        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 110913585-1625-01]
        RIN 0648-BB36
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2012 Atlantic Shark Commercial Fishing Season

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          This proposed rule would establish opening dates and adjust quotas for the 2012 fishing season for the Atlantic commercial shark fisheries. Quotas would be adjusted based on any over- and/or underharvests experienced during the 2010 and 2011 Atlantic commercial shark fishing seasons. In addition, NMFS proposes season openings based on previously implemented adaptive management measures to provide, to the extent practicable, fishing opportunities for commercial shark fishermen in all regions and areas. The proposed measures could affect fishing opportunities for commercial shark fishermen in the northwestern Atlantic, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean.

          DATES:
          Written comments will be accepted until November 30, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by 0648-BB36, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter 0648-BB36 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on the Proposed Rule to Establish Quotas and Opening Dates for the 2012 Atlantic Shark Commercial Fishing Season.”
          • Fax: (301) 427-8503, Attn: Karyl Brewster-Geisz, Guy DuBeck, or Jennifer Cudney.
          • Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Atlantic commercial shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its amendments under the Magnuson-Stevens Act are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. For the Atlantic commercial shark fisheries, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments established, among other things, commercial quotas for species and species complexes, accounting measures for under- and overharvests for the shark fisheries, and adaptive management measures such as flexible opening dates for the fishing season and inseason adjustments to shark trip limits, which provide flexibility in management in the furtherance of equitable fishing opportunities, to the extent practicable, for commercial shark fishermen in all regions and areas.
        Accounting for Under- and Overharvests
        Consistent with § 635.27(b)(1)(i)(A), if the available non-sandbar Large Coastal Shark (LCS) quota in a particular region or in the research fishery is exceeded in any fishing season, NMFS will deduct an amount equivalent to the overharvest(s) from the quota in that region or in the research fishery for the following fishing season or, depending on the level of overharvest(s), NMFS may deduct an amount equivalent to the overharvest(s) spread over a number of subsequent fishing seasons to a maximum of 5 years, in the specific region or research fishery where the overharvest occurred. If the available quota for sandbar sharks, blacknose sharks, non-blacknose SCS, blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) is exceeded in any fishing season, NMFS will deduct an amount equivalent to the overharvest(s) from the following fishing season quota or, depending on the level of overharvest(s), NMFS may deduct an amount equivalent to the overharvest(s) spread over a number of subsequent fishing seasons to a maximum of 5 years. If the blue shark quota is exceeded, NMFS will deduct an amount equivalent to the overharvest(s) from the following fishing season quota or, depending on the level of overharvest(s), deduct an amount equivalent to the overharvest(s) spread over a number of subsequent fishing years to a maximum of 5 years.

        Consistent with § 635.27(b)(1)(i)(B), if an annual quota for sandbar sharks, blacknose sharks, non-blacknose Small Coastal Sharks (SCS), blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, or pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) is not exceeded, NMFS may adjust the annual quota, depending on the status of the stock or quota group. If the annual quota for non-sandbar LCS is not exceeded in either region or in the research fishery, NMFS may adjust the annual quota for that region or the research fishery for the following year, depending on the status of the stock or quota group. If the stock/complex (e.g., sandbar sharks, porbeagle sharks, non-sandbar LCS, blue sharks) or specific species within a quota group (e.g., blacktip sharks within the non-sandbar LCS complex) is declared to be overfished, to have overfishing occurring, or to have an unknown status, NMFS will not adjust the following fishing year's quota for any underharvest, and the following fishing year's quota will be equal to the base annual quota (or the adjusted base quota for sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS) until December 31, 2012.
        Recently, NMFS published new stock determinations for blacknose and sandbar sharks (76 FR 62331; October 7, 2011). The blacknose shark stock was split into regions with the Atlantic stock being determined as overfished with overfishing occurring, while the Gulf of Mexico stock status was determined to be unknown. Sandbar sharks have been determined to be overfished with no overfishing occurring. Porbeagle sharks have been determined to be overfished. Blue sharks and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) have an unknown stock status. NMFS recently determined that scalloped hammerhead sharks were overfished with overfishing occurring (76 FR 23794; April 28, 2011). Scalloped hammerhead sharks are included in the non-sandbar LCS complex for the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. As a result, based on their stock status, no underharvests from the 2011 Atlantic commercial shark fishing season would be applied to the 2012 annual quotas or adjusted base quotas of these species or complexes.
        Thus, the 2012 proposed quotas would be equal to the appropriate annual quota minus any overharvests that occurred in the 2010 and 2011 fishing seasons. For blacknose sharks, porbeagle sharks, blue sharks, and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks), NMFS would use the base annual quota established at § 635.27(b)(1)(iv)(A). For sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS, NMFS would use the adjusted base annual quota established at § 635.27(b)(1)(iii).
        The non-blacknose SCS complex has been determined to not be overfished and has no overfishing occurring; therefore, any underharvest up to 50 percent of the base quota from the 2011 Atlantic commercial shark fishing season could be applied to the 2012 annual quotas.
        2012 Proposed Quotas

        This rule proposes adjustments to the base commercial quotas due to over and underharvests that occurred in 2010 and 2011, where allowable, taking into consideration the stock status as required under existing regulations. The proposed 2012 quotas by species and species group are summarized in Table 1.
        The quotas in this proposed rule are based on dealer reports received as of August 31, 2011. In the final rule, NMFS will adjust the quotas based on dealer reports received as of October 31, 2011. Thus, all of the 2012 proposed quotas for the respective shark complexes/species are subject to further adjustment for any overharvests reflected after considering the October 31 dealer reports. All dealer reports that are received by NMFS after October 31, 2011, will be used to adjust the 2013 quotas, as appropriate.

          Table 1—2012 Proposed Quotas and Opening Dates for the Atlantic Shark Fisheries. All Quotas and Landings Are Dressed Weight (dw), in Metric Tons (mt), Unless Specified Otherwise. Table Includes Landings Data Through August 31, 2011, and Quotas Are Subject to Change Based on Landings Through October 31, 2011

            Species group
            Region
            2011 Annual quota
            Preliminary 2011 landings 1

            Overharvest/underharvest

            2012 Base annual quota 2

            2012 Proposed quota
            Season opening dates

            (A)
            (B)
            (C)
            (D)
            (D + C)

            Non-Sandbar Large Coastal Sharks
            Gulf of Mexico
            351.9 (775,740 lb dw)
            327.0 (720,868 lb dw)

              3 2.3 (5,167 lb dw)
            390.5 (860,896 lb dw)
            392.8 (866,063 lb dw)
            March 1, 2011.

            Atlantic
            190.4 (419,756 lb dw)
            79.9 (176,052 lb dw)

              4−4.6 (−10,135 lb dw)
            187.8 (414,024 lb dw)
            183.2 (403,889 lb dw)
            Effective Date for HMS Electronic Reporting System or July 15, 2011.7

            Non-Sandbar LCS Research Quota
            No regional quotas
            37.5 (82,673 lb dw)
            37.0 (81,627 lb dw)

            37.5 (82,673 lb dw)
            37.5 (82,673 lb dw)
            On or about January 1, 2011.

