        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 040302080-4080-01; I.D. 021104C]
        RIN  0648-AR44
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 4

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes to implement measures contained in Framework Adjustment 4 (Framework 4) to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP).  This action would extend the limited entry program for the Illex squid fishery for an additional 5 years.  This action is intended to further the objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on April 26, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments on Framework 4 should be sent to:   Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Regional Office, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA  01930-2298.  Please mark the envelope, “Comments-SMB Framework Adjustment 4.”  Comments on Framework 4 may be submitted by e-mail.  The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is MSBAR44@noaa.gov.  Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier:  “Comments-SMB Framework Adjustment 4.”  Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 978-281-9135.

          Copies of Framework 4, including the Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/ Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA), are available from:   Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE  19904-6790.  The FEIS/RIR/RFA is accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Eric Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9259, fax 978-281-9135, e-mail eric.dolin@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        In 1997, Amendment 5 to the FMP established a limited entry program for the Illex squid fishery in response to a concern that fishing capacity could otherwise expand to overexploit the stock.  At the time the program was established, there was a concern that the capacity of the limited entry vessels might prove, over time, to be insufficient to fully exploit the annual quota.  In response to this concern, a 5-year sunset provision was placed on the Illex squid limited entry program.  Frameworks 2 and 3 to the FMP each extended the Illex squid moratorium for 1 year, and it is scheduled to expire on July 1, 2004.  Since the implementation of the limited entry program, the Illex squid fishery's performance has demonstrated that the current fleet possesses the capacity to harvest the long-term potential yield from this fishery.  The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) is considering a permanent resolution to the issue of limited entry in an amendment to the FMP (Amendment 9).  The Council was planning to present the public hearing document/DEIS for Amendment 9 at its June 2003 meeting, but NMFS review of the draft document indicated that extensive revisions were needed.  As a result, the Council developed this action that would extend the moratorium until July 1, 2009, to prevent overcapitalization while Amendment 9 is being revised and considered by the Council.  This extension would comply with the criteria in section 303(b)(6) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  The extension would allow the Council additional time to consider long-term management for the Illex squid fishery, including the limited entry program.  Vessels that took small quantities of Illex squid in the past may continue to do so under the incidental catch provision of the FMP.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        The Council prepared an FEIS for this action; a notice of availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published on September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55604).  A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble of this proposed rule.  This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.  There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action.

        An IRFA was prepared that describes the impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. There are 72 vessels that have been issued moratorium permits, all of which would be impacted by this action.  Since per vessel costs are not available for vessels participating in the Illex moratorium fishery, individual vessel profitability could not be estimated.  Therefore, changes in gross revenue of the aggregate fleet is used as a proxy for changes in individual vessel profitability.  Furthermore, assumptions are made that revenue losses and gains are shared equally among these vessels.  There are no large entities (vessels) participating in this fishery, as defined in section 601 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  Therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts.  The preferred alternative is not expected to affect revenues or profits of the vessels that currently participate in the fishery.  A copy of the complete analysis can be obtained from the Council (see ADDRESSES) or via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov.  A summary of the analysis follows.

