        DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
        31 CFR Part 1
        Internal Revenue Service; Privacy Act of 1974, Proposed Implementation

          AGENCY:
          Office of the Secretary, Treasury.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, gives notice of a proposed amendment to exempt the system of records entitled “Criminal Investigation Audit Trail Records System—Treasury/IRS 46.051” from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. The exemption is intended to comply with legal prohibitions against the disclosure of certain kinds of information and to protect certain information on individuals maintained in this system of records.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than May 22, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments should be sent to the Office of Governmental Liaison and Disclosure, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224. Comments will be made available for inspection and copying in the Freedom of Information Reading Room upon request.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Fu-An Chao, Chief, Systems Development and Support, Criminal Investigation, (202) 622-7803.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Internal Revenue Service's Criminal Investigation Division seeks to establish and maintain the proposed new system of records as a more comprehensive means of performing its responsibilities.

        Criminal Investigation carries out many law enforcement related functions. Among Criminal Investigation's principal responsibilities are investigating and referring for prosecution criminal cases, centering largely on violations of tax laws, including income tax evasion, refund fraud, and other crimes contributing to the federal tax gap. Criminal Investigation also investigates violations of certain money laundering laws.
        Many of these law enforcement related functions have been automated and are available on Criminal Investigation computer systems. To ensure the integrity of the system data, audit records are maintained to identify all events that occur while users access or attempt to access the computer system.
        The returns and returns information contained within this system constitute investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes under Title 26 of the United States Code.
        Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of the Treasury is publishing separately the notice of a new system of records, to be maintained by the Internal Revenue Service.
        Under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2), the head of an agency may promulgate rules to exempt any system of records within the agency from certain provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 if the system contains investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes. The Criminal Investigation Audit Trail Records System—Treasury/IRS 46.051 contains information relating to investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7213, 7213A and 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(B). Such investigatory material includes: identities of individuals under investigation, identities of potential witnesses, and identities of investigating agents.
        The exemptions under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2), relating to investigatory material are hereby claimed for this system. The Department of the Treasury is hereby giving notice of a proposed rule to exempt this system of records described above from certain provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2) and authority of 31 CFR 1.23(c). The reasons for exempting this system of records from certain provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a are set forth below:
        (1) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3). This provision of the Privacy Act provides for the release of the disclosure accounting required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(1) and (2) to the individual named in the record at the individual's request. The reasons for exempting the system of records from the foregoing provision are as follows:
        (i) The release of disclosure accounting would put the subject of an investigation on notice of the existence of an investigation and that such person is the subject of that investigation;
        (ii) Such release of the disclosure accounting would provide the subject of an investigation with an accurate accounting of the date, nature, name and address of the person or agency to whom the disclosure was made. The release of such information to the subject of an investigation would provide the subject with significant information concerning the nature of the investigation and could result in the altering or destruction of documentary evidence, the improper influencing of witnesses, and other activities that could impede or compromise the investigation.
        (iii) Release to the individual of the disclosure accounting would alert the individual as to which agencies were investigating this person and the scope of the investigation, and could aid the individual in impeding or compromising investigations by those agencies.
        (2) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(4), (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4), (e)(4)(G) and (H), (f) and (g). These provisions of the Privacy Act relate to an individual's right to notification of the existence of records pertaining to such individual; requirements for identifying an individual who requests access to records; the agency procedures relating to access to records and the contents of the information contained in such records; and the civil remedies available to the individual in the event of adverse determinations by an agency concerning access to or amendment of information contained in record systems. The reasons for exempting the system of records from the foregoing provisions are as follows: To notify an individual at the individual's request of the existence of records in an investigative file pertaining to such individual or to grant access to an investigative file could interfere with investigative and enforcement proceedings; deprive co-defendants of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication; constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of others; disclose the identity of confidential sources and reveal confidential information supplied by such sources; and disclose investigative techniques and procedures.
        (3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(I). This provision of the Privacy Act requires the publication of the categories of sources of records in each system of records. In cases where an exemption from this provision has been claimed, the reasons are as follows:
        (i) Revealing categories of sources of information could disclose investigative techniques and procedures;
        (ii) Revealing categories of sources of information could cause sources who supply information to investigators to refrain from giving such information because of fear of reprisal, or fear of breach of promises of anonymity and confidentiality.
        (4) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1). This provision of the Privacy Act requires each agency to maintain in its records only such information about an individual as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required to be accomplished by statute or executive order. The reasons for exempting the system of records from the foregoing provision are as follows:
        (i) The Internal Revenue Service will limit its inquiries to information which is necessary for the enforcement and administration of tax laws. However, an exemption from the foregoing provision is needed because, particularly in the early stages of an investigation, it is not possible to determine the relevance or necessity of specific information.
        (ii) Relevance and necessity are questions of judgment and timing. What appear relevant and necessary when collected may subsequently be determined to be irrelevant or unnecessary. It is only after the information is evaluated that the relevance or necessity of such information can be established with certainty.
        (iii) When information is received by the Internal Revenue Service relating to violations of law within the jurisdiction of other agencies, the Internal Revenue Service processes this information through Internal Revenue Service systems in order to forward the material to the appropriate agencies.
        (5) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(2). This provision of the Privacy Act requires an agency to collect information to the greatest extent practicable directly from the subject individual when the information may result in an adverse determination about an individual's rights, benefits, and privileges under federal programs. The reasons for exempting the system of records from the foregoing provision are as follows:
        (i) In certain instances the subject of a criminal investigation cannot be required to supply information to investigators. In those instances, information relating to a subject's criminal activities must be obtained from other sources;