            Sandbar Research Quota

            87.9 (193,784 lb dw)
            53.0 (116,706 lb dw)

            87.9 (193,784 lb dw)
            87.9 (193,784 lb dw)

            Non-Blacknose Small Coastal Sharks

            314.4 (693,257 lb dw)
            132.9 (292,926 lb dw)

              5 89.0 (196,148 lb dw)
            221.6 (488,539 lb dw)
            310.6 (684,687 lb dw)

            Blacknose Sharks

            19.9 (43,872 lb dw)
            13.1 (28,856 lb dw)

            19.9 (43,872 lb dw)
            19.9 (43,872 lb dw)

            Blue Sharks

            273 (601,856 lb dw)
            7.2 (15,968 lb dw)

            273 (601,856 lb dw)
            273 (601,856 lb dw)

            Porbeagle Sharks

            1.6 (3,479 lb dw)
            2.4 (5,350 lb dw)

              6 0.9 (−2,083 lb dw)
            1.7 (3,748 lb dw)
            0.8 (1,665 lb dw)
            On or about January 1, 2011.8

            Pelagic Sharks Other Than Porbeagle or Blue

            488 (1,075,856 lb dw)
            85.7 (188,896 lb dw)

            488 (1,075,856 lb dw)
            488 (1,075,856 lb dw)

            1 Landings are from January 1, 2011, until August 31, 2011, and are subject to change.

            2 2010 annual base quotas for sandbar and non-sandbar LCS are the annual adjusted base quotas that are effective from July 24, 2008, until December 31, 2012 (50 CFR 635.27(b)(1)(iii) and (iv)).

            3 NMFS proposes to adjust the 2012 quota for the Gulf of Mexico non-sandbar LCS to account for the 2.3 mt dw that was over estimated in the landings report in 2011 after the final rule establishing the 2011 quota published.

            4 NMFS proposes to adjust the 2012 quota for Atlantic non-sandbar LCS to account for the 4.6 mt dw overharvest reflected in the landings report in 2011 after the final rule establishing the 2011 quota published.

            5 NMFS proposes to adjust the 2012 quota for non-blacknose SCS to account for the 21.8 mt dw that was over estimated in the landings report in 2011 after the final rule establishing the 2011 quota published and the underharvest of 110.8 mt dw in 2011.

            6 NMFS proposes to adjust the 2012 quota for porbeagle sharks to account for the < 0.1 mt dw overharvest that occurred in 2010 after the 0.1 mt dw overharvest was accounted for in the final rule establishing the 2011 quota and additional overharvest of 0.8 mt dw in 2011.

            7 NMFS proposes to open the Atlantic non-sandbar LCS quota once the HMS electronic reporting system is implemented or July 15, 2011, whichever occurs first. NMFS would closely monitor the quota to ensure equitable fishing opportunities. If the fishery opens sooner than July 15 and the quota is being taken too fast to ensure equitable fishing opportunities across the region, NMFS would reduce the Atlantic non-sandbar LCS retention limits to slow down the fishing rates.

            8 NMFS proposes to open the porbeagle fishery on January 1, 2012. If landings continue to occur in 2011 and the overharvest reaches 80 percent or more of the base quota (1.3 mt dw; 2,988 lb dw), NMFS would not open the fishery in 2012.

        1. Proposed 2012 Quotas for Non-Sandbar LCS and Sandbar Sharks Within the Shark Research Fishery
        The 2012 proposed commercial quotas within the shark research fishery are 37.5 mt dw (82,673 lb dw) for non-sandbar LCS and 87.9 mt dw (193,784 lb dw) for sandbar sharks.
        Within the shark research fishery, as of August 31, 2011, preliminary reported landings of non-sandbar LCS were at 99 percent (37.0 mt dw), and sandbar shark reported landings were at 60 percent (53.0 mt dw). Reported landings have not exceeded the 2010 quota to date. Therefore, based on preliminary estimates and consistent with the current regulations at § 635.27(b)(1)(vii), NMFS is not proposing to reduce 2011 quotas in the shark research fishery based on any overharvests.
        Under § 635.27(b)(1)(i), because individual species, complexes, or species within a complex have been determined to be either overfished, have overfishing occurring, overfished with overfishing occurring, or have an unknown status, underharvests for these species and/or complexes would not be applied to the 2012 quotas. Therefore, NMFS proposes 2012 quotas for non-sandbar LCS and sandbar sharks within the shark research fishery would be 37.5 mt dw (82,673 lb dw) and 87.9 mt dw (193,784 lb dw), respectively.
        2. Proposed 2012 Quotas for the Non-Sandbar LCS in the Gulf of Mexico Region