        In addition to the preferred Alternative 1, the Council considered three non-preferred  alternatives.  Alternative 2 would extend the moratorium on entry to the Illex fishery for an additional 2 years (through July 1, 2005); Alternative 3 would allow the moratorium on entry to the Illex fishery to expire on July 1, 2004 (no action); and Alternative 4 would extend the moratorium on entry to the Illex fishery indefinitely.  Alternative 4 was rejected from further consideration and analysis because the Council considered the measure to be beyond the scope of a framework action.  The framework adjustment process set forth at 50 CFR 648.24 is a mechanism to add management measures to or adjust management measures in the FMP.  As a consequence, the Illex squid moratorium limitation in the FMP is subject to an adjustment through this framework adjustment process.  As reflected in the administrative record underlying the adoption and implementation of this process, this process was developed to make revisions to the measures in the FMP that did not represent major changes to the cornerstone provisions of the FMP.  One of the cornerstone provisions in the FMP is the moratorium on entry into the Illex squid fishery, which, by virtue of Amendment 5 to the FMP, is of limited duration.  Alternative 4 of Framework Action 4 would eliminate the sunset provision of the moratorium and extend the moratorium indefinitely.  This would ostensibly close the door on new entry into the fishery.  Such a change goes beyond an adjustment to the Illex squid moratorium provision of the FMP that can be effected through the framework adjustment.  This is the basis for the conclusion that Alternative 4 should be rejected.  The framework process involves a somewhat truncated administrative process that incorporates the opportunity for public participation at two Council meetings, which are currently held some 6 weeks apart.  Consideration of extension of the Illex moratorium indefinitely demands a more deliberative and widespread public process.  Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the process of amending the FMP is the appropriate mechanism to extend the moratorium indefinitely.  This alternative is currently being considered in Amendment 9 to the FMP.

        The preferred alternative and Alternative 2 would both extend the moratorium on entry of new vessels into the Illex fishery; therefore, no impact is expected on vessels in the fishery through 2009, compared to individual vessel revenues in 2002.  The Council assumed that the market and prices would remain stable.  Therefore, any changes in individual vessel revenues would be the result of factors outside the scope of the moratorium (e.g., change in fishing practices for individual vessels, or changes in abundance and distribution of Illex squid).
        Under Alternative 3, the no-action alternative,  the Illex fishery would revert to open access.  In 2002, there were 72 vessels permitted to participate in the directed Illex fishery, however, only 50 percent of those vessels (36 vessels) landed any Illex squid in 2002.  The Illex squid vessels currently permitted to participate in the fishery have the capability to harvest the total harvest level.  In fact, in 1998, permitted vessels were able to land the total harvest level and the fishery was closed early that year.  That year, more than 99 percent of the total Illex squid landings were made by 37 vessels or about 50 percent of the vessels holding Illex moratorium permits.  The remaining 1 percent of the Illex squid landings were made by 71 vessels holding incidental catch permits.  The elimination of the moratorium of entry to the Illex fishery will not affect the manner in which the total harvest level for this species is established.  The Illex fishery is managed through annual specifications and management measures, which are designed to assure that the target harvest level is not exceeded.  Thus, overall Illex
          landings will not be affected.  However, if a significant number of additional vessels enter the fishery as a consequence of Alternative 3, it is possible that the open access condition may affect the current revenue structures of participants and/or create derby-style fishing practices which could potentially lead to an early closure.  This situation may create market gluts and price instability in the fishery.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated:  March 22, 2004.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1.  The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

        2.  In § 648.4, the heading of paragraph (a)(5)(i) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.4
          Vessel permits.
          (a) * * *
          (5) * * *
          (i) Loligo squid/butterfish and Illex squid moratorium permits (Illex squid moratorium is applicable from July 1, 1997, until July 1, 2009). * * *

      [FR Doc. 04-6856 Filed 3-25-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 680
        [I.D. 032406D]
        RIN 0648-AU37
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab Fishery Resources

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

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

          SUMMARY:
          Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to require the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to approve the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Crab Rationalization Program (Program). The Program allocates BSAI crab resources among harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. Amendment 21 would modify the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI) King and Tanner crabs (FMP) and the Program to alter the timing for harvesters and processors to match harvesting and processing shares and the timing for initiating arbitration proceedings incorporated in the Program to resolve price and other delivery disputes among harvesters and processors. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments on the amendment must be received on or before May 30, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Records Office. Comments may be submitted by:
          • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Hand Delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
          • Facsimile: 907-586-7557.
          • E-mail: 0648-AU37-NOAKTC21@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-mail the following document identifier: Crab Rationalization RIN 0648-AU37. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.
          • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.