        (ii) In a criminal investigation it is necessary to obtain evidence from a variety of sources, other than the subject of the investigation, in order to accumulate and verify the evidence necessary for the successful prosecution of persons suspected of violating criminal laws.

        (6) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). This provision of the Privacy Act requires that an agency must inform the subject of an investigation who is asked to supply information of (A) the authority under which the information is sought and whether disclosure of the information is mandatory or voluntary, (B) the purposes for which the information is intended to be used, (C) the routine uses which may be made of the information, and (D) the effects on the subject, if any, of not providing the requested information. The reasons for exempting the system of records from the foregoing provision are as follows:
        (i) The disclosure to the subject of an investigation of the purposes for which the requested information is intended to be used would provide the subject with significant information concerning the nature of the investigation and could result in impeding or compromising the investigation.
        (ii) Individuals may be contacted during preliminary information gathering, surveys, or compliance projects concerning the administration of the internal revenue laws before any individual is identified as the subject of an investigation. Informing the individual of the matters required by this provision could impede or compromise subsequent investigations.
        (7) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5). This provision of the Privacy Act requires an agency to maintain all records which are used in making any determination about an individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual in the determination. The reasons for exempting the system of records from the foregoing provision are as follows: Since the law defines “maintain” to include the collection of information, compliance with the foregoing provision would prohibit the initial collection of any data not shown to be accurate, relevant, timely, and complete at the moment of its collection. In gathering information during the course of a criminal investigation, it is not always feasible or possible to determine completeness, accuracy, timeliness, or relevancy prior to collection of the information. Facts are first gathered and then placed into a cohesive order which objectively proves or disproves criminal behavior on the part of a suspect. Seemingly irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete information when gathered may acquire new significance as an investigation progresses. The restrictions of the foregoing provision could impede investigators in the preparation of a complete investigative report.
        (8) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(8). This provision of the Privacy Act requires an agency to make reasonable efforts to serve notice on an individual when any record on such individual is made available to any person under compulsory legal process when such process becomes a matter of public record. The reasons for exempting the system of records from the foregoing provision are as follows: The notice requirement of the foregoing provision could prematurely reveal the existence of criminal investigations to individuals who are the subjects of such investigations.
        The Department of the Treasury has determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866.
        Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, for the reasons set forth above, it is hereby certified that this rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        In accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Department of the Treasury has determined that this proposed rule would not impose new recordkeeping, application, reporting, or other types of information collection requirements.