        The 2012 proposed quota for non-sandbar LCS in the Gulf of Mexico region is 392.8 mt dw (866,063 lb dw). As of August 31, 2011, preliminary reported landings were at 93 percent (327.0 mt dw) for non-sandbar LCS in the Gulf of Mexico region. In the final rule establishing the 2011 quotas (75 FR 76302, December 8, 2010), NMFS accounted for an overharvest of non-sandbar LCS of 38.6 mt dw (85,156 lb dw) using data that was reported as of October 31, 2010. Between that date and December 31, 2010, the reported landings dropped by 2.3 mt dw due to normal quality control procedures that occur when updated data are supplied. Thus, in order to reflect the best available data and in accordance with § 635.27(b)(1)(i), the amount that was deducted from the 2011 annual quota, based on preliminary numbers that were later corrected, would be added to the proposed 2012 non-sandbar LCS quota in the Atlantic region. Thus, the 2012 proposed commercial non-sandbar LCS quota is 392.8 mt dw (866,063 lb dw) (390.5 mt dw annual base quota + 2.3 mt dw 2010 over estimated landings = 392.8 mt dw 2012 adjusted annual quota).
        3. Proposed 2012 Quotas for the Non-Sandbar LCS in the Atlantic Region
        The 2012 proposed quota for non-sandbar LCS in the Atlantic region is 183.2 mt dw (403,889 lb dw). As of August 31, 2011, preliminary reported landings were at 42 percent (79.9 mt dw) for non-sandbar LCS in the Atlantic region as the commercial season opened on July 15, 2011. In the final rule establishing the 2011 quotas, reported landings as of October 31, 2010, did not exceed the 2011 quota. Between that date and December 31, 2010, the Atlantic non-sandbar LCS quota was overharvested by 4.6 mt dw. As such, the 2012 proposed commercial non-sandbar LCS quota is 183.2 mt dw (403,889 lb dw) (187.8 mt dw annual base quota −4.6 mt dw 2010 over estimated landings = 183.2 mt dw 2012 adjusted annual quota).
        4. Proposed 2012 Quotas for SCS and Pelagic Sharks
        The 2012 proposed annual commercial quotas for non-blacknose SCS, blacknose sharks, blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) are 310.6 mt dw (684,687 lb dw), 19.9 mt dw (43,872 lb dw), 273 mt dw (601,856 lb dw), 0.8 mt dw (1,900 lb dw), and 488 mt dw (1,075,856 lb dw), respectively.
        As of August 31, 2011, preliminary reported landings of non-blacknose SCS, blacknose sharks, blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle and blue sharks) were at 42 percent (132.9 mt dw), 66 percent (13.1 mt dw), 2 percent (7.2 mt dw), 154 percent (2.4 mt dw), and 18 percent (85.7 mt dw), respectively. As described above, while NMFS may adjust quotas for underharvests only when allowable depending on the stock status, NMFS will always adjust quotas for overharvests.
        Non-blacknose SCS have not been declared to be overfished, to have overfishing occurring, or to have an unknown status. Pursuant to § 635.27(b)(1)(i), any underharvests for the non-blacknose SCS would be applied to the 2011 quotas. In the final rule establishing the 2011 quotas, NMFS accounted for an underharvest of 92.9 mt dw (204,718 lb dw) using data that was reported as of October 31, 2010. Between that date and December 31, 2010, an additional 21.8 mt dw was reported landed. As such, NMFS proposes to reduce the 2012 non-blacknose SCS to accommodate for the reported landings in 2010 and underharvest in 2011. The proposed 2012 adjusted base annual quota for non-blacknose SCS is 310.6 mt dw (684,687 lb dw) (221.6 mt dw annual base quota −21.8 mt dw 2010 additional reported landings + 110.8 mt dw 2011 underharvest = 310.8 mt dw 2012 adjusted annual quota).
        Porbeagle sharks have been declared to be overfished with overfishing occurring. Pursuant to § 635.27(b)(1)(i), any overharvests of porbeagle sharks would be applied to the 2012 quotas. In the final rule establishing the 2011 quotas, NMFS accounted for an overharvest of porbeagle sharks of 0.1 mt dw (269 lb dw) using data that was reported as of October 31, 2010. Between that date and December 31, 2010, porbeagle sharks were overharvested by an additional 0.1 mt dw (212 lb dw). As of August 31, 2011, an additional 0.8 mt dw (1,871 lb dw) was overharvested above the porbeagle shark quota. The proposed 2012 adjusted annual commercial porbeagle quota is 0.8 mt dw (1,665 lb dw) (1.7 mt dw annual base quota −0.1 mt dw 2010 overharvest −0.8 mt dw 201 overharvest = 0.8 mt dw 2012 adjusted annual quota).
        Blacknose sharks and other pelagic species are considered overfished, to have overfishing occurring, or to have an unknown status. As of August 31, 2011, the 2011 commercial quota had not been reached or exceeded. Therefore, the 2012 proposed quotas would be the base annual quotas for blacknose sharks, blue sharks, and pelagic sharks (other than blue and porbeagle sharks) (19.9 mt dw (43,872 lb dw), 273 mt dw (601,856 lb dw), and 488 mt dw (1,075,856 lb dw), respectively.
        Proposed Fishing Season Notification for the 2012 Atlantic Commercial Shark Fishing Season
        For each fishery, NMFS considered the seven “Opening Fishing Season” criteria listed in § 635.27(b)(1)(ii). These include: “(A) The available annual quotas for the current fishing season for the different species/complexes based on any over- and/or underharvests experienced during the previous commercial shark fishing seasons; (B) Estimated season length based on available quota(s) and average weekly catch rates of different species/complexes in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions from the previous years; (C) Length of the season for the different species/complexes in the previous years and whether fishermen were able to participate in the fishery in those years; (D) Variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migratory patterns of the different species/complexes based on scientific and fishery information; (E) Effects of catch rates in one part of a region precluding vessels in another part of that region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the different species/complexes quotas; (F) Effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments; and/or (G) Effects of a delayed opening with regard to fishing opportunities in other fisheries.” In addition, NMFS also considered other relevant factors, such as general input from the public and management measures before arriving at a proposed opening date for this rulemaking. For more information on these criteria and how they are considered, please review the Environmental Assessment (EA) associated with the 2011 quota specifications rule (75 FR 76302; December 8, 2010).
        NMFS proposes that the 2012 Atlantic commercial shark fishing season for the shark research, non-blacknose SCS, blacknose sharks, blue sharks, and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle and blue sharks) in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, would open on or about January 1, 2012.
        NMFS also proposes opening the porbeagle fishery on January 1. However, the 2011 porbeagle fishery landings exceeded the 2011 quota by 54 percent and late reported landings in December 2010 that must be accounted for in 2012. Due to the combined overharvest in 2010 and 2011 for the porbeagle fishery, the porbeagle quota is expected to be 0.8 mt dw (1,665 lb dw). Although the porbeagle fishery closed on August 29, 2011 (76 FR 53343), additional landings could be reported late and fishermen might mistakenly land porbeagle sharks. If overharvest continues to occur and the level reaches 60 percent or more of the 2012 base quota (1.3 mt dw; 2,988 lb dw), then NMFS would not open the fishery in 2012. This decision is based on the availability of the annual quota based on overharvests in the previous fishing seasons (§ 635.27(b)(1)(ii)(A)).

        NMFS proposes to open the Gulf of Mexico non-sandbar LCS fishery on March 1, 2012. Opening the fishing season again on March 1 would provide, to the extent practicable, equitable opportunities across the fisheries management region as it did for the 2011 fishing season. This is consistent with all the criteria listed in § 635.27(b)(1)(ii), but particularly the effects of catch rates in one part of a region precluding vessels in another part of that region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the different species/complexes quotas (§ 635.27(b)(1)(ii)(E)). In the Atlantic region, NMFS delayed the opening of the non-sandbar LCS fishery until July 15 in 2010 and 2011 in order to allow for more equitably distributed shark fishing opportunities as intended by Amendment 2. However, based on public comments received during the rulemaking process for the 2011 season, including from south Atlantic fishermen, NMFS proposes to open the Atlantic non-sandbar LCS fishery on the effective date of the final rule implementing the Atlantic HMS electronic dealer reporting system (76 FR 37750) or July 15, 2011, whichever occurs first. This opening date is also consistent with all the criteria listed in § 635.27(b)(1)(ii), particularly the variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migratory patterns of the different species based on scientific and fishery information (§ 635.27(b)(1)(ii)(D)). The proposed opening date could allow fishermen to harvest some of the 2012 quota at the beginning of the year when sharks are more prevalent in the South Atlantic area if the electronic dealer reporting system is operating earlier than July 15. If the season opens before July 15 and the quota is taken too quickly to allow fishermen in the North Atlantic area an opportunity to fish throughout the entire region, then NMFS could reduce the commercial retention limits per § 635.24(a)(8) while being consistent with the opening dates criteria. If that occurs, NMFS would file for publication with the Office of the Federal Register a notice of any inseason adjustments to reduce retention limits to between 0-33 sharks per trip. NMFS could increase the commercial retention limits back to 33 sharks per trip at a later date to provide fishermen in the North Atlantic area an opportunity to retain non-sandbar LCS. Based on the fishing rates in the 2009 fishing season, if NMFS opens the fishery earlier than July 15 and does not adjust the commercial retention limits throughout the season, then fishermen in the South Atlantic area would likely catch the entire Atlantic quota before the sharks could migrate to the North Atlantic area.

        All of the shark fisheries would remain open until December 31, 2012, unless NMFS determines that the fishing season landings for sandbar shark, non-sandbar LCS, blacknose sharks, non-blacknose SCS, blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, or pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) have reached, or are projected to reach, 80 percent of the available quota. At that time, consistent with § 635.28(b)(1), NMFS will file for publication with the Office of the Federal Register a notice of closure for that shark species group and/or region that will be effective no fewer than 5 days from date of filing. From the effective date and time of the closure until NMFS announces, via a notice in the Federal Register, that additional quota is available, the fishery for the shark species group and, for non-sandbar LCS, region would remain closed, even across fishing years, consistent with § 635.28(b)(2).
        Request for Comments
        Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted via http://www.regulations.gov, mail, or fax. NMFS solicits comments on this proposed rule by November 30, 2011 (see DATES and ADDRESSES).
        Public Hearings
        Public hearings on this proposed rule are not currently scheduled. If you would like to request a public hearing, please contact Guy DuBeck, Jennifer Cudney or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone at (301) 427-8503.
        Classification
        The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. The IRFA analysis follows.
        In compliance with section 603(b)(1) of the RFA, the purpose of this proposed rulemaking is, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, to adjust the 2012 proposed quotas for non-sandbar LCS, sandbar sharks, blacknose sharks, non-blacknose SCS, blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, or pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) based on any over- and/or underharvests from the previous fishing year. These adjustments are being implemented according to the regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments. Thus, NMFS would expect few, if any, economic impacts to fishermen other than those already analyzed in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, based on the quota adjustments. An additional purpose is to use implemented management measures to delay the opening of the fishing season and allow inseason adjustments in the trip limits to slow the fishery down during the season, as necessary. These management measures would provide, to the extent practicable, equitable opportunities across the fishing management region while also considering the ecological needs of the different species.
        In compliance with section 603(b)(2) of the RFA, the objectives of this proposed rulemaking are to: (1) Adjust the annual quotas for non-sandbar LCS in the Gulf of Mexico due to overestimated landings in 2010, non-sandbar LCS in the Atlantic region due to minor overharvests in 2010, porbeagle sharks due to overharvests in 2010 and 2011, and the non-blacknose SCS due to underestimated landings in 2010 and underharvests in 2011; (2) establish the opening dates for all of the shark fisheries in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions; and (3) consider the need to adjust the trip limits inseason for non-sandbar LCS.
        Section 603(b)(3) requires Federal agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. NMFS considers all HMS permit holders to be small entities because they either had average annual receipts less than $4.0 million for fish-harvesting, average annual receipts less than $6.5 million for charter/party boats, 100 or fewer employees for wholesale dealers, or 500 or fewer employees for seafood processors. These are the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards for defining a small versus large business entity in this industry.

