        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0495; FRL-9914-16-Region 9]
        Revision of Air Quality Implementation Plan; Nevada; Clark County; Stationary Source Permits

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to fully approve permitting related rules submitted by Nevada as a revision to the Clark County Department of Air Quality (Clark or DEQ) portion of the state implementation plan (SIP) for the State of Nevada. These rules were adopted by DEQ to regulate the construction and modification of stationary sources of air pollution within Clark County. EPA is proposing to approve this SIP revision based on the Agency's conclusion that the rules are consistent with applicable Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements, policies and guidance. Final approval of these rules would make the rules federally enforceable and correct program deficiencies identified in a previous EPA rulemaking.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before August 22, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0495, by one of the following methods:
          1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
          2. Email: R9airpermits@epa.gov.
          3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (AIR-3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.

            Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted throughhttp://www.regulations.gov or email. Regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0495. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, by phone: (415) 972-3534 or by email at yannayon.laura@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.
        Table of Contents

          I. The State's Submittals
          A. Which rules did the State submit?
          B. What are the existing Clark County rules governing stationary source permits in the Nevada SIP?
          C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?
          II. EPA's Evaluation
          A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
          B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
          III. Public Comment and Proposed Action
          IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. The State's Submittals
        A. Which rules did the State submit?
        On April 1, 2014, the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP), on behalf of Clark County Department of Air Quality (Clark), submitted amended regulations and a request to remove several outdated regulations, to EPA for approval as revisions to the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP under the CAA. These New Source Review (NSR) SIP revision submittals, referred to herein as the “NSR SIP submittal” or “submitted NSR rules,” are intended to satisfy previously identified deficiencies to the requirements under both part C (prevention of significant deterioration) (PSD) and part D (nonattainment new source review) of title I of the Act as well as the general preconstruction review requirements for minor sources under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Please see our previous proposed and final rulemakings for a more detailed description of these rules and the permitting program in Clark County, Nevada. 77 FR 43206 (July 24, 2012); 77 FR 64039 (October 18, 2012).

        Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by Clark and submitted to EPA by NDEP, which is the governor's designee for Nevada SIP submittals.

          Table 1—Submitted NSR Rules

            Section No.
            Section title
            Adopted
            Submitted

            0
            Definitions
            3/18/14
            4/1/14

            12.0
            Applicability, General Requirements and Transition Procedures
            3/18/14
            4/1/14

            12.1
            Permit Requirements for Minor Sources
            3/18/14
            4/1/14

            12.2
            Permit Requirements for Major Sources in Attainment Areas (Prevention of Significant Deterioration)
            3/18/14
            4/1/14

            12.3
            Permit Requirements for Major Sources in Nonattainment Areas
            3/18/14
            4/1/14

            12.4
            Authority to Construct Application and Permit Requirements For Part 70 Sources 1

            3/18/14
            4/1/14

            12.7 (Subsection 12.7.5)
            Emission Reduction Credits
            5/18/10
            4/1/14

            1 Section 12.4 also contains requirements to address the CAA title V requirements for operating permit programs, but we are not evaluating the rule for title V purposes at this time. We will evaluate Section 12.4 for compliance with the requirements of title V of the Act and EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR part 70 at a later date.

          Table 2—Rules Requested To Rescind

            Section No.
            Section title
            Repealed
            Submitted

            1
            Definitions

            11
            Ambient Air Quality Standards

            24
            Sampling and Testing—Records and Reports

        NDEP's SIP submittal includes evidence of public notice and adoption of these regulations. On May 5, 2014, Clark's April 1, 2014 submittal was determined by EPA to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. Our technical support document (TSD) provides additional background information on each of the submitted rules.
        B. What are the existing Clark County rules governing stationary source permits in the Nevada SIP?
        The existing SIP-approved NSR program for new or modified stationary sources in Clark County consists of one State regulation and seven Clark County regulations (“Sections”) which EPA approved on September 7, 2004 and October 18, 2012, respectively. See 69 FR 54006 (final rule approving in whole or in part, Section 11 and Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 445B.22083) and 77 FR 64039 (final rule partially approving and partially disapproving Sections 0, 12.0, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3 and 12.4). Collectively, these regulations establish the NSR requirements for both major and minor stationary sources under DAQ jurisdiction in Clark County.
        Consistent with Clark's stated intent to have the submitted NSR rules replace existing SIP Sections 1 and 11, in their entirety, EPA's approval of the regulations identified above in table 1 would have the effect of entirely superseding, or rescinding our prior approval of Sections 1 and 11. Section 1 contains outdated definitions that have been replaced by Section 0 and Section 11 is a rule that defines the term “ambient air quality standards” and provides definitions for terms used in that definition. The term “National Ambient Air Quality Standard” is now used throughout the Section 12 series of rules and is now defined in Section 0. Our proposed action would have no effect on NAC 445B.22083 which remains part of the applicable Nevada SIP.
        C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?
        The purpose of this proposed rule is to present our evaluation under the CAA and EPA's regulations of the new and amended NSR rules submitted by DAQ on April 1, 2014, as identified in table 1. Clark amended these rules to correct program deficiencies identified by EPA on October 18, 2012 (77 FR 64039). We provide our reasoning in general terms below but provide more detailed analysis in our TSD, which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
        II. EPA's Evaluation
        A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
        EPA has reviewed the rules submitted by Clark governing NSR for stationary sources under DAQ jurisdiction for compliance with the CAA's general requirements for SIPs in CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA's regulations for stationary source permitting programs in 40 CFR part 51, sections 51.160 through 51.166, and the CAA requirements for SIP revisions in CAA section 110(l).2
           As described below, EPA is proposing approval of the submitted NSR rules.