          Copies of Amendment 21 and the and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for this action may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region at the address above or from the Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228 or glenn.merrill@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment.

        The king and Tanner crab fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the BSAI are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the Magnuson-Stevens Act as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-199, section 801). Amendments 18 and 19 to the FMP amended the FMP to include the Program. Regulations implementing these amendments were published on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174) and are located at 50 CFR part 680. Amendment 20 to the FMP, which would authorize the management of an Eastern and Western Tanner crab (C. bairdi), is currently under Secretarial review. A NOA for Amendment 20 was published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2006. The comment period on the NOA ends on April 28, 2006. A proposed rule to implement Amendment 20 was published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2006 (71 FR 14153). The comment period on the proposed rule ends on May 5, 2006.
        The Council submitted Amendment 21 to the FMP for Secretarial review, which would make minor changes to the FMP necessary for the management of the arbitration system under the Program. If approved, Amendment 21 to the FMP would modify the timing of both share matching and initiation of a binding arbitration proceeding by removing the requirement that share matching and binding arbitration must be initiated at a certain point prior to the date of the first crab fishing season. Amendment 21 would require initiation of share matching and binding arbitration after the issuance of individual fishing quota (IFQ) and individual processor quota (IPQ). This revision would provide participants with a reasonable and reliable opportunity to fully use the arbitration system.
        The Program includes an arbitration system to resolve price, delivery terms, and other disputes, in the event that holders of Class A IFQ and IPQ are unable to negotiate those terms. Under the existing arbitration system regulations, after the issuance of IFQ and IPQ, harvesters that are not affiliated with a processor through ownership or control linkages (unaffiliated harvesters) are permitted to unilaterally commit delivery of harvests from Class A IFQ to a processor with available IPQ. Once committed, the unaffiliated harvester is permitted to initiate a binding arbitration proceeding if the parties are unable to agree to the terms of delivery. The IFQ holder must initiate binding arbitration proceedings at least 15 days prior to a season opening. This approach is commonly called the “share match” approach to binding arbitration.

        The share match approach to resolve price disputes does not meet the needs of IFQ holders. Under the current schedule for the stock assessment process and total allowable catch determination, NMFS typically does not issue IFQ and IPQ 15 days prior to a season opening, which limits the ability of IFQ holders to rely on the share match component to achieve a price resolution. Amendment 21 would modify the timing for the initiation of binding arbitration under share matching so that it would be based upon the issuance of IFQ and IPQ, including a five-day assessment period for negotiated commitments, instead of upon the starting date of a crab season. For a period of five days after the issuance of IFQ and IPQ, unaffiliated harvesters holding Class A IFQ and holders of IPQ could voluntarily agree to commit their respective shares. After the five-day assessment period, holders of uncommitted Class A IFQ may unilaterally commit that IFQ to any holder of uncommitted IPQ. During the 10-day period beginning five days after the issuance of IFQ and IPQ, any holder of committed Class A IFQ could unilaterally initiate a binding arbitration proceeding with the IPQ holder to which the IFQ were committed.

        Public comments are being solicited on proposed Amendment 21 through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 21 in the Federal Register for public comment, following NMFS' evaluation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 21 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 21. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 21, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendments. To be considered, comments must be received not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted by the close of business on the last day of the comment period.

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

          Dated: March 27, 2006.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E6-4749 Filed 3-30-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 224
        [I.D. 040704A]
        Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction; Extension of Public Comment Period

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

          ACTION:
          Notice to extend public comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS is extending the public comment period on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) published June 1, 2004. The ANPR announces a strategy to reduce mortalities to North Atlantic right whales as a result of vessel collisions. NMFS is extending the public comment period through November 15, 2004, to allow for adequate time to conduct stakeholder meetings along the Atlantic coast in association with the ANPR comment period.