          List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 1
          Privacy.

        Part 1 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

          Part 1—[Amended]
          1. The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            5 U.S.C. 301 and 31 U.S.C. 321. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a as amended. Subpart C also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.

            § 1.36
            [Amended]
            2. Section 1.36 of Subpart C is amended by adding the following text in numerical order to the table in paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) under the heading THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

            (a) * * *
            (1) * * *

                Name of system
                No.

                *    *    *    *    *

                Criminal Investigation Audit Trail Records System
                46.051

                *    *    *    *    *

            (b) * * *
            (1) * * *

                Name of system
                No.

                *    *    *    *    *

                Criminal Investigation Audit Trail Records System
                46.051

                *    *    *    *    *

            Dated: March 7, 2000.
            Shelia Y. McCann,
            Deputy Assistant Secretary (Administration).

      [FR Doc. 00-9869 Filed 4-19-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4830-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 021101264-2264-01; I.D. 101802D]
        RIN 0648-AQ33
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed 2003 specifications for the Atlantic herring fishery; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes specifications for the 2003 Atlantic herring fishery.  The regulations for the Atlantic herring fishery require NMFS to publish specifications for the upcoming year and to provide an opportunity for public comment.  The intent of the specifications is to conserve and manage the Atlantic herring resource and provide for a sustainable fishery.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, on December 16, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of supporting documents, including the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA), Essential Fish Habitat Assessment, and the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for the 2001 Atlantic Herring Fishing Year are available from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA  01950.  The EA/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov
            /ro/doc/nero.html.
          Written comments on the proposed specifications should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA  01930.  Mark on the outside of the envelope: “Comments--2003 Herring Specifications.”  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9371.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Paul H. Jones, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9273, e-mail at paul.h.jones@noaa.gov, fax at (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Regulations implementing the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP) require the New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) Atlantic Herring Plan Development Team (PDT) to meet at least annually, no later than July each year, with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (Commission) Atlantic Herring Plan Review Team (PRT) to develop and recommend the following specifications for consideration by the Council's Atlantic Herring Oversight Committee:  Allowable biological catch (ABC), optimum yield (OY), domestic annual harvest (DAH), domestic annual processing (DAP), total foreign processing (JVPt), joint venture processing (JVP), internal waters processing (IWP), U.S. at-sea processing (USAP), border transfer (BT), total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF), and reserve (if any).  The PDT and PRT also recommend the total allowable catch (TAC) for each management area and subarea identified in the FMP.  As the basis for its recommendations, the PDT reviews available data pertaining to:  Commercial and recreational catch; current estimates of fishing mortality; stock status; recent estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis results and other estimates of stock size; sea sampling and trawl survey data or, if sea sampling data are unavailable, length frequency information from trawl surveys; impact of other fisheries on herring mortality; and any other relevant information.  Recommended specifications are presented to the Council for adoption and recommendation to NMFS.
        Proposed 2003 Specifications
        At its August 2002 meeting, the Council recommended specifications for the 2003 Atlantic herring fishery.  Based on the Council's recommendations, NMFS proposes the specifications and Area TACs contained in the following table.

          Specifications and Area TACs for the 2003 Atlantic Herring Fishery

            Specification
            Proposed Allocation (mt)

            ABC
            300,000

            OY
            250,000

            DAH
            250,000

            DAP
            226,000

            JVPt
            20,000

            JVP
            10,000(Area 2 and 3 only)

            IWP
            10,000

            USAP
            20,000(Area 2 and 3 only)

            BT
            4,000

            TALFF
            0

            Reserve
            0

            TAC-Area 1A
            60,000

            TAC-Area 1B
            10,000

            TAC-Area 2
            50,000(TAC reserve: 70,000)