            2 CAA section 110(l) requires SIP revisions to be subject to reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption and submittal by States to EPA and prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

        B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
        With respect to procedures, CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA has promulgated specific procedural requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These requirements include publication of notices, by prominent advertisement in the relevant geographic area, of a public hearing on the proposed revisions, a public comment period of at least 30 days, and an opportunity for a public hearing.
        Based on our review of the public process documentation included in the April 1, 2014 submittal, we find that Clark has provided sufficient evidence of public notice and opportunity for comment and public hearings prior to adoption and submittal of these rules to EPA.

        With respect to substantive requirements, we have evaluated each “Section” of the submitted NSR rules in accordance with the CAA and regulatory requirements that apply to: (1) General preconstruction review programs for minor sources under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act, (2) PSD permit programs under part C of title I of the Act, and (3) Nonattainment NSR permit programs under part D of title I of the Act. We are proposing to find that the submitted NSR rules satisfy the applicable requirements for these three permit programs and would strengthen the applicable SIP by correcting and updating the regulations. Final approval of these NSR rules would correct all deficiencies in Clark's permit programs identified in our October 18, 2012 final rule. See 77 FR 64039.

        In addition, EPA notes that in 2012 it partially disapproved Nevada's infrastructure SIP (I-SIP) submittals for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for several elements under section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act. This included a partial disapproval for section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii), which requires the correlation of emissions reports and data collected under section 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) with any applicable emission limits or standards, and that such reports be made available for public inspection. See 77 FR 64737 (October 23, 2012). EPA finalized a similar disapproval with respect to Nevada's I-SIP submittal for the 2008 Pb NAAQS in 2014. See 79 FR 15697 (March 21, 2014). If finalized, today's action on Clark County rule Section 12.0 would cure the partial disapproval from EPA's 2012 and 2014 I-SIP actions and turn off the two-year FIP clock for CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii), which expires on November 23, 2014. Id. The TSD for this action contains a more detailed discussion of our evaluation.
        Section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving a revision of a plan if the revision would “interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . . or any other applicable requirement of [the Act].”
        We find that the SIP revision represents a strengthening of Clark County's minor NSR, PSD, and Nonattainment NSR programs compared to the existing SIP programs that we approved in 2012, and that our approval of the NSR SIP submittal would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
        For the reasons stated above and explained further in our TSD, we find that the submitted NSR rules satisfy the applicable CAA and regulatory requirements for minor NSR, PSD, and Nonattainment NSR permit programs under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and parts C and D of title I of the Act. Therefore, we are proposing a full approval of the submitted NSR rules listed in table 1 and rescission of the rules listed in table 2.
        III. Public Comment and Proposed Action
        Pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA and for the reasons provided above and described more fully in the TSD for this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to fully approve the amended Clark County regulations listed in table 1, above, as a revision to the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP. In addition EPA is proposing to rescind from the SIP the Clark County regulations listed in table 2, above. If finalized as proposed, the submitted rules will supersede the existing SIP rules that provide for permitting of new or modified stationary sources in Clark County, including all of existing SIP sections 1, 11 and 24.
        We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days.
        IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action: is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
        • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
        • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • 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);
        • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
        • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

          Authority:
          42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

          Dated: June 19, 2014.
          Jared Blumenfeld,
          Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 2014-17326 Filed 7-22-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D. 011204A]
        RIN 0648-AN16
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of a fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (Amendment 10) incorporating the draft Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), for Secretarial review and is requesting comments from the public.  Amendment 10 would establish a long-term, comprehensive program to manage the Atlantic sea scallop fishery through an area rotation management program to maximize scallop yield.  Amendment 10 evaluates and proposes measures to minimize the adverse effects of fishing on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), in accordance with the Joint Stipulation and Order in the American Oceans Campaign et al. v Evans et al. (Civil Case Number 99-982 (GK)) (Joint Stipulation and Order).  In addition to the area rotation program, Amendment 10 includes a suite of management measures intended to make the management program more effective, efficient, and flexible.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before March 15, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on the FMP and other incorporated documents listed below should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Atlantic Sea Scallop Amendment 10.”  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9135.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

          Copies of Amendment 10, the draft Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) are available from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950.  These documents are also available online at http://www.nefmc.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Peter Christopher, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9288, fax 978-281-9135, e-mail peter.christopher@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        A notice of availability for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for Amendment 10 was published in the Federal Register on April 18, 2003 (68 FR 19206).  The public was given 90 days to comment on the DSEIS, in accordance with the EFH Settlement Agreement.  After considering all comments on the DSEIS, the Council adopted the final measures to be included in Amendment 10 at its August 13-14, and September 16-17, 2003, meetings and voted to submit the Amendment 10 document, including the FSEIS, to NMFS.

