        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        Defense Acquisition Regulations System
        48 CFR Parts 204 and 252
        RIN 0750-AG47
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Safeguarding Unclassified DoD Information (DFARS Case 2011-D039)

          AGENCY:
          Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Notice of meeting cancellation.

          SUMMARY:

          On October 28, 2011 (76 FR 66889), DoD gave notice of a public meeting to be held on November 15, 2011, from 9:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. EST at the General Services Administration (GSA), Central Office Auditorium. This meeting has been cancelled and may be rescheduled at a later date after review and evaluation of public comments received. Public comments should still be submitted by December 16, 2011 using one of the methods discussed under the section below titled ADDRESSES.

          DATES:

            Submission of Comments: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before December 16, 2011, to be considered in the formation of the rule.

          ADDRESSES:

            Submission of Comments: You may submit written comments, identified by DFARS Case 2011-D039, using any of the following methods:
          • Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting “DFARS Case 2011-D039” under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “DFARS Case 2011-D039.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “DFARS Case 2011-D039” on your attached document.
          • Email: dfars@osd.mil. Include DFARS Case 2011-D039 in the subject line of the message.
          • Fax: (703) 602-0350.
          • Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Julian Thrash, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

          Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment, please check http://www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Julian E. Thrash, telephone (703) 602-0310.

            List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 204 and 252
            Government procurement.

            Mary Overstreet,
            Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

      [FR Doc. 2011-29132 Filed 11-9-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Marine Fisheries Service
        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
        [Docket No. 060113009-6009-01; I.D. 010506D]
        Endangered and Threatened Species; Notice of 90-day Finding on a Petition to List the North Pacific Right Whale as an Endangered Species Under the Endangered Species Act

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of petition finding; request for information; and initiation of status review.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS announces a 90-day finding regarding a petition to list the North Pacific right whale, Eubalaena japonica, as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). After review, NMFS finds that the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that this action may be warranted. NMFS is initiating a review of the status of the North Pacific right whale, and is soliciting data, information, and comment on the subject action.

          DATES:
          To be considered in the 12-month finding, information and comments should be submitted to NMFS by April 26, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Data, information, or comments concerning this petition should be submitted to Kaja Brix, Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Lori Durall. Comments may be submitted by:
          • E-mail: 0648-XB41-NPRW@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following document identifier: North Pacific Right Whale Listing. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.
          • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 W. 9th Street, Juneau, Alaska.
          • Fax: (907) 586-7012.
          • Federal e-rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Brad Smith, NMFS, 222 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99517, telephone (907) 271-5006, fax (907) 271-3030, Ms. Kaja Brix, NMFS, (907) 586-7235, fax (907) 586-7012; or Dr. Kate McFadden, NMFS, (301) 713-1401, fax (301) 427-2523.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that NMFS make a determination as to whether a petition to list a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days of the date the petition was received, and the finding is to be published promptly in the Federal Register. If NMFS finds that substantial scientific information is presented, it is required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species involved if one has not already been initiated.

        NMFS has made a 90-day finding on a petition to list the North Pacific right whale. The petition, dated August 16, 2005, was submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity, P.O. Box 40090, Berkeley, CA 94704-4090, and was received by NMFS on August 19, 2005. Petitioner requests NMFS to list the North Pacific right whale as a new species, Eubalaena japonica, and to designate the species as endangered under the ESA. Its request is based, in part, on recent scientific information which establishes a new taxonomic classification for the right whale. This reclassification would recognize the North Pacific right whale as the new species E. japonica.

        NMFS has reviewed the petition, the literature cited in the petition, and other literature and information available in NMFS files. On the basis of that information, we find the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the requested action may be warranted. NMFS' finding is based in part on recent scientific papers recognizing the North Pacific right whale as genetically distinct from the North Atlantic right whale, as well as recent findings of the International Whaling Commission on the subject. We request any information regarding the taxonomy and status of the North Pacific right whale, its habitat, biology, movements and distribution, threats to the species, or other pertinent information. A copy of the petition may be viewed at the NMFS website: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/default.htm

        Authority

        The authority for this action is the ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: January 20, 2006.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E6-1007 Filed 1-25-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA 2006-26339]
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

          ACTION:
          Denial of petition for rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by Siemens VDO to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, “Occupant Crash Protection.” The petition requests that the agency add a dynamic automatic suppression option under the advanced air bag options for the 12-month CRABI infant test dummy analogous to that for the 3-year and 6-year-old dummies.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For non-legal issues: David Sutula, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-3273. Fax: (202) 493-2739.
          For legal issues: Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-2992.
          Fax: (202) 366-3820.
          You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Table of Contents
          I. Background
          II. The Petition
          III. Data Submission and NHTSA Analysis
          A. Data Submission
          B. Ex Parte Meeting With Siemens, Volkswagen and Audi
          C. NHTSA Analysis
          IV. Conclusion