          DATES:

          Written and electronic comments on the ANPR must be received (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5 p.m. eastern standard time on November 15, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments should be sent to:
          • Mail: Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation Division, Attn: Right Whale Ship Strike Strategy, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
          • Fax: (301)427-2522, Attn: Right Whale Ship Strike Strategy.
          • E-mail: shipstrike.comments@noaa.gov.
          • Federal Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov (follow instructions for submitting comments).
          The June 1, 2004, ANPR may be obtained at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ under the “Recent News and Hot Topics” link. Using the drop-down menu, the link “Ship Strike Strategy” provides access to the ANPR, as well as links to background and supporting documentation related to the proposed strategy.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Payne, Division Chief, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at (301) 713-2322; Pat Gerrior, Fishery Biologist, Northeast Regional Office, NMFS, at (508) 495-2264; or Barb Zoodsma, Fishery Biologist, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, at (904) 321-2806.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This notice provides additional opportunity for public involvement in the development and implementation of a strategy to reduce the likelihood and threat of ship strike mortalities to North Atlantic right whales. The strategy is described in greater detail in the ANPR published June 1, 2004 (69 FR 30857). In summary, it is a multi-faceted plan that includes potential routing changes, speed reductions, and the use of dynamic management areas as proposed operational measures.

        NMFS has already held five public meetings (Boston, MA; Jersey City, NJ; Wilmington, NC; Jacksonville, FL; and Silver Spring, MD) in July and August 2004 to present the strategy and solicit information on the development and implementation of the proposed new operational measures. The agency is extending the comment period through November 15, 2004, to convene a series of smaller stakeholder meetings through its regional Right Whale Recovery Implementation Teams. Comments received during the extended ANPR comment period, and in the associated stakeholder meetings, will assist the agency in determining what actions are necessary to reduce the threat of ship collisions to right whales.

          Dated: September 7, 2004.
          Laurie K. Allen
          Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 04-20539 Filed 9-10-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
        [EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0791; FRL-9914-23-Region-5]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; Redesignation of the Bellefontaine Area to Attainment of the 2008 Lead Standard

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          On October 29, 2013, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the Bellefontaine nonattainment area to attainment for the 2008 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for lead. EPA is proposing to determine that the Bellefontaine area meets the requirements for redesignation and is also proposing to approve several additional related actions. EPA is proposing to approve, as revisions to the Ohio state implementation plan, the state's plan for maintaining the 2008 lead NAAQS through 2025 for the area. EPA is proposing to approve the 2010 emissions inventory for the Bellefontaine area, which meet the comprehensive emissions inventory requirement of the Act. EPA is proposing to approve these actions in accordance with the Clean Air Act and EPA's implementation regulations regarding the 2008 lead NAAQS.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before August 27, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0791, by one of the following methods:
          1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov.

          3. Fax: (312) 408-2279.
          4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
          5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

          Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-9401, arra.sarah@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: July 11, 2014.
          Susan Hedman,
          Regional Administrator, Region 5.

      [FR Doc. 2014-17610 Filed 7-25-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 573
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2001-9599]
        RIN 2127-AI30
        Motor Vehicle Safety; Limitations on Sale and Lease of Noncompliant and Defective Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          NHTSA proposes to add regulations limiting the sale or lease of noncompliant and defective motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act amended federal motor vehicle safety laws by limiting the sale or lease of defective and noncompliant vehicles and equipment. The proposed rules would codify the limitations set forth in ISTEA and the TREAD Act and reduce questions relating to the meaning of those limitations.

