexibility to define and determine the electronic means they feel are most effective to employ in an effort to optimize the recalls completion for a particular recall campaign. As many of the commenters noted, there are a wide variety of electronic means currently available for use by manufacturers and some have chosen to use as a supplementary means of notification with varying degrees of success. A flexible approach values the knowledge and experience of the recalling manufacturers concerning what means are most likely to reach and resonate with their owners and motivate them toward taking steps to have their products remedied.
        Accordingly, we propose defining “electronic means” to include “electronic mail, text messages, radio or television notifications, vehicle infotainment console messages, over-the-air alerts, social media or targeted online campaigns, phone calls, including automated phone calls, or other real time means.” As with any recall communication, the Agency retains the discretion to require other means and additional notifications if the manufacturer's chosen means is impractical, does not feasibly reach all of the purchasers or owners impacted, or the Agency otherwise deems inappropriate. At this time we decline to set any additional and mandatory notification means beyond the electronic means identified here.
        The Agency recognizes that the proposed definition of “electronic means” is broad and that certain proposed means of electronic notification may be difficult to achieve in practice given the current content requirements of 49 CFR part 577. We propose a broad definition of “electronic means” now in anticipation that we may amend the content requirements of 49 CFR part 577 in the future. However, at this time, we propose to require that any electronic notification issued under this paragraph comply with the content requirements of 49 CFR part 577, or provide a hyperlink to a notice that complies with the content requirements of 49 CFR part 577, or a representative copy of such a notice along with instructions on how a vehicle owner can determine whether his or her vehicle is impacted.
        Vehicle safety recalls require inclusion of the owner's VIN in the part 577 notification letter. We recognize that is not always feasible through social media or other electronic means where a notice may be viewed by more than one individual. In that case, a representative copy of a notice may be used, so long as additional information is given as to how an owner could readily determine whether his or her vehicle or equipment is impacted by the recall. For those manufacturers that are currently required to support NHTSA's VIN search tool and offer VIN-based safety recall search tools on their Web sites pursuant to existing regulation, the communication must also direct viewers to NHTSA's VIN search tool 1
           and the manufacturer's search tool.

            1 NHTSA's VIN search tool is available at https://vinrcl.safercar.gov/vin/.

        It must be noted that this proposed rule does not alter a manufacturer's requirements under 49 CFR part 573, nor is an amendment to 49 CFR part 573 required at this time. Manufacturers must continue to comply with 49 CFR 573.6 by filing representative copies of “all notices, bulletins, and other communications that relate directly to the defect or noncompliance and are sent to more than one manufacturer, distributor, dealer or purchaser.” Electronic notifications are notices, bulletins, or other communications under 49 CFR 573.6. Currently, manufacturers provide representative copies to NHTSA via the online Recalls Portal. Upon the publishing of the Final Rule, manufacturers will continue to do so, as the online Recalls Portal will be updated to allow for manufacturers to select their choice among one of the allowable electronic means. Representative copies are required even if a manufacturer chooses to issue Part 577-compliant notices via electronic means such as radio or television notifications, vehicle infotainment console messages, over-the-air alerts, telephone calls, or other allowable means. In practice, manufacturers can submit to the online Recalls Portal copies of electronic messages (emails), screenshots of messages or alerts, and scripts of calls or ads, for example.
        We also note that 49 CFR 577.7(c)(2) concerning notifications to dealers and distributers already contains language providing for notification “by certified mail, verifiable electronic means such as receipts or logs from electronic mail or satellite distribution system, or other more expeditious and verifiable means. . . .” At this time, the Agency does not believe a change to the required means of notification to dealers and distributers is warranted.
        In response to concerns expressed about whether the proposed electronic notification requirement will conflict with existing federal laws aimed at protecting consumers and businesses from unwanted electronic messages, the Agency's position is that it will not. Recall notifications are safety-related informational messages. The proposed changes in this rulemaking are not intended to exempt from federal laws, including but not limited to the CAN-SPAM Act, the TCPA, and the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, conduct that is unlawful under those laws.