            TAC-Area 3
            60,000

        There are two proposed changes from the specifications approved by NMFS for the 2002 fishery:  A transfer of 10,000 mt from the Area 2 TAC reserve to the Area 3, TAC resulting in an Area 3 TAC of 60,000 mt and an Area 2 TAC reserve of 70,000 mt; and a restriction on USAP vessels to receive fish from Areas 2 and 3 only.  A discussion of impacts of these proposed changes follows.
        Increase to the Area 3 TAC
        The proposed increase in the Area 3 TAC from 50,000 to 60,000 mt, and concomitant decrease in the Area 2 TAC reserve from 80,000 to 70,000 mt will have no significant impact on the Atlantic herring stock or the Southern New England/Georges Bank Atlantic herring spawning component.  Landings from Area 3 totaled 34,510 mt in 2001, a large increase over the 12,884 mt landed from Area 3 in 2000.  This would suggest that the Area 3 TAC could be fully harvested in the future, especially if shoreside processors are able to expand markets and processing capacity.  Harvest from Area 2 totaled 15,388 mt in 2001, well below the 50,000-mt TAC and 80,000-mt TAC reserve for that area.  Therefore, the proposed TAC-reserve reduction to 70,000 mt in Area 2 is not expected to have any impact on the fishery.
        USAP
        No biological impacts on the stock of Atlantic herring are anticipated as a result of restricting USAP vessels to receiving fish from Areas 2 and 3 only.  No vessel has fished under the USAP category since the FMP was implemented.  However, if a USAP vessel has the opportunity to operate in or near Area 1 at a lower cost (for fuel, maintenance, or other operational expenses) than it would incur from fishing in Areas 2 or 3, and it is restricted from fishing in Area 1, the profitability of the USAP vessel could be compromised.  However, the prohibition on harvesting Area 1 fish for delivery to USAP vessels would leave more fish available to shoreside processors and bait dealers operating on the coasts of Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, the three states that border Area 1A (the inshore portion of Area 1).  The quota for Area 1A was taken prior to the end of both the 2000 and 2001 fishing years.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866.
        The Council and NOAA Fisheries prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  The IRFA describes the economic impact that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.  A summary of the analysis follows:
        A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of this proposed rule can be found in the preamble to this proposed rule and are not repeated here.  This action does not contain any collection-of-information, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements.  It would not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
        All of the affected businesses (fishing vessels and dealers) are considered small entities under the standards described in NOAA Fisheries guidelines because they have annual returns (revenues) that do not exceed $3.5 million annually.  The last full year of data available for the Atlantic herring fishery is for 2001.  There were 146 vessels, 6 processors, and 190 dealers participating in the fishery in 2001.  Given that vessels caught less than half the OY in 2001, the proposed status quo OY should not impact harvest levels in 2003.
        The Council, in proposing an increase in the Area 3 TAC from 50,000 to 60,000 mt, and concomitant decrease in the Area 2 TAC reserve from 80,000 to 70,000 mt, considered only a zero-sum transfer that would not alter the proposed OY of 250,000 mt. Landings from Area 3 increased from 12,884 mt in 2000 to 34,150 mt in 2001.  The Council sought to provide additional opportunity for the industry to increase its activity in Area 3. The Council did not consider transferring any TAC from Area 1 because that is the area in which the fishery has historically concentrated its activity.  In fact in 2001, landings from Area 1A and Area 1B totaled 68,130 mt, nearly attaining the combined TAC for both areas of 70,000 mt.  Landings from Area 2 in 2001 were 15,388 mt out of a combined Area 2 TAC and Area 2 TAC Reserve of 130,000 mt.  Thus the Council concluded that the transfer of 10,000 mt from the Reserve would still leave a substantial amount of TAC for the fishery to expand its activity in Area 2.  If the transfer is fully utilized, an additional 10,000 mt would produce additional revenues of 1.2M (assuming $120/mt) to vessels and a proportionate increase in profits to processors.-As noted above, landings from Area 1 in 2001 neared the total TAC for the area.  The Council was concerned that future USAP activity, if allowed in Area 1, would have negative impact on firms that have historically harvested Area 1 fish for sale to shoreside processors.  If the Area 1 TACs were attained, harvesting vessels that sell their catch to shoreside processors would have to fish further offshore, increasing their operating costs and potentially reducing their profitability.  The economic impact on USAP vessels from prohibition on receiving fish harvested in Areas 1A and 1B cannot be directly measured since there is no history of over-the-side purchases upon which to base economic impacts.
        The Council considered a Committee recommendation to reduce USAP by 5,000 mt, but rejected it based on comments that a vessel may operate under this specification in 2003 and be able to utilize 20,000 mt.  The specification of 15,000 mt would reduce potential profits of USAP operations when compared to the status quo specification of 20,000 mt, although as yet, no part of USAP has been utilized.  The Council did not consider a recommendation to increase USAP by 5,000 mt, because no vessel has fished under the USAP category since the FMP was implemented.-
          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: November 12, 2002.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
        --
      [FR Doc. 02-29181 Filed 11-14-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0927; FRL-8760-5]
        Approval, Disapproval, and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Utah; Revisions to New Source Review Rules