        Amendment 10 is intended to establish a long-term, comprehensive program to manage the sea scallop fishery through an area rotation management program to maximize scallop yield.  Area rotation would close and re-open areas based on the condition and size of the scallop resource in discrete areas.  Area-based management has been used in the FMP since 1998, with controlled access to the Georges Bank and southern New England groundfish closed areas and the Hudson Canyon and Virginia Beach scallop closed areas.  Amendment 10 evaluates and includes measures to minimize the adverse effects of fishing on EFH, in accordance with the Joint Stipulation and Order.  Amendment 10 also proposes the following management measures:   Initial area rotation closed area, a controlled access area; area specific days-at-sea (DAS) for the area rotation program; DAS allocations for the 2004 and 2005 fishing years; an increase in the minimum ring size for scallop dredge gear; an increase in the minimum twine top mesh size for scallop dredges; a new possession limit restriction for limited access scallop vessels fishing outside of DAS; set-asides of total allowable catch (TAC) and DAS to pay for scallop resource and fishery-related research; set-asides of TAC and DAS to help defray the cost of at-sea observers; a new biennial framework process; and a process to address interactions between the scallop fishery and species protected under the Endangered Species Act.

        Public comments are being solicited on Amendment 10 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period stated in this notice of availability.  A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 10 may be published in the Federal Register for public comment, following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the procedures of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.  Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period provided in this notice of ability of Amendment 10 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment.  All comments received by March 15, 2004, whether specifically directed to Amendment 10 or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 10.  Comments received after that date will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove Amendment 10.

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

          Dated: January 13, 2004.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Office.

      [FR Doc. 04-1012 Filed 1-15-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0055; MO-92210-0-0008-B2]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Bay Springs Salamander as Endangered

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the Bay Springs salamander (Plethodon ainsworthi) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Based on our review, we find the petition does not present substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted at this time. Therefore, we are not initiating a status review in response to this petition. However, we ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the Bay Springs salamander or its habitat at any time.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made on November 2, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2010-0055. Supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding to the above street address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, Mississippi Field Office (see
            ADDRESSES), by telephone (601-321-1122), or by facsimile (601-965-4340). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted. We base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise readily available in our files. The Act requires, to the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.

        Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, the Act requires that we promptly review the status of the species (status review), which is subsequently summarized in our 12-month finding.
        Petition History

        On February 6, 2006, we received a petition, dated February 2, 2006, from Mr. Jeremy Nichols, Denver, Colorado, requesting that the Bay Springs salamander (Plethodon ainsworthi) be listed as endangered under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, as required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a March 3, 2006, letter to petitioner, we stated that we did not have sufficient funds to respond to the petition at that time due to a significant number of court orders and judicially approved settlement agreements for other listing-related actions, which had consumed nearly all of our listing and critical habitat funding for fiscal year 2006. On May 1, 2007, we notified Mr. Nichols, by letter, that funding had become available to complete this 90-day finding. This finding addresses the petition.
        Species Information
        The Bay Springs salamander (Plethodon ainsworthi) was described as a species by Lazell (1998) from two badly preserved specimens believed to be collected in a single springhead in 1964 near the town of Bay Springs in Jasper County, Mississippi (Lazell 1998, p. 967; MNHP 1999, p. 3). The Bay Springs salamander was differentiated from other members of the Plethodon genus, or woodland salamanders, in its very slender body shape, low costal (side) groove count, and small legs. Because the features of the more derived groups within the genus are present, Lazell (2005, p. 787) speculated that the Bay Springs salamander is distinct and may be close to the ancestral stock of the genus. Based on these unique features, Lazell (1998) recommended the Bay Springs salamander be recognized as a distinct species, Plethodon ainsworthi.

        The petition did not provide any definitive information on life history, distribution or habitat of this species, and such information does not exist in Service files. The original type locality of the only two specimens collected for this species is described as a 2-hectare (4.9-acre) mixed mesic woodland area (Lazell 1998, pp. 969-970). Lazell noted after a 1991 visit that this site and nearby Six Springs were both intact and in good ecological condition, although much of the surrounding area had been severely altered (Lazell 2005, pp. 787-788). However, this type locality, listed only as “2 Mi S. of Bay Springs” with the notes “In springhead litter. Clear hot day 11 a.m.” (Lazell 1998, p. 967), has been questioned. Lazell (1998, pp. 967, 969; 2005, p. 787) refers to the collection location as “presumed.” Mississippi Natural Heritage Program (MNHP 1999, p. 2) described the site after a 1997 survey as “springhead on Ainsworth property matches distance from Bay Springs given on collection label, but it is not certain that Ainsworth property is indeed the collection site.” Additionally, the petition stated, “it is unclear whether this habitat represents the species' true habitat, or the habitat that existed when the salamander was last collected in 1964, or an altered habitat.”