        We request comments on this proposal and any alternative approaches that allow for numerous electronic notification means, but at the same time ensure that the notification communicates the long-standing and essential components of traditional Part 577 first class mailings. That is, that the manufacturer had decided there is a safety defect or failure to meet minimum safety standards; that the safety defect or failure to comply increases the risk of a motor vehicle crash, injury and/or fire; a safety recall is being conducted; and a remedy will be provided at no cost. More specifically, we request comment on our proposed approach to permit discretion in the means chosen to meet the requirement of electronic notification. In addition to our request for comments on our proposed definition of “electronic means,” we request comment on whether the terms “social media or targeted online campaigns” need further definition, given that such proposed electronic notification means are fundamentally different from other means targeted at individual owners. Finally, we request comment on our proposal to require inclusion of directions to NHTSA's VIN search tool and the manufacturer's search tool, for social media campaigns, for example, which we believe will allow owners to readily ascertain the application of the safety recall to vehicles and equipment they own.
        V. Proposed Changes to Follow-Up Requirements
        As mentioned above, MAP-21 authorized NHTSA to require manufacturers to send additional notifications of defects or noncompliance if a second notification by the manufacturer does not result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or equipment being returned for remedy. Public Law 112-141, § 31310, 126 Stat. 758 (2012). Although 49 CFR 577.10 currently provides that the Administrator “may authorize the use of other media besides first-class mail for a follow-up notification,” we propose a minor revision to this section for clarity and consistency purposes. Still subject to the Administrator's approval, we propose clarifying that a follow-up notification shall be sent by first class mail and by electronic means in the same manners we propose be included in 49 CFR 577.7 above. We request comment on this proposed clarification.
        VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
        Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13563. NHTSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This action would amend Part 577 to update the procedures by which manufacturers notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of defects and noncompliances in an effort to improve vehicle safety recall completion rates. The rulemaking imposes no new significant burdens on the manufacturers and does not create significant related costs that would require the development of a full cost/benefit evaluation. Since this action also does not change the number of those organizations or individuals subject to this requirement, the impacts of the rule are limited. Therefore, this rulemaking has been determined to be not “significant” under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures and the policies of the Office of Management and Budget.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        We have also considered the impact of this notice under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following provides the factual basis for this certification under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The amendments almost entirely affect manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.
        SBA uses size standards based on the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”), Subsector 336—Transportation Equipment Manufacturing, which provides a small business size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer for automobile manufacturing businesses. Other motor vehicle-related industries have lower size requirements that range between 100 and 750 employees. For example, according to the SBA coding system, businesses that manufacture truck trailers, travel trailers/campers, and vehicular lighting equipment, qualify as small businesses if they employ 500 or fewer employees. Small businesses are subject to the notification requirements and therefore may be affected by the proposed changes in this NPRM. However, the impacts of this rulemaking on small businesses are minimal, as this proposed procedural update does not impose a significant additional burden or additional costs.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, 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. Because this rulemaking would not have a $100 million effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment will be prepared.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et. seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. In compliance with the PRA, we announce that NHTSA is seeking comment on a revision of a currently approved collection.

          Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

          Title: 49 CFR part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification.

          Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

          OMB Control Number: 2127-0004.

          Form Number: The collection of this information uses no standard form.

          Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three (3) years from the date of approval.
        Summary of the Collection of Information
        This approved information collection is associated with 49 CFR Part 573 and portions of 49 CFR part 577, and consists of important safety recall information that motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers must submit.
        Description of the Need for the Information and Use of the Information
        The information is needed for NHTSA to better serve the public by effectively monitoring safety recalls and by providing timely recall information to consumers regarding specific vehicles. Owners and purchasers will benefit from the increased ease with which they can ascertain information on recalled vehicles. The public at large will benefit from a decrease in the numbers of defect or noncompliant vehicles on public roads and, concurrently, a decrease in the incident or risk of incident of injuries and fatalities associated with those defects and failures to comply, that we expect to result from increased recalls completion rates stemming from the public's enhanced ability to quickly locate important safety recall information on vehicles they drive.
        Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number, and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information)
        Should this proposal be made final, we expect that all manufacturers regulated by NHTSA and currently subject to the defect and noncompliance reporting and notification requirements will continue to be subject to the updated requirements.
        Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Resulting From the Collection of Information
        Today's proposed rule requiring manufacturers to notify their affected owners by electronic means in addition to first class mail notifications will add some paperwork burden to the industry. However, electronic methods such as email, social media accounts, over-the-air communications and others are existing technologies and largely free of charge.