        The commercial shark fisheries are comprised of fishermen who hold shark directed or incidental limited access permits (LAP) and the related industries, including processors, bait houses, and equipment suppliers, all of which NMFS considers to be small entities according to the size standards set by the SBA. The proposed rule would apply to the approximately 216 directed commercial shark permit holders, 264 incidental commercial shark permit holders, and 114 commercial shark dealers as of August 2011.
        This proposed rule does not contain any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(4)). Similarly, this proposed rule would not conflict, duplicate, or overlap with other relevant Federal rules (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(5)). Fishermen, dealers, and managers in these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, domestic laws, and other FMPs. These include, but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act.
        In compliance with section 603(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, each initial regulatory flexibility analysis shall also contain a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Additionally, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4)) lists four general categories of significant alternatives that would assist an agency in the development of significant alternatives. These categories of alternatives are: (1) Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) exemptions from coverage of the rule for small entities. In order to meet the objectives of this final rule, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NMFS cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements only for small entities because all the entities affected are considered small entities. NMFS does not know of any performance or design standards that would satisfy the aforementioned objectives of this rulemaking while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This rulemaking does not establish management measures to be implemented, but rather implements previously adopted and analyzed measures with adjustments, as specified in Amendment 2 and Amendment 3 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and the EA with the 2011 quota specifications rule (75 FR 76302; December 8, 2010). Thus, in this proposed rulemaking HMS proposes to adjust quotas established and analyzed in Amendment 2 and Amendment 3 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP by subtracting the underharvest or adding the overharvest. Similarly, the ranges of management measures are consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that were previously analyzed in the EA with the 2011 quota specifications rule. Thus, HMS has limited flexibility that it could exercise on the management measures or quotas in this rule.
        Based on the 2010 ex-vessel price ($0.67/LCS lb, $0.68/SCS lb, $1.21/pelagic lb, and $13.48/lb for shark fins), the 2012 Atlantic shark commercial baseline quotas could result in revenues of $5,973,806. The adjustments due to overestimated landings for 2010 would result in a $6,944 gain in revenues in the Gulf of Mexico non-sandbar LCS fishery. The adjustment due to the overharvests in 2011 would result in a $13,621 loss in revenues in the Atlantic non-sandbar LCS fishery and a $3,924 loss in revenue in the porbeagle fishery. The adjustment due to the underharvests in 2011 would result in a $265,584 gain in revenues in the non-blacknose SCS fishery. These revenues are similar to the gross revenues analyzed in Amendment 2 and Amendment 3 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. The IRFAs for those amendments concluded that the economic impacts on these small entities, resulting from rules such as this one that delay the season openings and adjust the trip limits inseason via proposed and final rulemaking, were expected to be minimal. Amendment 2 and Amendment 3 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and the EA with the 2011 quota specifications rule assumed we would be doing annual rulemakings and considered the IRFAs in the economic and other analyses at the time.
        For this rule, NMFS reviewed the criterion at § 635.27(b)(ii) to determine when opening each fishery will provide equitable opportunities for fishermen while also considering the ecological needs of the different species. The opening of the fishing season could vary based on the available annual quota, catch rates, and number of fishing participants during the year. For the 2012 fishing season, NMFS is proposing to open the shark research, blacknose shark, non-blacknose SCS, and pelagic shark fisheries on the effective date of the final rule for this action (expected to be January 1). The direct and indirect economic impacts would be neutral on a short- and long-term basis, because NMFS is proposing not to change the opening dates of these fisheries from the status quo.
        NMFS also proposes opening the porbeagle fishery on January 1. The direct and indirect economic impacts would be neutral on a short- and long-term basis, because NMFS is proposing not to change the opening dates of these fisheries from the status quo. However, due to the combined overharvest in 2010 and 2011 for the porbeagle fishery, the porbeagle quota is expected to be 0.8 mt dw (1,665 lbs dw). If landings continue to occur and the overharvest reaches 80 percent or more of the base quota (1.3 mt dw; 2,988 lb dw), NMFS would not open the fishery. This action would cause direct and indirect moderate, adverse economic impacts on shark fishermen and other entities that rely on porbeagle sharks.
        NMFS proposes to delay the opening of the non-sandbar LCS in the Gulf of Mexico region until March 1, 2011, which would be the same opening date as 2010 fishing season. The delay in the Gulf of Mexico non-sandbar LCS fishing season could result in short-term direct, minor, adverse economic impacts as fishermen would have to fish in other fisheries to make up for lost non-sandbar LCS revenues during January and February of the 2012 fishing season. The short-term effects for delaying the season could cause indirect, minor, adverse economic impacts on shark dealers and other entities that deal with shark products as they may have to diversify during the beginning of the season when non-sandbar LCS shark products would not be available. However, long-term direct and indirect impacts are not anticipated as the delay would only be two months for the 2012 fishing season. In addition, NMFS does not anticipate that the delay would result in changes in ex-vessel prices as 2010 median ex-vessel prices for non-sandbar LCS meat and fins in the Gulf of Mexico region ranged from $0.36-$0.40/lb dw and $17.67-$15.46/lb dw, respectively, from January through March.

        NMFS proposes to delay the opening of the non-sandbar LCS in the Atlantic region until the effective date of the HMS electronic reporting system (approximately February 2012). The delay in the Atlantic non-sandbar LCS fishing season would result in short-term, direct, moderate, beneficial economic impacts as fishermen and dealers in the south Atlantic would not be able to fish for non-sandbar LCS starting in January but should still be able to fish earlier in the 2012 fishing season compared to the 2010 and 2011 fishing season, which did not start until July 15. South Atlantic fishermen commented during the public comment period for the 2011 shark specification rulemaking process that they felt that opening the fishery in July was not fair to them because by July the sharks have migrated north and are no longer available. With the implementation of the HMS electronic reporting system, NMFS should be able to monitor the quota on a real-time basis. This ability, along with the inseason adjustment criteria in § 635.24(a)(8), should allow NMFS the flexibility in furtherance of opportunities for all fishermen in all regions, to the extent practicable. Depending on how quickly the quota was being harvested, NMFS could reduce the retention limits to 0-33 sharks per trip to ensure that fishermen further north have ample quota for a fishery later in the 2012 fishing season. The direct impacts to shark fishermen in the Atlantic region of reducing the trip limit would depend on the needed reduction in the trip limit and the timing of such a reduction. Therefore, such a reduction in the trip limit is only anticipated to have minor adverse direct economic impacts to fishermen in the short-term; long-term impacts are not anticipated as these reductions would not be permanent.
        In the North Atlantic area, a split opening for the non-sandbar LCS would have direct, minor, beneficial economic impacts in the short-term for fishermen as they would have access to the non-sandbar LCS quota in 2012. Fishermen in the North Atlantic area did not have or had limited access to the non-sandbar LCS quota in 2009. There would be indirect, minor, beneficial economic impacts in the short and long-term for shark dealers and other entities that deal with shark products in this area as they would also have access to non-sandbar LCS products in 2011. Thus, allowing the split season in 2012 would cause neutral cumulative economic impacts, since it would allow for a more equitable distribution of the quotas among constituents in this region, which was the original intent of Amendment 2.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: October 26, 2011.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-28083 Filed 10-28-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 140214145-4145-01]
        RIN 0648-BD81
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitats of the South Atlantic Region; Amendment 8; Correction