        I. Background
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes  (49 CFR 571.208). On May 12, 2000, we published an interim final rule that amended FMVSS No. 208 to require advanced air bags (65 FR 30680; (Advanced Air Bag Rule). Among other things, the rule addressed the risk of serious air bag-induced injuries, particularly for small women and young children, and amended FMVSS No. 208 to require that future air bags be designed to minimize such risk. The Advanced Air Bag Rule established a rigid barrier crash test with a 5th percentile adult female test dummy, as well as several low risk deployment and static suppression tests using a range of dummy sizes and a number of specified child restraint systems (CRSs).
        The Advanced Air Bag Rule allows for passenger side compliance through any of three options. The first option, Low Risk Deployment (LRD), defines a reduced deployment strength for occupants in close proximity to the air bag. The second option suppresses the air bag when a child is present. The third option, Dynamic Automatic Suppression (DASS), senses the location of an occupant with respect to the air bag, interprets the occupant characteristics and movement, and determines whether or not to allow the air bag to deploy. Performance tests for determining compliance with the LRD and suppression options were specified in the Advanced Air Bag Rule. A performance test for determining compliance with the DASS option was not specified in the rule because at that time it was not known what technologies would be used to attempt to meet the DASS option.

        The agency received multiple petitions for reconsideration to the Advanced Air Bag Rule. Petitioners raised a large number of concerns about the various test procedures in their written submissions. The agency then addressed each petition in a Federal Register notice published on December 18, 2001, and made a number of refinements to the test dummy positioning procedures in the barrier tests and the low risk deployment tests used in the Advanced Air Bag Rule (66 FR 65376).
        The December 18, 2001 response to petitions for reconsiderations (66 FR 65383) stated that:

          To address the risks posed by passenger air bags, the rule requires vehicles to either (1) have a passenger air bag that deploys in a low-risk manner to out-of-position occupants, (2) to have a feature that suppresses the air bag when a young child is present in a variety of positions, or (3) to have a feature that suppresses the air bag when a passenger is out-of-position (including in dynamic events). The risk minimization requirements must be met separately for 1-year-old, 3-year-old and 6-year-old children, and manufacturers may choose different options for these three classes of occupants [emphasis added].”

        In making this statement, the agency clarified that for each dummy type, the selected “risk minimization” strategy had to be met in full for each dummy. That is, it was not acceptable to comply with only the suppression strategy for an infant in a rear facing child restraint system (RFCRS) and the low risk deployment strategy for an infant in a forward facing child restraint system (FFCRS). This was further emphasized in letters responding to request for interpretation from TRW Automotive (TRW) 1
           and International Electronics and Engineering (IEE) 2
           in July and October of 2003, respectively. The IEE interpretation also indicated that “[m]anufacturers may not use suppression technology to ensure that there will be no air bag deployment in the indicant test if they are certifying to the low risk deployment test.”

            1 Docket Management System NHTSA-2003-15650.

            2 Docket Management System NHTSA-2003-16296.

        In both regulatory and non-regulatory environments the agency has discussed extensively its concern about the danger of air bag deployment in the presence of an infant in a RFCRS. It was for this reason that the infant low risk deployment certification option effectively requires a broader range of crash severities for which the air bag must deploy in a low risk manner.
        II. The Petition
        On August 20, 2003, Siemens VDO (Siemens) petitioned the agency to amend FMVSS No. 208 to add a DASS option under the advanced air bag options for the 12-month-old CRABI infant test dummy. This would be an option analogous to that provided for the 3-year-old and 6-year-old dummies in S21.3 and S23.3, respectively. Siemens stated that “including the DASS option with the 1-year-old (12-month-old) dummy could have a positive impact on motor vehicle safety by enabling the development and certification of advanced air bag suppression systems.”
        The petition stated that the lack of a DASS option (for infants) is limiting advanced air bag technologies for the following reasons:

          1. Using a vision-based DASS system it is not possible, under all circumstances, [emphasis added] to distinguish between a 12-month-old child in a FFCRS with a sunshield or blanket and a 5th percentile female. The system would suppress the air bag and eliminate potential benefits to children older than 1-year and small adults.

          2. Test data Siemens submitted with the petition show that a 12-month-old properly positioned in a FFCRS is not at risk from a statically deploying air bag. In out-of-position (OOP) situations, the infant in the FFCRS does not have injury measures in excess of the required FMVSS No. 208 criteria.
          3. A DASS option for the 12-month-old dummy would deactivate the air bag when the infant enters the air bag suppression zone. An infant in a rear facing child restraint system (RFCRS) would always be in this suppression zone.

        Siemens believes that the agency has never expressed its reasoning for not allowing the DASS option for the 12-month-old dummy. The petitioner stated that if its petition were granted and the standard amended accordingly, it would submit a petition for a DASS test procedure in accordance with S27.1(a).
        The petitioner's claimed need for the relief is predicated on the contention that their vision system cannot tell the difference between a 12-month-old in a FFCRS covered by a blanket or sunshield (a test required in the suppression option for the 12-month-old dummy) and a 5th percentile female sitting in the passenger seat. Since the air bag must not be suppressed for the 5th percentile female, their vision system alone could not be used for a compliance strategy that suppresses for the 12-month-old and uses DASS for all other occupants.
        III. Data Submission and NHTSA Analysis
        A. Data Submission
        Siemens provided sled and static testing data in support of their petition. The petitioner's stated goal of the testing was to determine:

          1. The risk of injury from air bag deployment for infants and children in FFCRS; and
          2. If there is any benefit to air bag deployment for small children.