          DATES:

            Comment Closing: Comments must be received by September 21, 2001. The effective date of a final rule based on this proposal would be 30 days after publication of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:

          You should mention the docket number of this document in your comments, and submit your comments in writing to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Dockets Management System website at
            http://dms.dot.gov. Click on “Help and Information” or “Help/Info” to obtain instructions for filing the document electronically.
          You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324. You may visit the Docket from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Lloyd S. Guerci, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-10, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. Telephone 202-366-5263.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Since the enactment of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966, now codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (Safety Act), Federal law has prohibited the sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that fail to comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS). See section 108(a) of Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 722, codified as 49 U.S.C. 30112(a). However, until 1991, the Safety Act did not contain specific provisions limiting the sale or lease of defective vehicles and equipment. On December 18, 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (“ISTEA”), Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 2083, was enacted. Section 2504 of ISTEA amended Section 154 of the Safety Act, by adding a new subsection, (d), which is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30120(i).
        Section 30120(i) states:

          [i]f notification is required by an order under section 30118(b) of this title or is required under section 30118(c) of this title and the manufacturer has provided to a dealer (including retailers of motor vehicle equipment) notification about a new motor vehicle or new item of replacement equipment in the dealer's possession at the time of notification that contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter, the dealer may sell or lease the motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment only if—(A) the defect or noncompliance is remedied as required by this section before delivery under the sale or lease; or (B) when the notification is required by an order under section 30118(b) of this title, enforcement of the order is restrained or the order is set aside in a civil action to which section 30121(d) of this title applies.1

            1 Section 30118(c) requires manufacturers of motor vehicles or equipment to provide notification of safety-related defects or noncompliances with motor vehicle safety standards to NHTSA, as well as to the owners, purchasers and dealers of the vehicle or equipment.

        Section 30118(b) authorizes the Secretary to make a final decision that motor vehicles or equipment contain a safety-related defect and/or do not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard and, in that event, order the manufacturer to give notification of the defect or noncompliance to owners, purchasers, and dealers of the vehicles or equipment, and order the manufacturer to remedy the defect or noncompliance without charge.
        Section 30120(i) does not prohibit a dealer from offering the vehicle or equipment for sale or lease. Thus, the dealer can offer the vehicle in the showroom but cannot sell or lease it. In the 1990s, NHTSA did not engage in rulemaking with regard to this statutory prohibition.
        On November 1, 2000, the TREAD Act, Pub. L. 106-414, was enacted. The statute was, in part, a response to congressional concerns regarding the manner in which various entities dealt with defective motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, including tires. During congressional consideration of the bill that eventually was adopted as the TREAD Act, there had been media reports that some persons were selling defective Firestone ATX or Wilderness tires that had been returned to dealers for replacement tires under an ongoing safety recall. The Safety Act did not expressly prohibit such actions, since section 30120(i) does not apply to the sale or lease of used vehicles or equipment. The TREAD Act added various provisions related to safety-related defects and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the Safety Act.
        Section 8 of the TREAD Act added a new subsection (j), “Prohibition on sales of replaced equipment,” to 49 U.S.C. 30120, effective November 1, 2000. This subsection provides that no person may sell or lease any motor vehicle equipment (including a tire), for installation on a motor vehicle, that is the subject of a decision under 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) or a notice required under 49 U.S.C. 30118(c) in a condition that it may be reasonably used for its original purpose. Under section 30120(j)(1) and (2), the foregoing prohibition does not apply if the defect or noncompliance is remedied as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, including implementing regulations, before delivery under the sale or lease; or notification of the defect or noncompliance is required under section 30118(b) but enforcement of the order is set aside in a civil action to which 49 U.S.C. 30121(d) applies.
        While sections 30120(i) and (j) do not require rulemaking for their effectuation, NHTSA believes that there will be two benefits to rulemaking. First, rules will largely reduce, if not eliminate, questions relating to the meaning of the prohibitions. Second, there are benefits to codifying the prohibitions, which complement other rules, in the Code of the Federal Regulations.
        In view of the TREAD Act, we are proposing to reorganize and amend 49 CFR Part 573 to include the limitations established by sections 30120 (i) and (j).
        Section 30120(i): Limitation on Sale or Lease
        Who Would Be Covered?
        Section 30120(i) applies to dealers, including retailers of motor vehicle equipment. Dealer is defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(1) as “a person selling and distributing new motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment primarily to purchasers that in good faith purchase the vehicles or equipment other than for resale.”
        What Motor Vehicles and Equipment Would Be Covered?
        The section covers the sale and lease of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. It provides that a dealer may not sell or lease noncompliant or defective new motor vehicles or new items of replacement equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines the term, “motor vehicle,” as “a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.” Section 30102(b)(1)(D) defines replacement equipment as “motor vehicle equipment (including a tire) that is not original equipment.” By its terms, section 30120(i) applies to new motor vehicles and new items of replacement equipment. Thus, the proposed requirements relating to section 30120(i) would not apply to used motor vehicles and used replacement equipment.
        Under What Circumstances Would the Limitation on the Sale or Lease of Motor Vehicles or Equipment Apply?
        In order for the limitation on the sale or lease of motor vehicles and equipment under section 30120(i) to apply, several things must occur. First, notification of a defect or noncompliance must have been required by an order under section 30118(b) or under section 30118(c). Second, a dealer must have been notified of the defect or noncompliance under section 30120(d)(4). Finally, the dealer must be in possession of the vehicle or equipment. This could include, for example, items in inventory and subsequently received items covered by the notification.