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS published a proposed rule on June 3, 2014, to, in part, implement provisions that would expand portions of the northern and western boundaries of the Oculina Bank habitat area of particular concern (HAPC) (Oculina Bank HAPC). The proposed rule stated “the proposed rule would increase the size of the Oculina Bank HAPC by 405.42 square miles (1,050 square km), for a total area of 694.42 square miles (1,798.5 square km)”. However, this is incorrect. The proposed rule would actually increase the size of the Oculina Bank HAPC by 343.42 square miles (889.5 square km), for a total area of 632.42 square miles (1,638 square km). This notification corrects these two values published in the proposed rule.

          DATES:
          The public comment period for the proposed rule that published at 79 FR 31907, June 3, 2014, ends on July 3, 2014.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Anne Marie Eich, 727-824-5305; email: annemarie.eich@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On June 3, 2014, NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (79 FR 31907) to implement provisions that would expand portions of the northern and western boundaries of the Oculina Bank HAPC and allow transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC by fishing vessels with rock shrimp onboard; modify vessel monitoring systems (VMS) requirements for rock shrimp fishermen transiting through the Oculina Bank HAPC; expand a portion of the western boundary of the Stetson Reefs, Savannah and East Florida Lithotherms, and Miami Terrace Deepwater Coral HAPC (CHAPC) (Stetson-Miami Terrace CHAPC), including modifications to the shrimp access area A, which is proposed to be renamed “shrimp access area 1”; and expand a portion of the northern boundary of the Cape Lookout Lophelia Banks Deepwater CHAPC (Cape Lookout CHAPC). In addition, this proposed rule makes a minor administrative change to the names of the shrimp fishery access areas. The purpose of the proposed rule is to increase protection for deepwater coral based on new information for deepwater coral resources in the South Atlantic. The public comment period for the proposed rule ends on July 3, 2014.
        Need for Correction
        During the comment period on the proposed rule, a member from the public identified to NMFS that the increase of the size of the Oculina Bank HAPC included in the preamble of the proposed rule was incorrect. NMFS agrees and publishes this notification to correct that mistake.
        Correction
        In the Federal Register of June 3, 2014, in FR Doc. 2014-12655, on page 31908, in the second column, second paragraph, the fifth sentence is corrected to read as follows:

          “If implemented, this proposed rule would increase the size of the Oculina Bank HAPC by 343.42 square miles (889.5 square km), for a total area of 632.42 square miles (1,638 square km) and, except for a limited transit provision described below, would extend these prohibitions to the larger area, and increase protection of coral.”

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

          Dated: June 25, 2014.
          Eileen Sobeck,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2014-15414 Filed 6-26-14; 4:15 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 300
        [Docket No. 080118059-8067-01]
        RIN 0648-AW41
        South Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Establishment of Limits on Entry or Effort in the Purse Seine Fishery in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean

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

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; notification of control date; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that persons who enter the purse seine fishery in the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), as managed under the South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988 (SPTA), the Western and Central Pacific Convention Implementation Act (WCPFCIA) and other law, after March 28, 2008 (“control date”), are not guaranteed future participation in the fishery if NMFS decides to revise the criteria and procedures used to process license applications and/or to limit further the number of licenses available in the fishery. NMFS is considering the need to undertake such actions in order to provide greater clarity about the process used and thus help license holders and prospective license applicants in making business decisions, as well as to fulfill the obligations of the United States under international agreements to which it is party. This action does not commit NMFS to revising the criteria and procedures it uses or to establishing a new limit, and it does not prevent any other date or criteria from being selected for eligibility to participate in the fishery.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted in writing by April 28, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this advance notice of proposed rulemaking by any of the following methods:
          • Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: William L. Robinson, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814. Include the identifier “0648-AW41” in the comments.
          • Fax: 808-973-2941. Include the identifier “0648-AW41” in the comments.

          Instructions: All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (for example, name and address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publically accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Tom Graham, NMFS PIRO, 808-944-2219.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The WCPO purse seine fishery is regulated primarily under the authority of the SPTA (16 U.S.C. 973-973r) via implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart D. The SPTA and its implementing regulations implement the terms of a treaty between the United States and 16 Members of the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America and its annexes, schedules, and implementing agreements, as amended; hereafter called “the Treaty”). The Treaty governs the conduct of U.S. fishing vessel operations in the Treaty Area. The Treaty Area, which is defined at 50 CFR 300.31, encompasses approximately 10 million square miles (26 million square kilometers). The Treaty provides access by U.S. purse seine vessels to a large portion of the WCPO by authorizing, and regulating through a licensing system, U.S. purse seine vessels operations within all or part of the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of the 16 Pacific Island Parties to the Treaty (PIPs). Licenses are issued by the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), based in Honiara, Solomon Islands, which acts as the Treaty administrator on behalf of the PIPs.
        The Treaty and SPTA and its implementing regulations allow U.S. longline vessels and U.S. vessels fishing for albacore by the trolling method to fish in the high seas portion of the Treaty Area, but such vessels are not subject to the Treaty's or SPTA's licensing requirements.

        The Treaty entered into force in 1988 following ratification by the U.S. and the PIPs. After an initial 5-year agreement, the Treaty was renewed in 1993 for an additional 10 years and renewed again in 2003 for an additional 10 years (through June 14, 2013). Currently, the Treaty allows for a maximum of 45 licenses to U.S. purse seine fishing vessels to fish in the Licensing Area of the Treaty. Of the 45 licenses, 5 are reserved for “joint venture” arrangements with PIPs. The Licensing Area includes all or part of the EEZs of the following countries: Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. Licenses are issued by the FFA, but license applications are first submitted to NMFS, which ensures they are complete and forwards them to the FFA on a first-come, first-served basis.