        The petitioner's test matrix consisted mostly of sled testing using the 3-year-old dummy. Tests were conducted with the dummy unrestrained and also restrained using two different CRSs. The tests were done in three positions of vehicle seat adjustment: Forward track/highest height (for/up), middle track/middle height (mid/mid), and rearward track/lowest height (rear/low). The sled speeds were reported as 16, 22, and 35 mph. Siemens also reported that a 10 mph out-of-position test was performed, but no data was provided for this test. Finally, Siemens also reported static air bag deployments using a 12-month-old dummy and four different CRSs. The complete test matrix is shown below in Table 1.

          Table 1.—Test Data Submitted in Support of Petition

            Air bag status
            w/out air bag
            w/air bag

            Seat position

            Dummy
            mid/mid
            for/up misuse
            for/up
            mid/mid
            rear/low
            for/mid
            for/mid misuse

            3-year-old × 2 CRSs
            35 mph
            16 † and 35 mph
            35 mph
            35 mph
            35 mph

            3-year-old unbelted
            22 mph
            10 mph OOP

            22 mph

            12-month-old × 4 CRSs

            Static *
            Static ‡.

          † One child restraint.
          * Both stages of a dual stage air bag.
          ‡ Current production single stage air bag.

        B. Ex Parte Meeting With Siemens, Volkswagen and Audi
        On June 17, 2004, representatives from Siemens and vehicle manufacturers, Volkswagen and Audi, met with NHTSA to discuss the Siemens petition. During the meeting, Siemens made a presentation reiterating the petition material.3
           No new supporting data was provided, but the following additional justifications for granting the petition were presented:

            3 Test Requirements for 1 YO Dummy in Standard No. 208, Information supporting the Siemens VDO petition for rulemaking, Washington DC, June 17, 2004. See the docket for this notice for a copy of the meeting materials.

        • Maximizes the number of occupants that benefit from air bag protection.
        • Minimizes the risk of air bag-induced fatalities.
        • Avoids weight-based classification grey zones through a position-dependent deployment decision.
        C. NHTSA Analysis
        The petition requested that the agency allow a DASS option for the 12-month-old infant dummy. However, the dynamic test data submitted in support of the petition attempted to show the protective effect of the air bag for a belted 3-year-old dummy in two different CRSs and also unbelted, sitting in the vehicle seat. The agency does not consider this to be directly supportive of the petition in that a DASS option for the 3-year-old already exists.
        The data submitted using the 12-month-old dummy were static first-stage air bag deployments. The dummy was placed in four different FFCRSs. In one set of data the CRS was in-position and in another it was leaning forward. The space between the instrument panel and dummy head was not provided with the petition. However, in the June 17, 2004 meeting with the petitioners, they stated that the distance was approximately 100-200 mm (4-8 inches). None of the dummy IARVs 4
           were exceeded, but for at least one CRS tested, the injury measures were within 80 percent of the head, neck and chest criteria limits.

            4 Reference: S19 of FMVSS Standard No. 208.

        The data showed that at some dummy distance from the air bag, a first-stage air bag deployment might not exceed the injury threshold for the 12-month-old dummy. However, it does not demonstrate that air bags have a potential protective effect for a 12-month-old occupant dummy in a dynamic environment as claimed in the petition.
        IV. Conclusion

        The DASS option is intended to provide manufacturers the flexibility of deploying an air bag when such a deployment would not be harmful, and potentially beneficial, as opposed to suppressing the air bag or relying on a low risk deployment. However, central to the DASS option is that when an air bag is deployed, the risk of harm to an occupant is minimized. The petitioner has not provided such data, and instead presented dynamic test data using a 3-year-old test dummy. The agency's Special Crash Investigation data 5
           indicate that the only fatalities for children younger than 2-years old in FFCRSs were in pre-advanced air bag systems without suppression and when they were improperly used. However, the Special Crash Investigation data does not prove that an air bag deployment for a properly restrained child in a FFCRS is not injurious. Although these fatalities might have been avoided through air bag suppression, it is not clear that a DASS system would provide comparable benefit to static suppression for a 12-month-old child.

            5 http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/sci.html

        Further, we believe that manufacturers will be able to, if they have not already done so, design DASS systems that can distinguish between the 5th percentile female test dummy and the 12-month-old test dummy in all positions required by the suppression option. Therefore, the requested relief is not necessary to implement a DASS compliance strategy for 3-year-old and 6-year-old test dummies and suppression for the 12-month-old dummy.
        In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's review of the petition.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30162; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          Dated: May 10, 2007.
          Stephen R. Kratzke,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

       [FR Doc. E7-9382 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 150625552-5710-01]
        RIN 0648-BF22
        Pacific Island Pelagic Fisheries; Exemption for Large U.S. Longline Vessels To Fish in Portions of the American Samoa Large Vessel Prohibited Area

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to allow large federally permitted U.S. longline vessels to fish in certain areas of the Large Vessel Prohibited Area (LVPA) around Swains Island, Tutuila, and the Manua Islands. NMFS would continue to prohibit fishing in the LVPA by large purse seine vessels. The fishing requirements for the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument would remain unchanged. The intent of the proposed rule is to improve the viability of the American Samoa longline fishery and achieve optimum yield from the fishery while preventing overfishing, in accordance with National Standard 1.