        Despite the question of the original collection site, numerous surveys using visual searching and coverboard techniques were conducted at the presumed type locality and at three other possible sites, including Six Springs, by multiple researchers beginning in 1991 (Lazell 1998, p. 970; 2005, p. 787; MNHP 1999). These searches revealed several salamander species, including others in the genus Plethodon, and although a night hunt in 1995 produced a glimpse of a possible Bay Springs salamander, subsequent searches in 1995 and 1997 produced no further evidence of the species (Lazell 2005, p. 787).
        Therefore, despite numerous searches of the presumed type locality, no extant populations of the Bay Springs salamander have been located (Lazell 1998, p. 967, p. 970; 2005, p. 787). In addition to the failure to find the species during multiple search efforts, other information provided in the petition and in Service files indicates the species is extinct. The petition states several times that the species is “on the brink of extinction” or “already extinct” (pp. 2, 4, 5). Furthermore, the species is considered Historical by the Mississippi Natural Heritage Program (MNHP 1999), listed as extinct by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN 2004), and is assigned the global rank GH (possibly extinct) by NatureServe (NatureServe 2002). Based on this information, we conclude the species is extinct.
        The petition presented information for three of the five listing factors (Factors A, D, and E) in section 4 of the Act in an effort to identify threats that may be leading or have lead to the decline of the Bay Springs salamander. However, these factors are pertinent only in cases where the organism being proposed for listing is present and thus capable of being affected by any threats. Because the information in our files indicates that the Bay Springs salamander is extinct, it does not meet the definition of endangered species or a threatened species under the Act (sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act, respectively). Therefore, an analysis of the five threat factors is not appropriate.
        Finding
        In summary, we reviewed the information presented in the petition and evaluated that information in relation to information readily available in our files. On the basis of our evaluation of this information under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we conclude that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Bay Springs salamander under the Act as endangered may be warranted at this time. This finding is based on information that indicates the species is extinct and, therefore, does not meet the definition of either an endangered species or a threatened species under the Act.

        Although we will not review the status of the species at this time, we encourage interested parties to continue to submit to us any new information regarding the Bay Springs salamander. If you wish to provide information regarding the Bay Springs salamander, you may submit your information or materials to the Field Supervisor, Mississippi Field Office (see
          ADDRESSES), at any time.

        References Cited

        A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Mississippi Field Office (see
          ADDRESSES).
        Authors

        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Mississippi Field Office (see
          ADDRESSES).
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: October 15, 2010.
          Gary D. Frazer,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2010-27514 Filed 11-1-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 578
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0131; Notice 1]
        RIN 2127-AL16
        Civil Penalties

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document proposes to increase the maximum civil penalty amounts for violations of motor vehicle safety requirements for the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, and violations of bumper standards and consumer information provisions. Specifically, this proposes increases in maximum civil penalty amounts for single violations of motor vehicle safety requirements, a series of related violations of school bus and equipment safety requirements, a series of related violations of bumper standards, and a series of related violations of consumer information regarding crashworthiness and damage susceptibility requirements. This action would be taken pursuant to the Federal Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, which requires us to review and, as warranted, adjust penalties based on inflation at least every four years.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposal are due October 9, 2012.

          Proposed effective date: 30 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: 202-493-2251.
          Regardless of how you submit your comments, please note the docket number of this document.

            Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. 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” heading below.

            Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking Analyses.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Matthew Weisman, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, telephone (202) 366-5834, facsimile (202) 366-3820, 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        In order to preserve the remedial impact of civil penalties and to foster compliance with the law, the Federal Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 2461 Notes, Pub. L. 101-410), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134) (referred to collectively as the “Adjustment Act” or, in context, the “Act”), requires us and other Federal agencies to adjust civil penalties for inflation. Under the Adjustment Act, following an initial adjustment that was capped by the Act, these agencies must make further adjustments, as warranted, to the amounts of penalties in statutes they administer at least once every four years.
        NHTSA's initial adjustment of civil penalties under the Adjustment Act was published on February 4, 1997. 62 FR 5167. At that time, we codified the penalties under statutes administered by NHTSA, as adjusted, in 49 CFR part 578, Civil Penalties. Thereafter, we adjusted certain penalties based on the Adjustment Act and codified others based on other laws including the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act.
        On May 16, 2006, NHTSA last adjusted the maximum civil penalty for a single violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, sections 30112, 30115, 30117 through 30122, 30123, 30125(c), 30127, or 30141 through 30147 of Title 49 of the United States Code or a regulation thereunder, as specified in 49 CFR 578.6(a)(1) from $5,000 to $6,000. 71 FR 28279. At the same time, the agency adjusted the maximum civil penalty for a single violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, section 30166 of Title 49 of the United States Code or a regulation thereunder, to $6,000.
        On February 10, 2010, NHTSA last adjusted the maximum civil penalty for a related series of violations of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act as amended involving school buses and school bus equipment, section 30112(a)(1) as it involves school buses and school bus equipment and section 30112(a)(2) of Title 49 of the United States Code, as specified in 49 CFR 578.6(a)(2) from $15,000,000 to $16,650,000. 75 FR 5246.
        Also on February 10, 2010, NHTSA last adjusted the maximum civil penalty for a related series of violations of bumper standards, section 32506 of Title 49 of the United States Code, as specified in 49 CFR 578.6(c)(2) from $1,025,000 to $1,175,000. 75 FR 5246. In addition, on February 10, 2010, NHTSA last adjusted the maximum civil penalty for a related series of violations of consumer information requirements regarding crashworthiness and damage susceptibility, section 32308 of Title 49 of the United States Code, as specified in 49 CFR 578.6(d)(1) from $500,000 to $575,000. 75 FR 5246.
        We have reviewed the civil penalty amounts in 49 CFR part 578 and propose in this notice to adjust certain penalties under the Adjustment Act.
        Method of Calculation—Proposed Adjustments
        Under the Adjustment Act, we determine the inflation adjustment for each applicable civil penalty by increasing the maximum civil penalty amount per violation by a cost-of-living adjustment, and then applying a rounding factor. Section 5(b) of the Adjustment Act defines the “cost-of-living” adjustment as:
        The percentage (if any) for each civil monetary penalty by which—
        (1) The Consumer Price Index for the month of June of the calendar year preceding the adjustment exceeds
        (2) The Consumer Price Index for the month of June of the calendar year in which the amount of such civil monetary penalty was last set or adjusted pursuant to law.
        Since the proposed adjustment is intended to be effective before December 31, 2012, the “Consumer Price Index [CPI] for the month of June of the calendar year preceding the adjustment” would be the CPI for June 2011. This figure, based on the Adjustment Act's requirement of using the CPI “for all-urban consumers published by the Department of Labor” is 676.162.1
           The penalty amounts that NHTSA proposes to adjust based on the Adjustment Act's requirements were last set in 2006 for a single violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and in 2010 for a series of related violations of school bus safety requirements, a series of related violations of bumper standards, and a series of related violations of consumer information requirements regarding crashworthiness and damage susceptibility. The CPI figure for June of 2006 is 607.8 and June of 2010 is 652.926

            1 Individuals interested in deriving the CPI figures used by the agency may visit the Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index Home Page at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm. Scroll down to “CPI Databases”, “All Urban Consumers (Current Series)”, and click on “Top Picks”. Next, select the “U.S. ALL ITEMS 1967=100—CUUR0000AA0” box, and click on the “Retrieve Data” button.

        Accordingly, the factors that we are using in calculating the proposed increases are 1.11 (676.162/607.8) for a single Motor Vehicle Safety Act violation and 1.04 (676.162/652.926) for a related series of Motor Vehicle Safety Act violations pertaining to school buses or school bus equipment, as well as for a series of related violations of bumper standards, and a series of related violations of consumer information requirements. Using these inflation factors, calculated increases under these adjustments are then subject to a specific rounding formula set forth in Section 5(a) of the Adjustment Act. 28 U.S.C. 2461, Notes. Under that formula:
        Any increase shall be rounded to the nearest:
        (1) Multiple of $10 in the case of penalties less than or equal to $100;
        (2) Multiple of $100 in the case of penalties greater than $100 but less than or equal to $1,000;
        (3) Multiple of $1,000 in the case of penalties greater than $1,000 but less than or equal to $10,000;
        (4) Multiple of $5,000 in the case of penalties greater than $10,000 but less than or equal to $100,000;
        (5) Multiple of $10,000 in the case of penalties greater than $100,000 but less than or equal to $200,000; and
        (6) Multiple of $25,000 in the case of penalties greater than $200,000.
        Proposed Change to Maximum Penalties Under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301
        Proposed Changes to 49 CFR 578.6(a)(1), (a)(3)
        The maximum civil penalty for a violation of any of sections 30112, 30115, 30117 through 30122, 30123(a), 30125(c), 30127, or 30141 through 30147 of Title 49 of the United States Code or a regulation prescribed under any of those sections is $6,000, as specified in 49 CFR 578.6(a)(1). The underlying statutory civil penalty provision is 49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(1). Applying the appropriate inflation factor (1.11) to the Adjustment Act calculation raises the $6,000 figure to $6,679, an increase of $679. Under the rounding formula, any increase in a penalty's amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $1,000. In this case, the increase would be $1,000. Accordingly, NHTSA proposes that Section 578.6(a)(1) be amended to increase the maximum civil penalty from $6,000 to $7,000 for each violation.

        The maximum civil penalty for a violation of section 30166 of Title 49 of the United States Code or a regulation prescribed under that section is $6,000, as specified in 49 CFR 578.6(a)(3). The underlying statutory civil penalty provision is 49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(3). Applying the appropriate inflation factor (1.11) to the Adjustment Act calculation raises the $6,000 figure to $6,679, an increase of $679. Under the rounding formula, any increase in a penalty's amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $1,000. In this case, the increase would be $1,000. Accordingly, NHTSA proposes that Section 578.6(a)(3) be amended to increase the maximum civil penalty from $6,000 to $7,000 per violation per day.