        In addition to being governed by the Treaty and the SPTA, the WCPO purse seine fishery is subject to the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), particularly with respect to the operation of the fishery within the U.S. EEZ. The fishery is also subject to the authority of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.), which governs the conduct of U.S. fishing vessels on the high seas. The fishery also falls under the purview of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (WCPFCIA) (Public Law 109-479, sec 501-511), which implements the provisions of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries (WCPF) Convention and the decisions of the WCPF Commission, established under the Convention. The area of competence of the WCPF Commission, or the Convention Area, includes the majority of the Treaty Area. As a Party to the WCPF Convention and a Member of the WCPF Commission, the United States is obligated to implement the decisions of the Commission. To date, the Commission has made several decisions that might affect the level of activity of the WCPO purse seine fishery, including decisions related to allowable levels of fishing capacity (e.g. numbers of vessels or some other measure of fishing power present in the fishery) as well as allowable levels of fishing effort (e.g. numbers of days fished or sets made per unit of time). These decisions can be found on the web site of the WCPF Commission (http://www.wcpfc.int/).
        Recent Developments in the Fishery
        The number of U.S. purse seine vessels licensed under the Treaty has varied widely since its entry into force in 1988. The number of licensed vessels reached a high of 49 in 1994 (at which time the Treaty authorized up to 55 licenses, with 5 reserved for joint ventures) and a low of 11 in 2007. As of February 2008, there were 22 licenses issued and several additional license applications were being processed. No joint venture licenses have been issued under the Treaty.
        Establishment of Control Date and Possible Rulemaking
        In part because of the recent increase in the number of purse seine vessel licenses issued and applications pending under the Treaty, NMFS is considering clarifying, and possibly revising, the criteria and procedures used to process license applications. Such clarification would help both current license holders and prospective license applicants in making future business decisions.
        Also, in order to comply with the decisions of the WCPF Commission and to implement the provisions of the WCPFCIA, NMFS may be required to limit the number of vessels in the WCPO purse seine fishery. This rulemaking may be used to implement future actions in that fishery.
        In addition, on August 15, 2005, NMFS published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (70 FR 47782) that established a control date of June 2, 2005, applicable to persons contemplating entering the purse seine fishery in the U.S. EEZ in the western Pacific region (the control date also applied to persons interested in the longline fishery in the western Pacific region). That decision was based on a recommendation made by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council on June 2, 2005, at its 127th meeting. The control date is limited in application (with respect to purse seine vessels) to vessels that operate within the U.S. EEZ. This control date has not yet been acted on. The control date announced here applies more broadly than the June 2, 2005, control date: it applies to purse seine vessels that are subject to the Treaty and the SPTA; that is, to purse seine vessels operating anywhere on the high seas in the Treaty Area or in the EEZs of the 16 PIPs. The June 2, 2005, control date for the U.S. EEZ also remains in effect.
        One purpose of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking is to notify fishermen that if they attempt to enter the WCPO purse seine fishery after the control date of March 28, 2008, there is no assurance of being granted entry or of future participation if all available licenses have been issued or if NMFS must limit the number of available licenses or impose other management measures in the fishery.
        The second purpose is to solicit comments and input on possible criteria and procedures that could be used by NMFS to review, order, and process license applications. These criteria and procedures would be used by NMFS in determining eligibility for processing applications and requesting the FFA to provide licenses for US purse seine vessels operating in this fishery.
        Establishment of this control date does not commit NMFS to any particular management regime or any particular criteria for limiting entry into the WCPO purse seine fishery. Fishermen are not guaranteed future participation in the fishery, regardless of their level of participation before or after the control date. NMFS might adopt a different control date or it might adopt a management regime that does not involve a control date. Any number of possible criteria might be used to determine eligibility for participation in the fishery, including criteria involving date of license application (e.g. first-come-first-served), historical participation (e.g. history of licenses or landings), vessel size or capacity, or a vessel hull's country of origin, among others.
        If and until NMFS issues a final rule to clarify and/or revise the process it uses to process license applications, NMFS will continue its practice of doing so on a first-come, first-served basis.
        Classification
        This advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

          Authority:

          16 U.S.C. 973-973r; PL 109-479 sec 501-511; 16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.].

          Dated: March 24, 2008.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E8-6457 Filed 3-27-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket No. 21-54; RM-11879; DA 21-163; FR ID 17507]
        Television Broadcasting Services Peoria and Oswego, Illinois

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking Four Seasons Peoria, LLC (Petitioner), licensee of television station WAOE, channel 10, Peoria, Illinois, requesting an amendment of the DTV Table of Allotments to delete channel 10 at Peoria, Illinois, and substitute channel 10 at Oswego, Illinois. Petitioner further requests modification of WAOE's license to specify Oswego as its community of license pursuant to the Commission's rules.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before May 12, 2021 and reply comments on or before May 27, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Joan Stewart, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, 1776 Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Shaun Maher, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-2324 or Shaun.Maher@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 21-54; RM-11879; DA 21-163, adopted February 12, 2021, and released February 12, 2021. The full text of this document is available for download at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request materials in accessible formats (braille, large print, computer diskettes, or audio recordings), please send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (VOICE), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

        This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to this proceeding.
        Members of the public should note that all ex parte contacts are prohibited from the time a notice of proposed rulemaking is issued to the time the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, see 47 CFR 1.1208. There are, however, exceptions to this prohibition, which can be found in § 1.1204(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1204(a).
        See §§ 1.415 and 1.420 of the Commission's rules for information regarding the proper filing procedures for comments, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
        Petitioner does not propose any changes in WAOE's authorized facilities and will continue to provide a principal community coverage signal both Oswego and Peoria from its currently authorized transmission facilities. Petitioner maintains that the proposed community of license change is mutually exclusive with WAOE's current allotment and therefore its proposal satisfies the requirement that its proposed allotment be “mutually exclusive with the licensee's present allotment.”

        Petitioner asserts that Oswego qualifies as a community for allotment purposes. Petitioner maintains that Oswego, which, noted above, currently has no local television allotment, is the largest community within Kendall County, Illinois. Petitioner states that Oswego's population has increased almost ten-fold from 3,875 in 1990 to 34,383 today11 and is expected to double by 2040. Petitioner notes that Oswego has a fully autonomous municipal government led by a President and a seven-member Board of Trustees; as well as a professional management staff, led by a professional Village Administrator and a Village Clerk. Oswego has a full-service Police Department; schools, including six elementary schools, three junior high schools and two high schools; a Public Library District; and extensive Park District. Finally, Petitioner states that Oswego has its own ZIP Code; a local newspaper (the Oswego Ledger-Sentinel); chamber of commerce; multiple medical facilities; and is part of a transit system dedicated to serving residents of Kendall County.
        Petitioner argues that its proposal represents a preferential arrangement of allotments under the Commission's second allotment priority because it will result in a first local television station for Oswego, which is the largest community in Kendall County, Illinois. Petitioner notes that WAOE's existing community of license, Peoria, will continue to have four full power local television stations licensed to it following the reallotment, and because WAOE is not proposing to modify its technical facilities, the community of license change will not adversely affect the service provided to Peoria. Accordingly, Petitioner concludes that application of the Commission's television allotment priorities favors a reallotment of channel 10 to Oswego.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Television.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Thomas Horan,
          Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.

        Proposed Rule
        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICE

        1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.

        2. In § 73.622, paragraph (i) is amended in the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments under Illinois by adding an entry in alphabetical order for “Oswego” and revising the entry for “Peoria” to read as follows:

          § 73.622
          Digital television table of allotments.

          (i) * * *

              Community
              Channel No.

              *    *    *    *    *

                ILLINOIS

              *    *    *    *    *

              Oswego
              10.

              Peoria
              19, 25, 30, *46.

              *    *    *    *    *

      [FR Doc. 2021-07442 Filed 4-9-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0599; FRL-8971-5]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Revision to Clean Air Interstate Rule Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of changing the timing of the first phase of the sulfur dioxide (SO2) trading budget under the Commonwealth's approved regulations that implement the requirements of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the Commonwealth'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 action, 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.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received in writing by November 23, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0599 by one of the following methods:
          A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          B. E-mail: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.

          C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0599, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
          D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0599. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Marilyn Powers, (215) 814-2308, or by e-mail at powers.marilyn@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action for the approval of the Virginia revision to the CAIR SO2 trading program, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication.