          DATES:
          NMFS must receive comments by September 24, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0080, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0080, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Send written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

            Instructions: 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 by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible.

          The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS prepared an environmental analysis that describes the potential impacts on the human environment that could result from the proposed rule. The environmental analysis and other supporting documents are available at www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIRO Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5176.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        In 2002, the Council recommended establishing, and NMFS implemented, the LVPA around Swain's, Tutuila, and the Manua Islands, and Rose Atoll. At the time, the Council and NMFS established the LVPA to prevent the potential for gear conflicts and catch competition between large and small fishing vessels. Such conflicts and competition could have led to reduced opportunities for sustained participation in the small-scale pelagic fisheries. The LVPA, which extends seaward approximately 30-50 nm offshore from the islands, restricts vessels 50 ft and longer from fishing for pelagic management unit species. You may read more about the establishment of the LVPA in the 2001 proposed rule (66 FR 39475, July 31, 2001) and 2002 final rule (67 FR 4369, January 30, 2002).
        The American Samoa pelagic fisheries have changed since 2002, and the conditions that led the Council and NMFS to establish the LVPA are no longer present. Only a few small longline vessels (just one active in 2014) have been operating on a regular basis, and the large vessels (19 active in 2014) have faced declining catch per unit of effort (CPUE), increased costs, and greatly reduced revenues. The LVPA may be unnecessarily reducing the efficiency of the larger American Samoa longline vessels by displacing the fleet from a part of their historical fishing grounds.
        To address fishery conditions resulting from the LVPA, the Council recommended that NMFS allow federally-permitted U.S. longline vessels 50 ft and longer to fish in portions of the LVPA. Specifically, the proposed action would allow large U.S. vessels that hold a Federal American Samoa longline limited entry permit to fish within the LVPA seaward of 12 nm around Swains Island, Tutuila, and the Manua Islands (see Fig. 1). NMFS would continue to prohibit fishing in the LVPA by large purse seine vessels. The fishing requirements for the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument would also remain unchanged.

          EP25AU15.002

        The proposed action would allow fishing in an additional 16,817 nm2 of Federal waters, thereby reducing the total portion of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone around American Samoa that is now closed to large longline vessels from 25.5 percent to 11.3 percent. The proposed action is intended to improve the efficiency and economic viability of the American Samoa longline fleet, while ensuring that fishing by the longline and small vessel fleets remains sustainable on an ongoing basis. The proposed action would allow large longline vessels to distribute fishing effort over a larger area, which may reduce catch competition among the larger vessels and promote economic efficiency by reducing transit costs. The longline fishery targets albacore, so it does not compete with small-scale bottomfish fishermen or trollers, who target skipjack and yellowfin tunas and billfish. NMFS would continue to prohibit fishing by large longline vessels within the EEZ from 3-12 nm around the islands, thus maintaining non-competitive fishing opportunities for the small-vessel longline fleet.
        The Council and NMFS will annually review the effects of the proposed action on catch rates, small vessel participation, and sustainable fisheries development initiatives. Any proposed changes would be subject to additional environmental review and opportunity for public review and comment.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act: Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A description of the proposed action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for it are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule.
        The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) established the American Samoa large vessel prohibited areas (LVPA) to separate large-vessel (50 feet or greater) fishing activities from those of smaller vessels, and to prevent potential gear conflicts and catch competition. NMFS implemented the LVPA in 2002 (67 FR 4369; January 30, 2002), with minor modifications to the boundaries in 2012, related to the establishment of the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument (77 FR 34260; June 11, 2012).

        At the time that the LVPA was implemented, nearly 40 alia and other small vessels fished alongside 25 large vessels. The establishment of the LVPA prohibited fishing by all but two large vessels. The Council and NMFS allowed the two vessels to fish in the LVPA based on their fishing history. In recent years, far fewer small vessels operate within the LVPA and the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) surrounding American Samoa. Meanwhile, the large longliners based in American Samoa struggle to maintain operating, with estimated fleet-wide revenue of $6.8 million (http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/wpacfin/as/Data/ECL_Charts/ae3bmain.htm, accessed July 22, 2015) and some vessels reportedly operating at a loss.
        This proposed rule would provide economic relief to the American Samoa large longline vessel fleet, through an exemption to the prohibition from fishing within specific areas of the LVPA. The proposed action would allow the large longline vessels to fish over an additional 16,817 nm2 of Federal waters, thereby reducing the total area of the U.S. EEZ around American Samoa currently closed to large longliners from 25.5 percent to 11.3 percent. The proposed action would improve the efficiency and economic viability of the American Samoa longline fleet, while ensuring fishing by the longline and small vessel fleets remain sustainable on an ongoing basis. The Council and NMFS would annually review the effects of the proposed action on catch rates of all pelagic fishery participants, small vessel participation in pelagic fisheries, and sustainable fisheries development initiatives.