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove State Implementation Plan revisions submitted by the State of Utah on September 15, 2006, October 1, 2007, and March 7, 2008 to Utah's Rule R307-405 (“Permits: Major Sources in Attainment or Unclassified Areas (PSD)”) and to Utah's Rule R307-110-9 (“Section VIII, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of the Utah Air Quality Rules”). Utah adopted these rules on June 15, 2006, July 11, 2007, and January 9, 2008 and these rules became State-effective on June 16, 2006, September 7, 2007, and January 11, 2008 respectively. Utah has a federally approved Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program for new and modified sources impacting attainment areas in the State. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before February 6, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0927, by one of the following methods:
          • www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov and leone.kevin@epa.gov.

          • Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section if you are faxing comments).
          • Mail: Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
          • Hand Delivery: Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0927. EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 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 www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 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 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227, or leone.kevin@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Table of Contents
          I. General Information
          A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
          II. What is being addressed in this document?
          III. What are the changes that EPA is proposing to approve?
          IV. What are the changes that EPA is proposing to disapprove?
          V. What action is EPA taking today?
          VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        Definitions
        For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
        (i) The word Act or initials CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
        (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
        (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
        (iv) The words State or Utah mean the State of Utah, unless the context indicates otherwise.
        I. General Information
        A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
        1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
        2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

        a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

        b. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
        c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
        d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
        e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
        f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
        g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
        h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
        II. What Is Being Addressed in This Document?
        On September 15, 2006, the State of Utah submitted revisions to revise the Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP) and rules. These revisions addressed the federal New Source Review Reform Rule published by EPA on December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186). Specifically, Utah submitted a revision to Utah rule R307-110-9 (hereafter referred to as R307-110-9), which incorporates SIP section VIII into the Utah Administrative Code. The only change to R307-110-9, was to revise the date that the rule was most recently amended by the Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB) from December 18, 1992 to February 1, 2006. Utah also submitted SIP Section VIII, entitled Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), which was completely revised, and Utah rule R307-405 (hereafter referred to R307-405). The revised R307-405 generally incorporates by reference the federal PSD requirements found at 40 CFR 52.21.
        The revisions submitted by the State of Utah on October 1, 2007 updated the incorporation by reference section in R307-405 to reflect the July 1, 2006 version of the Code of Federal Regulations and to make a number of other changes to the rule text that are required due to the change in the incorporation by reference date.
        The revisions submitted by the State of Utah on March 7, 2008 updated the incorporation by reference section in R307-405 to reflect the July 1, 2007 version of the Code of Federal Regulations.
        As described below in sections III and IV of this action, EPA is proposing to approve and disapprove revisions to R307-405 (“Permits: Major Sources in Attainment or Unclassified Areas (PSD)”) and approve R307-110-9 (“Section VIII, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of the Utah Air Quality Rules”), which includes an amended Section VIII into the Utah SIP. These revisions to R307-110-9 and R307-405 were submitted to EPA by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) on September 15, 2006, October 1, 2007, and March 7, 2008 and relate to the PSD permit program of the State of Utah. These revisions to R307-405 that were submitted to us on March 7, 2008 were adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board on January 9, 2008 and became State-effective on January 11, 2008. The March 7, 2008 submittal supersedes the prior submittals and is the version of R307-405 that we are proposing partial approval and partial disapproval in this action.
        We note that on February 12, 1982, EPA approved into the Utah SIP PSD permitting regulations. On December 31, 2002, EPA published revisions to the federal PSD and non-attainment NSR regulations in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 (67 FR 80186). These revisions are commonly referred to as the “NSR Reform” regulations and became effective nationally in areas not covered by a SIP on March 3, 2003. These regulatory revisions included provisions for baseline emissions determinations, actual-to-future-actual methodology, “Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs)”, “Clean Units”, and “Pollution Control Projects”. As stated in the December 31, 2002 rulemaking, State and local permitting agencies were required to adopt and submit revisions to their 40 CFR part 51 permitting programs implementing the minimum program elements of that rulemaking (67 FR 80240). With the September 15, 2006 submittal, Utah requested approval of its PSD program revisions into the SIP that satisfy this requirement.
        On November 7, 2003, EPA published a reconsideration of the NSR Reform regulations that clarified two provisions in the regulations by including a definition of “replacement unit” and by clarifying that the plantwide applicability limitation (PAL) baseline calculation procedures for newly constructed units do not apply to modified units (68 FR 63021).