           Dated: October 13, 2009.
          James W. Newsom,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

      [FR Doc. E9-25353 Filed 10-21-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Office of the Secretary
        49 CFR Part 71
        [Docket No. OST-2003-15858]
        RIN 2105-AD30
        Standard Time Zone Boundary in the State of South Dakota: Proposed Relocation of Jones, Mellette, and Todd Counties

          AGENCY:
          Office of the Secretary (OST), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          In response to a concurrent resolution of the South Dakota legislature, DOT proposes to relocate the boundary between mountain time and central time in the State of South Dakota. DOT proposes to place all of Jones, Mellette, and Todd Counties in the central time zone.

          DATES:
          Comments should be received by September 25, 2003 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. If the time zone boundary is changed as a result of this rulemaking, the effective date would be no earlier than 2 a.m. MDT Sunday, October 26, 2003, which is the changeover from daylight saving to standard time.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments to DOT DMS Docket OST-2003-15858 by any of the following methods:
          • Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001.
          • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

            Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. 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://dms.dot.gov. including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notices.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Joanne Petrie, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room 10424, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-9315, or by email at joanne.petrie@ost.dot.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Under the Standard Time Act of 1918, as amended by the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260-64), the Secretary of Transportation has authority to issue regulations modifying the boundaries between time zones in the United States in order to move an area from one time zone to another. The standard in the statute for such decisions is “regard for the convenience of commerce and the existing junction points and division points of common carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.”

        Time zone boundaries are set by regulation (49 CFR Part 71). Currently, under regulation, Mellette and Todd Counties, and the western portion of Jones County, are located in the mountain standard time zone. The eastern portion of Jones County is currently located in the central time zone.
        Request for a Change
        The South Dakota legislature adopted a concurrent resolution (Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 3) petitioning the Secretary of Transportation to place all of Jones, Mellette, and Todd counties into the central time zone. The resolution was adopted by the South Dakota Senate on February 3, 2003, and concurred by the South Dakota House of Representatives on February 7, 2003. The resolution noted, among other things, that the vast majority of residents of those counties observe central standard time, instead of mountain standard time, because their commercial and social ties are to communities located in the central time zone. It further stated that there would be much less confusion and that it would be much more convenient for the commerce of these counties if these counties were located in the central time zone. A copy of the resolution has been placed in the docket.
        Procedure for Changing a Time Zone Boundary

        Under DOT procedures to change a time zone boundary, the Department will generally begin a rulemaking proceeding if the highest elected officials in the area make a prima facie case for the proposed change. DOT has determined that the concurrent resolution of the South Dakota legislature makes a prima facie case that warrants opening a proceeding to determine whether the change should be made. Consequently, in this notice of proposed rulemaking, DOT is proposing to make the requested change and is inviting public comment. In addition, we expect to hold one or more hearings in the area that will be chaired by a DOT representative. The time and place of the hearing(s) will be published in a subsequent Federal Register notice and be publicized through local media.
        We are proposing that this change go into effect during the next changeover from daylight saving time to standard time, which is on October 26, 2003.
        Impact on Observance of Daylight Saving Time
        This time zone proposal does not directly affect the observance of daylight saving time. Under the Uniform Time Act of 1966, as amended, the standard time of each time zone in the United States is advanced one hour from 2 a.m. on the first Sunday in April until 2 a.m. on the last Sunday in October, except in any State that has, by law, exempted itself from this observance.
        Regulatory Analysis and Notices
        This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. The rule primarily affects the convenience of individuals in scheduling activities. By itself, it imposes no direct costs. Its impact is localized in nature.
        Small Entities
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This proposal, if adopted, would primarily affect individuals and their scheduling of activities. Although it would affect some small businesses, not-for-profits and, perhaps, several small governmental jurisdictions, it would not be a substantial number. In addition, the change should have little, if any, economic impact.

        Therefore, the Office of the Secretary certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.
        Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call Joanne Petrie at (202) 366-9315.
        Collection of Information
        This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
        Federalism
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 12612 and have determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
        Unfunded Mandates
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and E.O. 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993) govern the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those costs. This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate.
        Taking of Private Property
        This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
        Civil Justice Reform
        This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
        Protection of Children
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
        Environment

        This rulemaking is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.

        Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
        E.O. 13175 provides that government agencies consult with tribes on issues that impact the Indian community. The Department has consulted with the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council and will continue to do so as this rulemaking progresses.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 71
          Time zones.

        For the reasons discussed above, the Office of the Secretary proposes to amend Title 49 CFR Part 71 to read as follows:
        1. The authority citation for Part 71 would continue to read:

          Authority:
          Secs. 1-4, 40 Stat. 450, as amended; sec. 1, 41 Stat. 1446, as amended; secs. 2-7, 80 Stat. 107, as amended; 100 Stat. 764; Act of Mar. 19, 1918, as amended by the Uniform Time Act of 1966 and Pub. L. 97-449, 15 U.S.C. 260-267; Pub. L. 99-359; Pub. L. 106-564. 15 U.S.C. 263, 114 Stat. 281149 CFR 159(a), unless otherwise noted.

        2. Paragraph (b) of § 71.7, Boundary line between central and mountain zones, would be revised to read as follows:

          § 71.7
          Boundary line between central and mountain zones.
          (a) * * *

            (b) South Dakota. From the junction of the North Dakota-South Dakota boundary with the Missouri River southerly along the main channel of that river to the northeast corner of Jones County; thence west along the northern boundary of Jones County; thence south along the western boundaries of Jones, Mellette and Todd Counties to the South Dakota-Nebraska boundary.

          Issued in Washington, DC on August 5, 2003.
          Rosalind A. Knapp,
          Deputy General Counsel.

      [FR Doc. 03-20418 Filed 8-8-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-62-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 512
        [Docket No. NHTSA-06-26140; Notice 3]
        RIN 2127-AJ95
        Confidential Business Information

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

          ACTION:
          Denial of Petition for Reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          This document denies a petition for reconsideration regarding amendments to NHTSA's regulation on Confidential Business Information. The petition, by the American Association for Justice, sought the rescission of class determinations that provide confidential treatment for certain categories of information submitted to NHTSA pursuant to the Early Warning Reporting regulations.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Kido, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, telephone (202) 366-5263, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background

        Pursuant to the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, NHTSA has adopted Early Warning Reporting (EWR) regulations. 49 CFR Part 579. See 49 U.S.C. 30166(m), Public Law 106-414. Under these regulations, in general, larger manufacturers must submit certain data to the NHTSA on a quarterly basis. Their EWR reports include information on production, incidents involving deaths or injuries, property damage claims, consumer complaints, warranty claims, field reports and common green tires, with some variation based on the reporting sector. In general, smaller manufacturers must report on incidents involving deaths.

        On October 19, 2007, NHTSA published regulations addressing the confidentiality of EWR data. 72 FR 59434. The Appendices to the October 2007 notice contain class determinations providing that certain EWR information is confidential. Under Appendix C to 49 CFR Part 512, EWR data on production (except for light vehicles), consumer complaints, warranty claims, field reports and common green tires, as well as copies of field reports are confidential. 72 FR at 59470. Under Appendix D, the last six (6) characters of the vehicle identification number (VIN) in an EWR report on death(s) or injuries are confidential. Id. As explained in the preamble to the October 2007 rule, NHTSA based these class determinations on the substantive criteria in Exemptions 4 and 6 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and (b)(6).