        The proposed action would directly affect operators of American Samoa-based longline vessels with Class C or D permits. Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all affected entities are small entities under the SBA definition of a small entity, i.e., they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, are independently owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have gross annual receipts below $20.5 million (NAICS code: 114111). In 2013, NMFS issued 11 Class C permits and 26 Class D permits, with seven active Class C permits and 14 active Class D permits (http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/wpacfin/as/Data/Pelagic/apel24main.htm and http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/wpacfin/as/Data/Pelagic/apel25main.htm, accessed July 22, 2015). Therefore, NMFS estimates that this action would potentially affect up to 37 vessels directly.
        NMFS does not expect the rule to have disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities directly affected by this rule, although the small vessels currently allowed to fish throughout the LVPA may be indirectly affected by the potential increase in the number of large longliners fishing within a portion of the LVPA. Furthermore, there would be disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of vessels based on gear, homeport, or vessel length.
        Even though this proposed action would apply to a substantial number of vessels, the implementation of this action will not result in significant adverse economic impacts to individual vessels. The proposed action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules and is not expected to have significant impact on small entities (as discussed above), organizations, or government jurisdictions. As such, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        Executive Order 12866
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665
          Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian natives, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: August 18, 2015.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

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

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

        2. Revise § 665.818 to read as follows:

          § 665.818
          Exemptions for American Samoa large vessel prohibited areas.
          (a) Exemption for historical participation.

          (1) An exemption will be issued to a person who currently owns a large vessel to use that vessel to fish for western Pacific pelagic MUS in the American Samoa large vessel prohibited areas, if the person seeking the exemption had been the owner of that vessel when it was registered for use with a Western Pacific general longline permit, and has made at least one landing of western Pacific pelagic MUS in American Samoa on or prior to November 13, 1997.
          (2) A landing of western Pacific pelagic MUS for the purpose of this paragraph must have been properly recorded on a NMFS Western Pacific Federal daily longline form that was submitted to NMFS, as required in § 665.14.
          (3) An exemption is valid only for a vessel that was registered for use with a Western Pacific general longline permit and landed western Pacific pelagic MUS in American Samoa on or prior to November 13, 1997, or for a replacement vessel of equal or smaller LOA than the vessel that was initially registered for use with a Western Pacific general longline permit on or prior to November 13, 1997.
          (4) An exemption is valid only for the vessel for which it is registered. An exemption not registered for use with a particular vessel may not be used.
          (5) An exemption may not be transferred to another person.
          (6) If more than one person, e.g., a partnership or corporation, owned a large vessel when it was registered for use with a Western Pacific general longline permit and made at least one landing of western Pacific pelagic MUS in American Samoa on or prior to November 13, 1997, an exemption issued under this section will be issued to only one person.
          (b) Exemption for vessel size. Except as otherwise prohibited in Subpart I of this chapter, a vessel of any size that is registered for use with a valid American Samoa longline limited access permit is authorized to fish for western Pacific pelagic MUS within the American Samoa large vessel prohibited areas as defined in § 665.806(b), except that no large vessel as defined in § 665.12 of this subpart may be used to fish for western Pacific pelagic MUS in the portions of the American Samoa large vessel prohibited areas, as follows:
          (1) EEZ waters around Tutuila Island enclosed by straight lines connecting the following coordinates:

              Point
              S. lat.
              W. long.

              1
              14°01′42″
              171°02′36″

              2
              14°01′42″
              170°20′22″

              3
              14°34′31″
              170°20′22″

              4
              14°34′31″
              171°03′10″

              5
              14°02′47″
              171°03′10″

              1
              14°01′42″
              171°02′36″

          (2) EEZ waters around the Manua Islands enclosed by straight lines connecting the following coordinates:

              Point
              S. lat.
              W. long.

              1
              13°57′16″
              169°53′7″

              2
              13°57′16″
              169°12′45″

              3
              14°28′28″
              169°12′45″

              4
              14°28′28″
              169°53′37″

              1
              13°57′16″
              169°53′37″

          (3) EEZ waters around Swains Island enclosed by straight lines connecting the following coordinates:

              Point
              S. lat.
              W. long.

              1
              10°51′
              171°18′

              2
              10°51′
              170°51′

              3
              11°16′
              170°51′

              4
              11°16′
              171°18′

              1
              10°51′
              171°18′

      [FR Doc. 2015-20962 Filed 8-24-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 64
        [CG Docket Nos. 12-38 and 03-123; DA 12-208]
        Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks To Refresh the Record Regarding Misuse of Internet Protocol Relay Service

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Commission, via the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) seeks comment to refresh the record regarding misuse of Internet Protocol relay service. Further comments are requested to bring the record up to date on proposed additional rules that would have the intended effect of reducing or eliminating misuse of Internet Protocol Relay.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before March 20, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 12-38 and 03-123, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal service mailing address, and CG Docket Nos. 12-38 and 03-123.
          • Paper filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

          • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
          • Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
          • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

          In addition, parties must serve one copy of each pleading with the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, or via email to fcc@bcpiweb.com.