        Proposed Change to 49 CFR 578.6(a)(2)
        The maximum civil penalty for a series of related violations of section 30112(a)(1) of Title 49 of the United States Code involving school buses or school bus equipment, or of the prohibition on school system purchases and leases of 15 passenger vans as specified in 30112(a)(2) of Title 49 of the United States Code is $16,650,000, as codified in 49 CFR 578.6(a)(2). The underlying statutory civil penalty provision is 49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(2). Applying the appropriate inflation factor (1.04) to the Adjustment Act calculation raises the $16,650,000 figure to $17,242,531, an increase of $592,531. Applying the rounding rules, which instruct that increases be rounded to the closest $25,000, produces an increase of $600,000. Accordingly, NHTSA proposes that the maximum penalty under Section 578.6(a)(2) be increased to $17,250,000.
        Proposed Change to Maximum Penalty Under 49 U.S.C. 32506(a) (49 CFR 578.6(c))
        The maximum civil penalty for a series of related violations of bumper prohibitions, section 32506(a) of Title 49 of the United States Code, is $1,175,000 as specified in 49 CFR 578.6(c).
        The underlying statutory civil penalty provision is 49 U.S.C. 32507. Applying the appropriate inflation factor (1.04) to the Adjustment Act calculation raises the $1,175,000 figure to $1,216,815, an increase of $41,815. Applying the rounding rules, which instruct that increases be rounded to the closest $25,000, produces an increase of $50,000. Accordingly, NHTSA proposes that the maximum penalty under Section 578.6(c)(2) be increased to $1,225,000.
        Proposed Change to Maximum Penalty Under the Consumer Information Provisions (49 CFR 578.6(d)(1))
        The maximum civil penalty for a series of related violations of consumer information provisions regarding crashworthiness and damage susceptibility, section 32308(a) of Title 49 of the United States Code, is $575,000 as specified in 49 CFR 578.6(d)(1). Applying the appropriate inflation factor (1.04) to the Adjustment Act calculation raises the $575,000 figure to $595,462, an increase of $20,462. Applying the rounding rules, which instruct that increases be rounded to the closest $25,000, produces an increase of $25,000. Accordingly, NHTSA proposes that the maximum penalty under Section 578.6(a)(d)(1) be increased to $600,000.
        Codification of Penalty in the Medium and Heavy Duty Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Program
        The Agency's regulations provide that the maximum penalty is $37,500 per vehicle or engine. 49 CFR 535.9(b)(3). Consistent with the approach of codifying the penalties under statutes administered by NHTSA in Part 578, NHTSA will codify this amount in a new subsection (i) of 49 CFR 578.6.
        Effective Date

        The amendments would be effective 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The adjusted penalties would apply to violations occurring on and after the effective date.
        Request for Comments
        How do I prepare and submit comments?
        Your comments must be written and 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). NHTSA 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 your comments to the docket electronically by logging onto http://www.regulations.gov or by the means given in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
        How do I submit confidential business information?

        If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the following to the Chief Counsel (NCC-110) at the address given at the beginning of this document under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) A complete copy of the submission; (2) a redacted copy of the submission with the confidential information removed; and (3) either a second complete copy or those portions of the submission containing the material for which confidential treatment is claimed and any additional information that you deem important to the Chief Counsel's consideration of your confidentiality claim. A request for confidential treatment that complies with 49 CFR part 512 must accompany the complete submission provided to the Chief Counsel. For further information, submitters who plan to request confidential treatment for any portion of their submissions are advised to review 49 CFR part 512, particularly those sections relating to document submission requirements. Failure to adhere to the requirements of Part 512 may result in the release of confidential information to the public docket. 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 under ADDRESSES.
        Will the agency consider late comments?

        We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice under DATES. In accordance with our policies, to the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after the specified comment closing date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing the proposed rule, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
        How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

        You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given near the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES.
        You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps:

        (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
        (2) On that page, click on “search.”
        (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-digit docket number shown at the heading of this document. Example: if the docket number were “NHTSA-2006-1234,” you would type “1234.”
        (4) After typing the docket number, click on “search.”
        (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. The comments are imaged documents, in either TIFF or PDF format. 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.
        Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
        Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This action is limited to the proposed adoption of adjustments of civil penalties under statutes that the agency enforces, and 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 impacts of this notice under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that a final rule based on this proposal will not 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 proposed amendments almost entirely potentially affect manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.
        The Small Business Administration's regulations define a small business in part as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” 13 CFR 121.105(a). SBA's size standards were previously organized according to Standard Industrial Classification (“SIC”) Codes. SIC Code 336211 “Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing” applied a small business size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer. SBA now 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 500 and 750 employees.2

            2 For example, according to the SBA coding system, businesses that manufacture truck trailers, travel trailers/campers, carburetors, pistons, piston rings, valves, vehicular lighting equipment, motor vehicle seating/interior trim, and motor vehicle stamping qualify as small businesses if they employ 500 or fewer employees. Similarly, businesses that manufacture gasoline engines, engine parts, electrical and electronic equipment (non-vehicle lighting), motor vehicle steering/suspension components (excluding springs), motor vehicle brake systems, transmissions/power train parts, motor vehicle air-conditioning, and all other motor vehicle parts qualify as small businesses if they employ 750 or fewer employees. See http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable.pdf for further details.