        Under FOIA Exemption 4, the standard for assessing the confidentiality of information that parties are required to submit to the government is whether “disclosure of the information is likely to have either of the following effects: (1) To impair the Government's ability to obtain necessary information in the future; or (2) to cause substantial competitive harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained.” National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974). The class determinations in Appendix C to Part 512 are based on Exemption 4. FOIA Exemption 6 provides for the withholding of “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). The agency applied Exemption 6 to the last six (6) characters of the VINs affixed to those vehicles allegedly involved in a death or injury reported under 49 CFR part 579 to protect the identity of individual vehicle owners. The class determination in Appendix D to part 512 is based on Exemption 6. For a more detailed discussion of the agency's analysis regarding the class determinations in Appendices C and D, we refer readers to the preamble of the October 2007 rule.
        II. American Association for Justice Petition and NHTSA's Response
        In a December 3, 2007 letter, the American Association for Justice (AAJ), formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, petitioned for reconsideration of the class determinations on EWR data. AAJ asks NHTSA to withdraw the class determinations, based on two arguments.

        First, AAJ asserts that Federal law requires NHTSA to apply a balancing test used by a court in evaluating a motion to unseal court records filed in a products liability action. See Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001). Under this test, AAJ argues, an agency must balance the manufacturer's interest in keeping the information confidential with the alternate contention that disclosure serves the public interest in health and safety. AAJ asserts that a blanket exemption under the FOIA would violate this federal balancing test and that the agency must continue to evaluate the disclosure of a manufacturer's EWR data on a case-by-case basis.

        Second, AAJ asserts that automobile companies would not suffer detrimental competitive consequences from the disclosure of their EWR submissions. It states that industry's arguments regarding the competitive impact of the disclosure of EWR data should be discounted because manufacturers already learn about their competitors' products through reverse-engineering. AAJ cites an article in WIRED magazine discussing the vehicle tear-down process followed by manufacturers in general, and General Motors Corporation in particular. See Carl Hoffman, The Teardown Artists, WIRED (Feb. 2006). AAJ contends that since manufacturers already conduct these types of activities, disclosing EWR data may not have an additional impact on competition and that it could significantly improve public safety.

        As to both of these arguments, we disagree with AAJ's views regarding the applicable legal principles. In Chicago Tribune, a balancing test was applied in the unsealing of documents produced in a products liability lawsuit. In our view, the body of law that governs the disclosure of EWR data is FOIA law, rather than the law on the unsealing of documents in Chicago Tribune. More particularly, as explained in the preamble to the October 2007 rule, the proper standard is that of Exemption 4 of the FOIA. See 72 FR at 59437. In Exemption 4, Congress has already struck the balance and no further balancing of the public interest is warranted. See Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 185 F.3d 898, 904 (D.C. Cir. 1999); 72 FR at 59437 and 59449-50. In any event, to the extent relevant, the agency weighed the public's interest in these data against its continued ability to obtain EWR data under its impairment prong analyses. See, e.g., 72 FR at 59449-51 (consumer complaints), 59456-57 (warranty claims), and 59460-62 (field reports). AAJ does not dispute our impairment analyses.

        We also disagree with AAJ's related contentions that this information would protect consumers and that NHTSA did not dispute AAJ's claim that the disclosure of EWR information is vital to the public interest but that NHTSA gave greater weight to competitive consequences that would result from the release of the data, which were presented by the automotive industry. AAJ's conclusory contentions on the value of the information to the public were not supported in its submission. And, we had explained that the disclosure of the EWR data covered by the Appendices would provide limited, if any, safety benefits to the public, see, e.g., 72 FR at 59450, 59457, and 59462, but would be likely to cause substantial competitive harm to manufacturers and significantly impair the agency's ability to carry out the EWR program effectively. See, e.g., 72 FR at 59441-63.1
           In the course of our assessment, we applied the FOIA law and considered the administrative record in reaching the determinations in Appendices C and D. AAJ and others had the opportunity to submit detailed comments presenting their views and any facts in support of them.

            1 We note that the EWR information on deaths and injuries are not covered under the class determinations in Appendix C.

        The AAJ petition and article from WIRED do not provide justification for revision of the October 2007 rule and its appendices on the grounds that automobile companies would not likely suffer detrimental competitive harm from the disclosure of EWR data. The article points out that teardowns and related activities can yield valuable information about a competitor's products, such as dimensions, parts weight, and how parts are assembled together. However, the AAJ petition and article do not indicate, much less demonstrate, that teardowns provide information comparable to EWR data.

        The preamble to the October 2007 rule discussed EWR data and explained, among other things, the competitive value of those data. AAJ does not address how an entity could use tear-down information to develop EWR information or comparable information. NHTSA addressed EWR consumer complaints, warranty claims, and field reports. See 72 FR at 59444-63. The compendium of EWR consumer complaint data provides valuable information on customer satisfaction and how well products were received, quality and field experience. See 72 FR at 59444-48. Tear-downs do not provide this information. See e.g., 72 FR at 59445, 59447-48.

        EWR warranty data provide a compendium of information on the quality and in-use performance of significant systems or components. See 72 FR at 59451-55. These data serve as a valuable indicator of the field performance and experience of parts and systems in vehicles and tires. See
          72 FR at 59454-55. Vehicle tear-downs do not provide this information.

        EWR field report data address malfunctions or performance problems. See 72 FR at 59457. They reflect the in-use experience of a manufacturer's product collected at its expense and with the intent of identifying problems associated with its products. 72 FR at 59459; see also 72 FR at 59457-60. These data provide in-use information on technologies employed by manufacturers and provide competitively valuable information on product performance and experience in the field, including at times reliability and durability of systems and components. 72 FR at 59459-60. Again, vehicle tear-downs do not provide this information.

        Furthermore, NHTSA addressed EWR production data and explained why they are confidential (other than for light vehicles). See, e.g., 72 FR at 59441-44. AAJ's petition does not address production data at all. NHTSA also explained why EWR common green tire identifiers are confidential. 72 FR at 59462-63. AAJ does not address this information either.

        Also, AAJ does not address the issue of costs in collecting information on competitor products. In general, the ability of a competitor to engage in reverse engineering, which forms a basis for AAJ's contentions, does not alone resolve the confidentiality of information; cost is a significant factor. See 72 FR at 59448 (quoting Worthington Compressors v. Costle, 662 F.2d 45, 51-52 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). The article from Wired alluded to the considerable costs incurred by GM to conduct vehicle tear-downs. It noted that a full vehicle tear-down takes approximately six weeks and requires work by technicians and the use of sophisticated equipment. The article also noted that the process focuses on costs; cost estimators estimate the price of every part used in the examined vehicle. AAJ does not address any of these vehicle tear-down costs. If there was a means by which competitors could acquire the competitive information provided by EWR submissions, such as consumer complaints, warranty claims, and field reports, these costs would certainly be considerable. See, e.g., 72 FR at 59448, 59454, and 59459.

        Lastly, AAJ does not address Appendix D or any of the FOIA Exemption 6 issues detailed in the preamble to the October 2007 rule related to the disclosure of the full VIN reported in an incident involving an alleged death or injury. See 72 FR at 59463-65. For example, it does not address the privacy concerns raised by the agency if complete VIN information were disclosed. It does not address the fact that the agency's final rule permits the disclosure of the first eleven (11) of the seventeen (17) characters that comprise each VIN or that the first eleven characters are sufficient to identify the make, model, and model year of a vehicle. And, it does not address relevant case law. See Center for Auto Safety v. NHTSA, 809 F. Supp. 148 (D.D.C. 1993); see also 72 FR at 59465.
        III. Conclusion
        For the reasons stated above, the agency is denying AAJ's petition for reconsideration.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 322; 5 U.S.C. 552; 49 U.S.C. 30166, 49 U.S.C. 30167; 49 U.S.C. 32307; 49 U.S.C. 32505; 49 U.S.C. 32708; 49 U.S.C. 32910; 49 U.S.C. 33116; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          Issued on: April 30, 2008.
          James F. Ports, Jr.,
          Deputy Administrator.

      [FR Doc. E8-10192 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P