          For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Eliot Greenwald, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (202) 418-2235 (voice), (202) 418-2922 (TTY), or email at Eliot.Greenwald@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Public Notice, document DA 12-208, released February 13, 2012. The full text of document DA 12-208 and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Document DA 12-208 and copies of subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the Commission's duplicating contractor at its Web site www.bcpiweb.com, or by calling 1-800-378-3160. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Document DA 12-208 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before the date indicated in the DATES section of this document. Comments must include a short and concise summary of the substantive discussion and questions raised in the document DA 12-208. The Commission further directs all interested parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their comments. Comments must otherwise comply with 47 CFR 1.48 and all other applicable sections of the Commission's rules.
        • Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200 et. seq., this matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) List all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

        People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
        Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

        Document DA 12-208 does not contain any new proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new proposed information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
        Synopsis

        In document DA 12-208, the Bureau seeks to refresh the record on several issues pertaining to misuse of Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service, including issues that were initially raised in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2006 FNPRM) released by the Commission on May 8, 2006 and published at 71 FR 31131, June 1, 2006. IP Relay is a form of text-based telecommunications relay service (TRS) that uses the Internet to allow individuals with hearing and/or speech disabilities to communicate with other individuals. The Bureau remains concerned that individuals who do not have a hearing or speech disability may be continuing to misuse IP Relay by, for example, calling merchants to place orders using fake, stolen, or otherwise invalid credit cards. Such abuse not only drains the TRS Fund that supports these services, but also harms legitimate consumers whose calls are rejected by individuals and businesses that have been the victims of such misuse. The Bureau believes that a refreshed record will better enable the Commission to take timely and appropriate action to address these problems.
        As the 2006 FNPRM explained, IP Relay affords users a degree of anonymity that can facilitate fraudulent activity. The 2006 FNPRM sought comment on ways to curb fraudulent calls via IP Relay, including requiring user registration and permitting relay providers to screen and terminate fraudulent IP Relay calls.
        Since the 2006 FNPRM was adopted, the Commission has undertaken a number of measures to combat misuse of the IP Relay program. Most significantly, in June 2008, the Commission adopted a mandatory system in which users of iTRS, including IP Relay, are assigned ten-digit telephone numbers linked to the North American Numbering Plan and iTRS users with disabilities are registered with their provider of choice (default provider). The Commission expressed its expectation that the registration of iTRS users with a default provider and the requirement for each user to provide a “Registered Location” would reduce the misuse of IP Relay. See 73 FR 41286, July 18, 2008. The Commission also sought comment on whether additional steps were needed to curtail illegitimate calls made through this service. See 73 FR 41307, July 18, 2008.
        In December 2008, the Commission adopted a second iTRS numbering Order, published at 73 FR 79683, December 30, 2008, addressing IP Relay and video relay service (VRS). Among other things, the Commission:
        • Directed iTRS providers to “implement a reasonable means of verifying registration and eligibility information,” including the consumer's name and mailing address, before issuing the consumer a ten-digit telephone number. The Commission provided the following examples of what such verification could include: “(1) Sending a postcard to the mailing address provided by the consumer, for return to the default Internet-based TRS provider; (2) in-person or on-camera ID checks during registration; or (3) other verification processes similar to those performed by voice telephone providers and other institutions (such as banks and credit card companies).”
        • Directed that such registration be accompanied by consumer education and outreach efforts designed to inform iTRS users of the importance of providing accurate registration information.
        • Limited eligibility to receive ten-digit numbers for iTRS use to people who have a hearing or speech disability and directed provider verification procedures to include a self-certification component requiring consumers to verify that they have a medically recognized hearing or speech disability necessitating their use of TRS.

        In April 2011, the Commission adopted several additional measures to combat relay fraud and abuse. See 76 FR 24393, May 2, 2011 and 76 FR 24437, May 2, 2011. Among those measures that apply to IP Relay were a requirement for all TRS providers to submit to Commission-directed audits, a mandate for iTRS providers to retain, for five years, call detail records and other records supporting claims for payment, whistleblower protection rules for provider employees and contractors, and a requirement that a senior executive of a TRS provider certify, under penalty of perjury, to the validity of minutes and data submitted to the TRS Fund administrator.

        Lastly, in July 2011, the Commission adopted new certification rules applicable to iTRS providers, authorized on-site visits to the premises of applicants for iTRS certification and certified iTRS providers to confirm compliance with Commission rules, and set forth new requirements for providers to submit documentary evidence of their ability to comply with the Commission's TRS rules, to provide annual updates to their certification application information, and to certify, under penalty of perjury, as to the accuracy of their certification applications and their annual compliance filings to the Commission. See 76 FR 47469, August 5, 2011 and 76 FR 47476, August 5, 2011.

          Refreshing the Record. Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandates the provision of TRS for individuals with hearing and speech disabilities that is functionally equivalent to voice telephone services. This functional equivalency standard has served as the touchstone for the Commission in determining how TRS providers must provide services to consumers: the goal is to have the features, functions, and capabilities of these services mirror voice telephone services as closely as possible. To this end, Commission rulings have characterized CAs as “transparent conduits” to a relay call, frequently equated the connection to a CA with accessing a dial tone, and mandated confidentiality protections. Calls that are not legitimate relay calls, however, are not entitled to these transparency and confidentiality protections. Moreover, when there is concern that fraud or misuse infects a relay service, the Commission has an obligation to consider actions necessary to preserve the integrity and sustainability of the service.