        Section 30120(i) also provides for two situations where the dealer may sell or lease motor vehicles or equipment that have been determined to be defective or noncompliant. First, the dealer may sell or lease the motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment if the defect or noncompliance is remedied as required by section 30120 before delivery under the sale or lease. Second, the sale or lease is permissible when notification is required by an order under section 30118(b) but enforcement of the order is restrained or the order is set aside in a civil action to which section 30121(d) applies. Thus, if the order is set aside by a court, as stated above, the prohibition would not apply and the sale would be permissible. Finally, section 30120(i) states that it does not prohibit a dealer from simply offering the vehicle or equipment for sale or lease.
        Section 30120(j): Limitation on Sale or Lease of Equipment 2

            2 We recognize that the title of section 30120(j) refers to a “prohibition” on the sale of equipment. However, we have used the word “limitation” consistently throughout this document.

        Who Would Be Covered?
        Section 30120(j) provides that “no person may sell or lease any motor vehicle equipment (including a tire) for installation on a motor vehicle, that is the subject of a decision under section 30118(b) or a notice required under section 30118(c) in a condition that it may be reasonably used for its original purpose.” (Emphasis added). In this section, Congress chose to use the general terms “no person” as opposed to the more restricted categories of “manufacturer” and “dealer” used elsewhere within section 30120 and Chapter 301. In view of the breadth of the term “no person,” the section is not limited to persons in particular classes or categories. Thus, the proposed rule's prohibition would apply to the actions of all persons, including individuals and entities such as corporations.
        What Activities Would Be Covered?

        The activities that are covered by section 30120(j) and the proposed rule are selling or leasing, “for installation on a motor vehicle,” any motor vehicle equipment (including a tire), that is the subject of a decision under section 30118(b) or a notice required under section 30118(c) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the rule would apply to businesses and individuals that sell used automobile parts, including tires. While this proposed rule would prohibit the sale or lease of equipment including tires for installation on a motor vehicle, it would not prohibit a person from selling or leasing a new or used vehicle with defective or noncompliant equipment or tires.3
           For example, a motor vehicle dealer is not subject to the prohibition of this proposed rule except with respect to equipment and tires that the dealer sells or leases separately from a vehicle. Similarly, motor vehicle lessors and motor vehicle rental companies would not be subject to the rule because these groups are selling and leasing vehicles, not equipment or tires for use on motor vehicles. Thus, the rule would generally apply to equipment and tire retailers, including individuals.

            3 As discussed above, the sale or lease of a new vehicle with defective or noncompliant equipment or tires is already prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30120(i).