        On June 24, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its ruling on challenges to the December 2002 NSR Reform revisions (State of New York et al. v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005)). Although the Court upheld most of EPA's rules, it vacated both the “Clean Unit” and the “Pollution Control Project” provisions and remanded back to EPA the recordkeeping provision in 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) that required a stationary source to keep records of projects when there was a “reasonable possibility” that the project could result in a significant emissions increase. The phrase “reasonable possibility” used in the federal rule in 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) limits the recordkeeping provisions to modifications at facilities that use the actual-to-future-actual methodology to calculate emissions changes and that may have a “reasonable possibility” of a significant emissions increase.
        On December 21, 2007, EPA published a final rule in response to the DC Circuit Court's remand of the recordkeeping provisions of EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules (see 72 FR 70607) in which EPA clarified what constitutes “reasonable possibility”. The version of R307-405-19 that was submitted for approval into Utah's SIP on March 7, 2008 does incorporate by reference the phrase “reasonable possibility” of the recordkeeping provisions at 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6). We note, however, that R307-405-19 only incorporates by reference the July 1, 2007 effective version of the Code of Federal Regulations and, therefore, does not incorporate by reference EPA's December 21, 2007 final rule (see 72 FR 70607) that clarified what constitutes “reasonable possibility”. To address this issue, Utah submitted a commitment letter to EPA dated September 4, 2008 that acknowledges this federal rule change and that the State's PSD regulations will continue to follow the “reasonable possibility” provisions in a manner that is consistent with EPA's final rule.
        On October 27, 2003 EPA published the Routine Equipment Replacement Provision (68 FR 61248), which specified at 40 CFR 52.21(cc) the criteria for routine equipment and replacement. On March 17, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit vacated EPA's final Routine Equipment Replacement Provision.
        In its March 8, 2008 submittal of the revisions to R307-405, Utah did not incorporate the vacated “Clean Unit”, “Pollution Control Projects”, or “Routine Equipment Replacement provisions”.
        III. What are the changes that EPA is proposing to approve?