        Despite the Commission's persistent efforts to combat the fraudulent use of IP Relay, the Bureau remains concerned that such misuse may persist. For example, although the Commission directed iTRS providers to implement reasonable methods to verify registration and eligibility information submitted by IP Relay users, the methods that providers currently are using may not be reasonable and may not be achieving the desired goal of ensuring that only eligible or qualified persons are using the service. Accordingly, the Commission may need to impose additional and more specific requirements with respect to both authenticating initial registrants and verifying users of the service in order to ensure that providers are in fact taking reasonable steps needed to curb IP Relay misuse. Such steps are necessary to protect the integrity of the IP Relay program so that this service remains a viable and a valuable communication tool for Americans who wish to use it. Therefore, the Bureau believes it is necessary to refresh the record in this proceeding to help the Commission better understand what additional tools are needed to aid the Commission in these efforts.

        To this end, the Bureau seeks additional comment to refresh the 2006 FNPRM record and regarding IP Relay generally on the following matters:
        • The effectiveness of current measures to verify eligibility information for registration. In this regard, the Bureau asks commenters to provide information about methods of verification currently in use to authenticate the identity and eligibility of an individual seeking to obtain a ten-digit number. The Bureau specifically seeks comment on the extent to which IP Relay providers are utilizing one or more of the following verification procedures when registering such individuals: (1) Sending a postcard to the mailing address provided by the consumer, for return to the default IP Relay provider; (2) utilizing in-person or on-camera ID checks during registration; (3) utilizing verification processes similar to those performed by voice telephone providers and other institutions (such as banks and credit card companies); or (4) utilizing an alternative means of verification approved in advance by the Commission. The Bureau asks providers to comment on the effectiveness of each of these or any other verification measures that they use to screen out illegitimate IP Relay users, as well as how they assess the effectiveness of such measures. The Bureau further asks whether individuals outside of the U.S. have been obtaining IP Relay access numbers or otherwise using this service unlawfully, as well as to what extent current provider practices enable or contribute to the registration of ineligible IP Relay users. The Bureau also seeks input on what additional steps should be taken, or technology implemented, to prevent the registration and use of IP Relay by these and other ineligible individuals?
        • Other verification processes, such as commercial verification services, that are available and may be appropriate to more effectively screen out ineligible individuals who attempt to register as IP Relay users. For example, the Bureau notes that the Commission has in place verification procedures for other programs, such as those recently adopted for Lifeline assistance. Specifically, in light of evidence demonstrating that consumer self-certification of program-based eligibility does not effectively prevent ineligible consumers from enrolling in Lifeline, the Commission amended its rules to require providers to confirm a consumer's eligibility for Lifeline with documentation. Would utilization of similar or analogous procedures be appropriate and necessary to verify eligibility in the IP Relay context? The Bureau seeks specific comment on whether a database would be effective in this context, and on what types of documentation would be available and appropriate to establish the eligibility of registrants for IP Relay. Are there other governmental programs that may serve as a model for verifying the eligibility of individuals who seek to use IP Relay?
        • Although the iTRS Numbering Implementation Public Notice directed providers to verify each caller's registration prior to completing non-emergency calls, it also directed providers to handle a call from a newly registered user immediately, even if the provider had not completed the process of verifying the caller's information, assigning the caller a new ten-digit number, and provisioning that number to the iTRS database. Should the Commission continue to permit temporary authorization for a user to place IP Relay calls while verification of the caller is taking place, in light of the apparent misuse of IP Relay? Or should the Commission prohibit temporary authorization for this service (other than for the handling of emergency calls)?
        • To the extent the Commission adopts specific user verification procedures, should it require IP Relay providers to revalidate all of their currently registered users?

        • Whether IP Relay providers and their CAs should be given the discretion to determine, on a case-by-case basis, that a call is not a legitimate TRS call, and to block, terminate, or refuse to handle the non-TRS call. Are there ways for an IP Relay provider and its CAs to determine when an IP Relay call is fraudulent through identifiable indicia? If an illegitimate call (i.e., one that the CA has determined is not a TRS call) has been placed to a merchant, should the provider or CA be permitted to alert the merchant that the call is believed to be fraudulent, or take other steps to prevent the misuse of IP Relay?
        • Whether advanced call tracking mechanisms—e.g., geolocation systems—are available for the purpose of accurately determining whether a particular IP Relay call is originating from or terminating to an international location. If available, can such call-tracking mechanisms identify international IP Relay calls, even when a party to the IP Relay call is attempting to disguise the IP Relay call as a domestic U.S. call by, for example, re-directing the call through a domestic IP address? The Bureau also seeks comment on the extent to which providers are using tracking mechanisms to determine where IP Relay calls originate.
        • At present, Commission rules require providers to maintain and submit various records of the relay calls for which they seek reimbursement. However, the Commission's rules also prohibit CAs from keeping records of the content of any conversation beyond the duration of a call. For calls placed with IP Relay providers that are determined by a provider to be illegitimate, what documentation, if any, should the provider be required to maintain and submit to the Commission regarding such calls to facilitate better program oversight?
        • Whether more rigorous user authentication on a per-call basis should be employed to combat misuse of IP Relay. If so, what form would this take? Would such an approach enable providers to authenticate callers who dial-around to a different IP Relay provider more effectively? Would the use of a common resource, such as a third-party database or service, enable providers to authenticate dial-around callers more effectively? Would more rigorous user authentication on a per-call basis address current vulnerabilities to IP address spoofing? How could such an approach be extended to popular messaging services, such as AIM and Google Talk, that callers might use to access IP Relay?
        • Under the Commission's iTRS registration process, IP Relay users select a default relay provider for the handling of their IP Relay calls, but are permitted to dial-around to a different IP Relay provider at any time. To what extent is this dial-around feature used or desirable for IP Relay calls? Under the Commission's rules, IP Relay providers must answer 85 percent of all calls within 10 seconds, averaged daily. Does this rapid response time negate the need for a dial-around feature? To what extent is the dial-around feature contributing to relay misuse? If the Commission discontinues allowing the dial-around feature, should an exception be made for emergency calls?