        Given the recent increase in the number of safety recalls the Agency administers yearly and the volume of products included in those recalls, this information collection burden hour total is increased from previous estimates. The Agency anticipates that each recall will require 4 burden hours for the manufacturer to plan its strategy for meeting the electronic notification requirement and executing that strategy. With an estimated 854 recalls filed each year, we estimate a new 3,416 burden hours (854 recalls x 4 hours) for this new requirement.
        Comments are invited on:
        • Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility.
        • Whether the Department's estimate for the burden of the information collection is accurate.
        • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

        A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: NHTSA Desk Officer. PRA comments are due within 30 days following publication of this document in the Federal Register.
        The Agency recognizes that the collection of information contained in today's proposed rule may be subject to revision in response to public comments.
        Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
        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 contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
        Privacy Act

        Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 577
          Administrative practice and procedure, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        Proposed Regulatory Text
        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 577 as follows:

          PART 577—DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION

        1. The authority citation for part 577 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           49 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 30116-121, 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.

        2. Amend § 577.7 by revising paragraph (a)(2)(i) through (iv) and adding paragraphs (a)(2)(v) and (vi) to read as follows:

          § 577.7
          Time and manner of notification.
          (a) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (i) In the case of a notification required to be sent by a motor vehicle manufacturer, by first class mail and by electronic means to each person who is registered under State law as the owner of the vehicle and whose name and address are reasonably ascertainable by the manufacturer through State records or other sources available to him. If the owner cannot be reasonably ascertained, the manufacturer shall notify the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer. The manufacturer shall also provide notification to each lessee of a leased motor vehicle that is covered by an agreement between the manufacturer and a lessor under which the manufacturer is to notify lessees directly of safety-related defects and noncompliances.
          (ii) In the case of a notification required to be sent by a replacement equipment manufacturer—
          (A) By first class mail and by electronic means to the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer, and
          (B) (Except in the case of a tire) if decided by the Administrator to be required for motor vehicle safety, by public notice in such manner as the Administrator may require after consultation with the manufacturer.
          (iii) In the case of a manufacturer required to provide notification concerning any defective or noncomplying tire, by first class or certified mail and by electronic means.
          (iv) In the case of a notification to be sent by a lessor to a lessee of a leased motor vehicle, by first class mail and by electronic means to the most recent lessee known to the lessor. Such notification shall be sent within ten days of the lessor's receipt of the notification from the vehicle manufacturer.
          (v) Notification by electronic means required by paragraph (a)(2) of this section is defined to include notification by electronic mail, text messages, radio or television notifications, vehicle infotainment console messages, over-the-air alerts, social media or targeted online campaigns, telephone calls, automated or otherwise, or other real time means. No matter the means identified by the manufacturer, the Administrator retains the discretion to require other means and additional notifications if the manufacturer's chosen means is impractical, does not feasibly reach all of the purchasers or owners impacted, or is otherwise deemed inappropriate. Any electronic notification issued under this paragraph must either comply with the content requirements of § 577.5(b) through (g) of this part, provide an internet hyperlink to a notice that complies with the content requirements of § 577.5(b) through (g), or provide an internet hyperlink to a representative copy of a notice that complies with the content requirements of § 577.5(b) through (g) along with instructions on how the purchaser or owner can determine whether his or her vehicle or equipment is impacted.
          (vi) In the case of a notification by electronic means that may be viewed by more than one individual, manufacturers who are currently required to support NHTSA's VIN search tool and offer VIN-based safety recall search tools pursuant to existing regulation under this chapter, such notification must direct viewer to NHTSA's VIN search tool and the manufacturer's search tool.

        3. Amend § 577.10 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:

          § 577.10
          Follow-up notification.

          (g) A follow-up notification shall be sent by first class mail and by electronic means pursuant to § 577.7(a)(2) of this part. Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the Administrator may authorize the use of other media besides first class mail and electronic means for a follow-up notification.

          Issued in Washington, DC, on August 25, 2016 under authority delegated pursuant to 49 CFR 1.95.
          Gregory K. Rea,
          Associate Administrator for Enforcement.

      [FR Doc. 2016-20926 Filed 8-31-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 031016262-3262-01; I.D. 100603E]
        RIN 0648-AR08
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Recordkeeping and Reporting