        Many small businesses are subject to the penalty provisions of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (Motor Vehicle Safety Act) and therefore may be affected by the adjustments that this NPRM proposes to make. For example, based on comprehensive reporting pursuant to the early warning reporting (EWR) rule under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 CFR part 579, of the more than 60 light vehicle manufacturers reporting, over half are small businesses. Also, there are other, relatively low production vehicle manufacturers that are not subject to comprehensive EWR reporting. Furthermore, there are about 70 registered importers. Equipment manufacturers (including importers), entities selling motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and motor vehicle repair businesses are also subject to penalties under 49 U.S.C. 30165.

        As noted throughout this preamble, this proposed rule would only increase the maximum penalty amounts that the agency could obtain for a single violation and a related series of violations of various provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as well as for a series of related violations of bumper standards, and a series of related violations of consumer information requirements for violations. Under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the penalty provision requires the agency to take into account the size of a business when determining the appropriate penalty in an individual case. See 49 U.S.C. 30165(b). The agency would also consider the size of a business under its civil penalty policy when determining the appropriate civil penalty amount. See 62 FR 37115 (July 10, 1997) (NHTSA's civil penalty policy under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (“SBREFA”)). The penalty adjustments that are being proposed would not affect our civil penalty policy under SBREFA.
        Since this regulation would not establish penalty amounts, this proposal will not have a significant economic impact on small businesses.
        Small organizations and governmental jurisdictions would not be significantly affected as the price of motor vehicles and equipment ought not change as the result of this proposed rule. As explained above, this action is limited to the proposed adoption of a statutory directive, and has been determined to be not “significant” under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures.
        Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
        Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
        This proposed rule 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The reason is that this proposed rule would generally apply to motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers (including importers), entities that sell motor vehicles and equipment and motor vehicle repair businesses. It would have very limited applicability to States or local governments, as where they purchase or lease 15 passenger vans used for certain school purposes or activities, which vans do not comply with federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses and multifunction school activity buses. Thus, the requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply.
        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 rule will not have a $100 million effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment will be prepared.
        Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
        This proposed rule does not have a retroactive or preemptive 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.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, we state that there are no requirements for information collection associated with this rulemaking action.
        Privacy Act

        Please note that 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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 578
          Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and Rubber Products, Tires, Penalties.

        In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 578 would be amended as set forth below.
        1. The authority citation for 49 CFR Part 578 is revised to read as follows:

          Authority:
           Pub. L. 101-410, Pub. L. 104-134, Pub. L. 109-59, 49 U.S.C. 30165, 30170, 30505, 32308, 32309, 32507, 32709, 32710, 32902, 32912, and 33115; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.81, 1.95.

        2. Section 578.6 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (c)(2), and (d)(1) and adding a new paragraph (i) to read as follows:

          PART 578—CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES

            § 578.6
            Civil penalties for violations of specified provisions of Title 49 of the United States Code.
            (a) Motor vehicle safety—(1) In general. A person who violates any of sections 30112, 30115, 30117 through 30122, 30123(a), 30125(c), 30127, or 30141 through 30147 of Title 49 of the United States Code or a regulation prescribed under any of those sections is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $7,000 for each violation. A separate violation occurs for each motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and for each failure or refusal to allow or perform an act required by any of those sections. The maximum civil penalty under this paragraph for a related series of violations is $17,350,000.
            (2) School buses. (A) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a person who:
            (i) Violates section 30112(a)(1) of Title 49 United States Code by the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce, or importation of a school bus or school bus equipment (as those terms are defined in 49 U.S.C. 30125(a)): or
            (ii) violates section 30112(a)(2) of Title 49 United States Code, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $11,000 for each violation. A separate violation occurs for each motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and for each failure or refusal to allow or perform an act required by this section. The maximum penalty under this paragraph for a related series of violations is $17,250,000.
            (3) Section 30166. A person who violates section 30166 of Title 49 of the United States Code or a regulation prescribed under that section is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty for failing or refusing to allow or perform an act required under that section or regulation. The maximum penalty under this paragraph is $7,000 per violation per day. The maximum penalty under this paragraph for a related series of daily violations is $17,350,000.

            (c) * * *
            (2) The maximum civil penalty under this paragraph (c) for a related series of violations is $1,225,000.
            (d) Consumer information—(1) Crash-worthiness and damage susceptibility. A person that violates 49 U.S.C. 32308(a), regarding crashworthiness and damage susceptibility, is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $1,100 for each violation. Each failure to provide information or comply with a regulation in violation of 49 U.S.C. 32308(a) is a separate violation. The maximum penalty under this paragraph for a related series of violations is $600,000.

            (i) Medium- and heavy-duty vehicle fuel efficiency. The maximum civil penalty for a violation of the fuel consumption standards of 49 CFR part 535 is not more than $37,500 per vehicle or engine. The maximum civil penalty for a related series of violations shall be determined by multiplying $37,500.00 times the vehicle or engine production volume for the model year in question within the regulatory averaging set.