        • Whether providers maintain lists of illegitimate users whose numbers are blocked from using IP relay, and, if so, the approximate number of such users and the extent to which providers share this information with one another. Should the Commission require providers to share such information or to take additional measures to ensure that all providers have the same information, e.g., by creating a central database of barred users and/or blocked numbers/addresses?
        • The extent to which IP Relay fraud or misuse exists, and specifically, the extent to which it has worsened (or has been ameliorated) since the Commission adopted its iTRS numbering and user registration requirements. The Bureau also seeks updated information on any patterns associated with such misuse—for example, whether it is more prevalent at specific times of the day, week, month, and year—as well as the nature of this misuse.
        • Whether specific audit procedures, in addition to those that the Commission has already authorized, are needed to identify and curb IP Relay misuse.

        • The extent to which IP Relay is currently being used by consumers with and without disabilities, and whether it is meeting a need that is not fulfilled by other forms of relay, or other text-based services. When IP Relay was approved in 2002, IP-based captioned telephone relay service was not available to consumers and VRS was typically available in community settings only (e.g., libraries, consumer organizations). In addition, purely text-based services such as on-line ordering and text messaging were not as commonly used as they are today. To what extent do other forms of relay services, as well as text messaging and other electronic messaging services, now serve as adequate or preferred alternatives to IP Relay?

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Karen Peltz Strauss,
          Deputy Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2012-4658 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0614; FRL-9749-1]
        Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), oxides of sulfur (SOX), and particulate matter (PM) emissions from glass melting furnaces. We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

          DATES:
          Any comments must arrive by December 5, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0614, by one of the following methods:
          1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
          2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.

          3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

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

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Robert Marinaro, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3019, marinaro.robert@epa.gov.

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

          I. The State's Submittal
          A. What rule did the State submit?
          B. Are there other versions of this rule?
          C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
          II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
          A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
          B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
          C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule
          D. Public Comment and Final Action
          III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. The State's Submittal
        A. What rule did the State submit?
        Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date that it was amended by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.

          Table 1—Submitted Rule

            Local agency
            Rule No.
            Rule title
            Amended
            Submitted

            SJVUAPCD
            4354
            Limiting Emissions from Glass Melting Furnaces
            05/19/11
            09/27/11

        On October 24, 2011, EPA determined that the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
        B. Are there other versions of this rule?
        We approved an earlier version of Rule 4354 into the SIP on June 24, 2011 (76 FR 53640). The SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on May 19, 2011 and CARB submitted them to us on September 27, 2011.
        C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
        VOCs and NOX help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. PM, NOX and SOX also contribute to effects that are harmful to human health and the environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC, NOX, SOX and PM emissions. The purpose of this rule revision is to incorporate provisions for new oxy-fuel firing technology. This technology, by design, operates in an oxygen-rich environment in excess of the existing requirement, but still has inherently low NOX emissions during start-up. The proposed amendment prevents oxy-fuel fired glass melting furnaces from having to comply with an unnecessary start-up requirement. EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.
        II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
        A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
        Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), and must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see sections 182(a)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). In addition, SIPs must implement Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) in PM 2.5 nonattainment areas (see CAA sections 189(a)(1) and 189(b)(1)).
        The SJVUAPCD regulates an ozone and PM 2.5 nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4354 must fulfill RACT and the overall SIP must fulfill RACM.
        Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability, RACT and RACM requirements consistently include the following:

          1. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register Notice,” (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
          2. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
          3. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
          4. “State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).
          5. “PM-10 Guideline Document,” EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.
          6. “Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information Document for Best Available Control Measures,” EPA 450/2-92-004, September 1992.

          7. “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,” (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992.
          8. “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,” U.S. EPA, January 2001.
          9. “Interim White Paper—Midwest RPO Candidate Control Measure: Glass Manufacturing”, Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, December 12, 2005.
          10. “Alternative Control Techniques Document—OX Emissions from Glass Manufacturing”, US EPA, June 1994.
          11. “Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Glass Manufacturing Industry”, European Commission, December 2001.

          12. “State Implementation Plans (SIP): Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup and Shutdown,” EPA memorandum, Steven A. Herman and Robert Perciasepe, August 11, 1999. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/excem.pdf.

        B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
        We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACM/RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.
        C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule
        The TSD describes an additional rule revision that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rule but is not currently the basis for rule disapproval.
        D. Public Comment and Final Action

        Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable SIP.

        III. Statutory and Executive Order Review
        Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
        • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

        • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

        • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
        • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

        In addition, this proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

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

          Dated: October 17, 2012.
          Jared Blumenfeld,
          Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 2012-26978 Filed 11-2-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P