          AGENCY:
           National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This action revises the descriptions of Gulf of Alaska (GOA) statistical and reporting areas 620 and 630 in Figure 3b to part 679 to include the entire Alitak/Deadman′s/Portage Bay complex of Kodiak Island within area 620.  This action is necessary to improve quota management and fishery enforcement in the GOA.  This action is intended to meet the conservation and management requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and to further the goals and objectives of the GOA groundfish fishery management plan.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by December 4, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments should be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn:  Lori Durall, or delivered to the Federal Building, NMFS, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420, Juneau, AK 99801.  Comments may be sent via facsimile to 907-586-7557.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted by email or the Internet.  Copies of the regulatory impact review/initial regulatory flexibility analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action may also be obtained from the same address, or by calling the Alaska Region, NMFS, at 907 586-7228.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Patsy A. Bearden, 907-586-7008 or patsy.bearden@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The U.S. groundfish fisheries of the GOA in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are managed by NMFS under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 679.  General regulations that also pertain to U.S. fsheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.
        Background and Need for Action
        The boundary between GOA statistical and reporting areas 620 and 630 near Kodiak Island, Alaska, is 154°W. longitude from the south side of the Alaska Peninsula, southward to the limits of the EEZ off Alaska.  On Kodiak Island, this line of longitude bisects  Alitak/Deadman′s/Portage Bay complex, a large, deep bay on the south end of the island.  Frequently, substantial pollock fishing takes place in this bay.
        This division of the bay into two separate reporting areas is impractical for quota management and enforcement purposes. When either of the two areas is open to pollock fishing, and the other area is closed, vessels will fish in the bay on the “open” side of the line.  The area of the Alitak/Deadman′s/Portage Bay complex of Kodiak Island would be much more efficiently enforced if the bay were either all open or all closed.
        In addition, because the mouth of the bay is totally contained in area 620, the waters within the bay logically should be included in area 620.
        This action revises the description of statistical and reporting areas 620 and 630 in Figure 3b by including all waters of the Alitak/Deadman′s/Portage Bay complex of Kodiak Island within area 620 and excluding all such waters from area 630.
        Classification
        At this time, NMFS has not determined whether the amendment that this proposed rule would implement is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.  NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
        This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal regulations.

        NMFS prepared an IRFA that describes the impact this action may have on small entities.  The need, justification, and economic impacts for the actions in this proposed rule, as well as impacts of the alternatives considered, were analyzed in the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).  A summary appears below.
        The RIR/IRFA evaluates a regulatory amendment to consolidate all waters in the Alitak/Deadman′s/Portage Bay complex on southwestern Kodiak Island within Federal groundfish statistical and reporting area 620.
        The current division of the bay complex between areas 620 and 630 means that different parts of the bay open and close on different schedules.  Openings and closures in the lower part of the bay complex are driven by Area 620 openings and closures, while openings and closures in the upper part, including Deadman′s and Portage Bays, are driven by openings and closures in Area 630.  The part of the bay in Area 620 has tended to be open more days per year in recent years.
        Deadman′s Bay has deep water that is suitable for pollock mid-water trawling.  The waters are relatively protected, and suitable for small vessels.  The deep water in Area 620 is relatively constricted and dotted with pinnacles, making these waters less suitable for pollock fishing.  This action would place the pollock grounds in Deadman′s Bay under the Area 620 openings and closing schedule, and should give fishermen more days of access to them in a typical year.
        A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to address the requirements of E.O. 12866 which requires an evaluation of the costs and benefits, and of the significance, of regulatory actions.
        The proposed regulatory amendment will reduce fishing costs.  Fishermen will have increased opportunities to fish in Deadman′s Bay in most years.  The increase in the number of fishing days available in Deadman′s Bay will not be offset by reductions in fishing days anywhere else.  Additional fishing days will increase the choices available to fishermen.  This should not increase their costs, since they would not take advantage of the new opportunities if it did so.  They will take advantage of the opportunities if these decrease their costs.
        The amendment will have minor benefits for fisheries management.  All of this area is currently surveyed as part of Area 620.  Thus, it will be biologically appropriate to add Deadman′s and Portage Bays to Area 620.  Moreover, this action will simplify the boundary between Areas 620 and 630 and make enforcement somewhat easier.
        Since there are positive benefits, and no identifiable costs, this regulatory amendment is expected to have positive net benefits.  This action is not expected to be significant under the criteria specified in E.O. 12866.
        An IRFA was prepared to address the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996 (50 CFR 603).  The RFA requires an evaluation of the impact of certain Federal actions on small businesses, government jurisdictions, and non-profit organizations.
        The directly regulated entities in this action are groundfish catcher vessels targeting pollock with pelagic trawls in Alitak and Deadman′s Bays.  The number of vessels active in this fishery over the period from 1999 through 2002 ranged between 0 in 2000, and 30 in 1999.  All of these are believed to have been small entities under the Small Business Administration (SBA) criteria NMFS uses to make these determinations for regulatory flexibility analyses.  Average GOA trawl catcher vessel groundfish revenues were about $350,000 in 2001.  Average ex-vessel revenues from targeted pollock trawling activity in the Alitak/Deadman′s/Portage Bay complex were about $15,000 in 1998, about $18,000 in 1999, nothing in 2000, and about $15,000 in 2001.
        The analysis did not reveal any adverse economic impacts on the directly regulated small pelagic trawling operations.  This analysis did not reveal any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action.
        This analysis did not identify any alternatives to the preferred action that accomplished the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and that were better for small entities.  Two alternatives were identified:  (1) the status quo and (2) the reassignment of waters in the upper bay complex from Area 630 to Area 620.  The status quo alternative did not make any changes that would increase the flexibility or reduce the fishing costs of the small fishing operations active in the area, while alternative 2, by increasing fishing time in Deadman′s Bay in most years, did so.  The status quo alternative neither meets the objectives of the proposed action nor increases the fishing opportunities available to fishermen.  Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, does both.
        This action does not impose new reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements on regulated small entities.
        This action does not have any adverse impacts on regulated small entities.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated:  October 28, 2003.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended to read as follows:

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

        1.  The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; Title II of Division C, Pub. L. 105-277; Sec 3027, Pub. L. 106-31; 113 Stat. 57; 16 U.S.C. 1540(f); and Sec. 209, Pub. L. 106-554.

          Figure 3b to Part 679—[Amended]
          2.  Figure 3b to Part 679 is revised as follows:

            Figure 3 to Part 679.  Gulf of Alaska Statistical and Reporting Areas (Updated October 2003) b. Coordinates

              Code
              Description

              610

                Western GOA Regulatory Area, Shumagin District. Along the south side of the Aleutian Islands, including those waters south of Nichols Point (54°51′ 30” N lat) near False Pass, and straight lines between the islands and the Alaska Peninsula connecting the following coordinates in the order listed:52°49.18′ N, 169°40.47′ W;
                52°49.24′ N, 169°07.10′ W;
                53°23.13′ N, 167°50.50′ W;
                53°18.95′ N, 167°51.06′ W;
                53°58.97′ N, 166°16.50′ W;
                54°02.69′ N, 166°02.93′ W;
                54°07.69′ N, 165°39.74′ W;
                54°08.40′ N, 165°38.29′ W;
                54°11.71′ N, 165°23.09′ W;
                54°23.74′ N, 164°44.73′ W; and
                southward to the limits of the US EEZ as described in the current editions of NOAA chart INT 813 (Bering Sea, Southern Part) and NOAA chart 500 (West Coast of North America, Dixon Entrance to Unimak Pass), between 170°00′ W long  and 159°00′ W long.

              620

                Central GOA Regulatory Area, Chirikof District.Along the south side of the Alaska Peninsula, between 159°00′ W long and 154°00′ W long, and southward to the limits of the US EEZ as described in the current edition of NOAA chart 500 (West Coast of North America, Dixon Entrance to Unimak Pass) except that all waters of the Alitak/Deadman′s/Portage Bay complex of Kodiak Island are included in this area.

              630

                Central GOA Regulatory Area, Kodiak District.Along the south side of continental Alaska, between 154°00′ W long and 147°00′ W  long, and southward to the limits of the US EEZ as described in the current edition of NOAA chart 500 (West Coast of North America, Dixon Entrance to Unimak Pass), excluding all waters of the Alitak/Deadman′s/Portage Bay complex of Kodiak Island and Area 649.

              640

                Eastern GOA Regulatory Area West Yakutat District.Along the south side of continental Alaska, between 147°00′ W long and 140°00′ W long, and southward to the limits of the US EEZ, as described in the current edition of NOAA chart 500  (West Coast of North America, Dixon Entrance to Unimak Pass).  Excluding area 649.

              649

                Prince William Sound.Includes those waters of the State of Alaska inside the base line as specified in Alaska State regulations at 5 AAC 28.200.

              650

                Eastern GOA Regulatory Area, Southeast Outside District.East of 140°00′ W long and southward to the limits of the US EEZ as described in the current edition of NOAA chart 500  (West Coast of North America, Dixon Entrance to Unimak Pass).  Excluding area 659.

              659

                Eastern GOA Regulatory Area, Southeast Inside District.As specified in Alaska State regulations at 5 AAC 28.105 (a)(1) and (2).

              660

                GOA outside the U.S. EEZas described in the current editions of NOAA chart INT 813 (Bering Sea, Southern Part) and NOAA chart 500 (West Coast of North America, Dixon Entrance to Unimak Pass).

              Note: A statistical area is the part of a reporting area contained in the EEZ.

      [FR Doc. 03-27605 Filed 11-3-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S