            Issued on: August 30, 2012.
            O. Kevin Vincent,
            Chief Counsel.

      [FR Doc. 2012-22043 Filed 9-6-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
        38 CFR Part 17
        RIN 2900-AO27
        Exempting In-Home Video Telehealth From Copayments

          AGENCY:
          Department of Veterans Affairs.

          ACTION:
          Withdrawal of proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is withdrawing VA's proposed rulemaking, published in the Federal Register on March 6, 2012, to amend its regulation that governs VA services that are not subject to copayment requirements for inpatient hospital care or outpatient medical care. Specifically, the regulation exempted in-home video telehealth care from having any required copayment. VA received no significant adverse comments concerning the proposed rule or its companion substantially identical direct final rule published on the same date in the Federal Register. In a companion document in this issue of the Federal Register, we are confirming that the direct final rule became effective on May 7, 2012. Accordingly, this document withdraws as unnecessary the proposed rule.

          DATES:
          The proposed rule is withdrawn as of September 25, 2012.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kristin J. Cunningham, Director Business Policy, Chief Business Office, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420; (202) 461-1599. (This is not a toll-free number.)

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In a proposed rule published in the Federal Register on March 6, 2012, 77 FR 13236, VA proposed to amend 38 CFR 17.108 to eliminate co-payments for in-home video telehealth. Additionally, VA published a companion substantially identical direct final rule at 77 FR 13195 on the same date. The direct final rule and proposed rule each provided a 30-day comment period that ended on April 5, 2012. No adverse comments were received. Two comments that supported the rulemaking were received from members of the general public.

        Because no significant adverse comments were received within the comment period, VA is withdrawing the proposed rule as unnecessary. In a companion document in this issue of the Federal Register, VA is confirming the effective date of the direct final rule, RIN 2900-AO26, published at 77 FR 13195.
        Signing Authority
        The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. John R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on September 18, 2012, for publication.

          Dated: September 19, 2012.
          Robert C. McFetridge,
          Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.

      [FR Doc. 2012-23514 Filed 9-24-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 8320-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Bureau of Land Management
        43 CFR Part 2930
        RIN 1004-AD68
        [WO-250-1220-PA-24 1A]
        Permits for Recreation on Public Lands

          AGENCY:
          Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          This document corrects the regulatory text of a proposed rule published in the Federal Register of November 22, 2005, regarding permits for recreation on public lands. First, it corrects two prohibited acts provisions to make it clear that persons who fail to pay a permit fee will incur a maximum penalty of $100, as provided in the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (the Act), but that those who fail to obtain a permit will be subject to the higher penalties of the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act and other laws, as provided by the Act. Second, it corrects a penalty provision to be consistent with the correction in the prohibited acts provisions. Also, the document extends the comment period in light of the substantive nature of the corrections.

          DATES:
          You should submit your comments by March 20, 2006. BLM will not necessarily consider comments postmarked or received by messenger or electronic mail after the above date in the decisionmaking process on the proposed rule.

          ADDRESSES:

          Mail: Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, Administrative Record, Room 401-LS, Eastern States Office, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Personal or messenger delivery: Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov Internet e-mail: comments_washington@blm.gov. (Include “Attn: AD68”).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Anthony Bobo at (202) 452-0333, as to the substance of the proposed rule, or Ted Hudson at (202) 452-5042, as to procedural matters. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may contact either individual by calling the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
          Correction
          In proposed rule FR Doc. 05-23113, beginning on page 70570 in the issue of November 22, 2005 (70 FR 70570), make the following corrections in the regulatory text:
          1. On page 70573 in the 2nd and 3rd columns, under item 3 of the regulatory text, correct § 2932.57 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read as follows:

            § 2932.57
            Prohibited acts and penalties.

            (b) Penalties. (1) If you are convicted of any act prohibited by paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(7) of this section, or of failing to obtain a Special Recreation Permit under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you may be subject to a sentence of a fine or imprisonment or both  for a Class A misdemeanor in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571 and 3581 et seq. under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1733(a)).

            (2) If you are convicted of failing to pay a fee required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you may be subject to a sentence of a fine not to exceed $100 for the first offense, or a sentence of a fine and or imprisonment for a Class A or B misdemeanor in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571 and 3581 et seq. for all subsequent offenses.

            2. In the table at the bottom of page 70573 and the top of page 70574, under item 4 of the regulatory text, correct § 2933.33(d) by revising the first column of paragraphs (1) and (3) to read as follows:

            § 2933.33
            Prohibited acts and penalties.

            (d) * * *
            (1) Failing to obtain a permit under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, or any act prohibited by paragraph (a)(4), (5), or (6) of this section. * * *

            (3) Failing to pay a Recreation Use Permit fee required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, or any act prohibited by paragraph (a)(3) of this section. * * *

            Dated: January 10, 2006.
            Johnnie Burton,
            Acting Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

      [FR Doc. 06-402  Filed 1-17-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-84-M