        What Motor Vehicle Equipment Would Be Covered?
        Section 30120(j) prohibits the selling or leasing of any motor vehicle equipment (including a tire), for installation on a motor vehicle, that is the subject of a decision under section 30118(b) or a notice required under section 30118(c). Section 30102(a)(7) defines “motor vehicle equipment” as:

          (A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle; or (C) any device or an article or apparel (except medicine or eyeglasses prescribed by a licensed practitioner) that is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle and is manufactured, sold, delivered, offered, or intended to be used only to safeguard motor vehicles and highway users against risk of accident, injury, or death.

        In section 30120(j), Congress chose to restrict the sale of equipment, without limitation. Thus, the prohibition includes all equipment, including used equipment as well as new equipment.4

            4 We recognize that the title of section 30120(j) refers to “replaced equipment.” The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that a subtitle of an act cannot overcome the plain and unambiguous meaning of the words used in the text of the statute. See Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900). Thus, since the language of section 30120(j) is not limited, its reach extends to all equipment that has been found to be defective or noncompliant.

        Section 30120(j) prohibits the sale of equipment in a condition that it may be reasonably used for its original purpose (emphasis added). Accordingly, the rule would only prohibit the sale of equipment and tires that are still in a condition in which they can be used for the purpose for which they were originally intended. Thus, the rule would not apply to equipment and tires that have been altered in a way that they can no longer be reasonably used for their original purpose. For example, a tire that is drilled with holes for eye-bolts may be sold for use as part of a playground swing.
        Section 30120(j)(1) provides that the prohibition on the sale of equipment applies unless “the defect or noncompliance is remedied as required by this section before delivery under the sale or lease.” Therefore, the equipment could be sold if it has been repaired so that it is no longer defective or noncompliant.
        The sale of the equipment would also be allowed if “notification of the defect or noncompliance is required under section 30118(b) but enforcement of the order is set aside in a civil action to which section 30121(d) applies.” Under 30118(b), if it is determined that a motor vehicle or replacement equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard, the manufacturer is ordered to give notification of the defect or noncompliance under section 30119 to owners, purchasers and dealers of the vehicle or equipment.5
           However, if this order is set aside by a court, the prohibition in section 30120(j) would not apply, and, therefore, the sale would be permissible during the period when the order was not effective.

            5 Section 30119 sets out the notification procedures the manufacturer must follow.

        Regulatory Analyses and Notices
        1. E.O. 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        This notice has not been reviewed under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” After considering the impacts of this proposed rulemaking action, we have determined that the action is not “significant” within the meaning of the Department of the Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. There are statutory provisions in place and these proposed rules would not increase the burdens on those covered by the prohibitions. The impact of this proposed rule would be so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation because these provisions only involve prohibitions on sales of defective and noncompliant vehicles and equipment, which are rare even absent the rule. In light of the statutory provisions, this action does not involve a substantial public interest or controversy. The rulemaking action would not have a substantial impact on any transportation safety program or on state and local governments.
        2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        We have also considered the effects of this action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I certify that this proposed rule would have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The impact of this proposed rule would be expected to be so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory flexibility analysis because this provision only involves the prohibition on sales or leases of vehicles or equipment that have been determined to be defective or noncompliant, and the incidence of covered sales and leases would have been small even absent this rule. Governmental jurisdictions will not be affected.
        3. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
        E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), revokes and replaces E.O.s 12612 “Federalism” and 12875 “Enhancing the Intergovernmental partnership.” E.O. 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.” E.O. 13132 defines the term “policies that have federalism implications” 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 E.O. 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has 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, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
        The 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 E.O. 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the E.O. do not apply to this proposed rule.
        4. National Environmental Policy Act
        We have analyzed this proposed action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The action would not have a significant effect upon the environment.
        5. 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.
        6. Paperwork Reduction Act
        NHTSA has determined that this notice will not impose a new collection of information burden within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
        7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 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 that $100 million annually. Because a final rule based on this proposal would not have an effect of $100 million, no Unfunded Mandates assessment has been prepared.
        8. Plain Language
        E.O. 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language include consideration of the following questions:
        —Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
        —Are the requirement in the proposed rule clearly stated?
        —Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon that is unclear?
        —Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of heading, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
        —Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
        —Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
        —What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
        If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this document.
        Request for Comments
        How Can I Influence NHTSA's Thinking on This Rule?
        In developing this notice of proposed rulemaking, we tried to address the anticipated concerns of all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rule. We invite you to provide different views, new approaches we have not considered, new data, how this rule may affect you, or other relevant information. Your comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below:
        Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
        Provide solid information to support your views.
        If you estimate potential numbers or reports or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate.
        Tell us which parts of the rule you support, as well as those with which you disagree.
        Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
        Offer specific alternatives.
        Refer your comments to specific sections of the rule, such as the units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory sections.
        Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with your 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). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

        Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachment, to Docket Management at the beginning of this document, under ADDRESSES.

        How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
        If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
        How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

        If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given at the beginning of this document under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given at the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation, 49 CFR part 512.
        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. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), 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-2000-1234, “you would type A1234.”
        (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. Although the comments are imaged documents, instead of the word processing documents, the “pdf” versions of the documents are word searchable.
        Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for new material.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 573
          Defects, Motor vehicle safety, Noncompliance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

        In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 573 as set forth below.

          PART 573—REQUIREMENTS AND PROHIBITIONS APPLICABLE TO SAFETY DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE RECALLS
          1. The authority citation for Part 573 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 30102-103, 30112, 30117-121, 30166-167; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          2. Revise the heading of part 573 to read as set forth above.
          3. In § 573.3, revise paragraph (a) and add paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:

            § 573.3
            Application.
            (a) Except as provided in §§ 573.3(g), 573.3(h) and 573.3(i), this part applies to manufacturers of complete motor vehicles, incomplete motor vehicles, and motor vehicle original and replacement equipment, with respect to all vehicles and equipment that have been transported beyond the direct control of the manufacturer.

            (h) The provisions of § 573.11 apply to dealers.
            (i) The provisions of § 573.12 apply to all persons.

            4. Add § 573.11 to read as follows:

            § 573.11
            Limitation on sale or lease of new motor vehicles and new items of replacement equipment.
            (a) If notification is required by an order under 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) or is required under 49 U.S.C. 30118(c) and the manufacturer has provided to a dealer (including retailers of motor vehicle equipment) notification about a new motor vehicle or new item of replacement equipment in the dealer's possession at the time of notification that contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard issued under 49 CFR part 571, the dealer may sell or lease the motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment only if:
            (1) The defect or noncompliance is remedied as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 before delivery under the sale or lease; or
            (2) When the notification is required by an order under 49 U.S.C. 30118(b), enforcement of the order is restrained or the order is set aside in a civil action to which 49 U.S.C. 30121(d) applies.
            (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not prohibit a dealer from offering the vehicle or equipment for sale or lease, provided that the dealer does not sell or lease it.
            5. Add § 573.12 to read as follows:

            § 573.12
            Limitation on sale or lease of new and used defective and noncompliant motor vehicle equipment.
            (a) Subject to § 573.12(b), no person may sell or lease any new or used item of motor vehicle equipment (including a tire) as defined by 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7), for installation on a motor vehicle, that is the subject of a decision under 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) or a notice required under 49 U.S.C. 30118(c) in a condition that it may be reasonably used for its original purpose.
            (b) Paragraph (a) of this section is not applicable where:
            (1) The defect or noncompliance is remedied as required under 49 U.S.C. 30120 before delivery under the sale or lease; or
            (2) Notification of the defect or noncompliance is required by an order under 49 U.S.C. 30118(b), but enforcement of the order is restrained or the order is set aside in a civil action to which 49 U.S.C. 30121(d) applies.

            Issued on: July 17, 2001.
            Kenneth N. Weinstein,
            Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance.

      [FR Doc. 01-18249 Filed 7-20-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P