        EPA is proposing to approve a revision to Utah's SIP that would, for the most part, incorporate by reference the federal PSD requirements, found in 40 CFR 52.21, into the State's PSD program and replace EPA's prior approvals. The March 7, 2008 submitted revision to R307-405 incorporates by reference the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 as they existed on July 1, 2007, with the exceptions noted below.
        Utah did not incorporate by reference those sections of the federal rules that do not apply to State activities or are reserved for the Administrator of the EPA. These sections are 40 CFR 52.21(a)(1) (Plan disapproval), 52.21(q) (Public participation), 52.21(s) (Environmental impact statements), 52.21(t) (Disputed permit or redesignations), and 52.21(u) (Delegation of authority). Utah did not incorporate by reference the vacated federal requirements for “Equipment Replacement”, “Clean Unit”, and “Pollution Control Project”.
        Utah's March 7, 2008 submittal of the incorporation by reference revisions to R307-405 describes the circumstances in which the term “Administrator” continues to mean the EPA Administrator, and when it means instead the Executive Secretary of the Utah Air Quality Board. R307-405-3(3)(d)(ii)) identifies the following provisions in R307-405 where the term “Administrator” continues to mean the Administrator of EPA: 40 CFR 52.21(b)(17), 52.21(b)(37)(i), 52.21(b)(43), 52.21(b)(48)(ii)(c), 52.21(b)(50)(i), 52.21(l)(2), and 52.21(p)(2).
        As noted above, Utah did not incorporate by reference 40 CFR 52.21(q) (Public participation). Utah has instead incorporated by reference 40 CFR 51.166(q) (Public participation) at Utah rule R307-405-18. The provisions in 40 CFR 51.166 identify what a SIP must contain for EPA to approve a PSD permit program, and generally mirror the federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. In addition, Utah added in Utah rule R307-405-18(2) an additional provision that modifies the PSD permit public participation requirements in 40 CFR 51.166(q) to be specific for Utah.
        The following provisions in R307-405 do not incorporate by reference 40 CFR 52.21, but instead either add language that is currently contained in the Utah SIP or add language specific to Utah's PSD program: R307-405-4 (“Area Designations”), R307-405-5 (“Area Redesignation”), and R307-405-8 (“Exclusions from Increment Consumption”). We have determined that these provisions are consistent with the requirements for SIP approved States contained in 40 CFR 51.166(e), (f), and (g).
        EPA is also proposing approval of the September 15, 2006 submitted revision R307-110-9 (“Section VIII, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of the Utah Air Quality Rules”). This revision updates the reference to Section VIII, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration of the Utah Air Quality Rules” to indicate that the most currently amended version is March 8, 2006. EPA is also proposing approval of the March 8, 2006 version of Section VIII, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of the Utah Air Quality Rules into the SIP. Section VIII summarizes, in a narrative fashion, the current federal PSD requirements, in addition to the Utah specific permitting requirements for new and modified sources and area designations. We are also proposing approval of the March 8, 2006 version of Section VIII into the SIP as it would replace the federally-approved December 18, 1992 version currently in the Utah SIP.
        As described above, the requirements included in Utah's PSD program, as specified in R307-405 are substantively the same as the federal PSD provisions due to Utah's incorporation of the federal rules by reference. The revisions Utah made, in consideration of the requirements provided in 40 CFR 52.21, were reviewed by EPA and found to be as stringent as the Federal rules, except as noted above regarding the provision in R307-405-3(3)(a)(i). Therefore, EPA has determined that, except for R307-405-3(3)(a)(i), the rule revisions to R307-405, R307-110-9, and Utah SIP Section VIII are consistent with the program requirements for the preparation, adoption, and submittal of implementation plans for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.166, and are approvable.
        IV. What are the changes that EPA is proposing to disapprove?

        Utah has adopted a specific definition of “Major Source Baseline Date”, found at R307-405-3(3)(a)(i), in its revised PSD rule. Part of this definition deviates from the federal definition found in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14). Utah's definition specifies that the PM10 major source baseline date is the “date that EPA approves the PM10 maintenance plan that was adopted by the Board on July 6, 2005” for Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and Weber Counties. The federal definition in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14) specifies January 6, 1975 as the major source baseline date for PM10, and the current EPA-approved SIP for Utah also specifies January 6, 1975 as the major source baseline date for PM-10 for the entire state (refer to Utah's SIP-approved rule R307-101-2 “Definitions”). EPA is not aware of any authority for it to approve into a SIP a different major source baseline date other than January 6, 1975. Further, we note there is no provision in the Clean Air Act for using a different date if an area was in a legally designated non-attainment status on January 6, 1975. EPA is proposing to disapprove Utah's definition of “Major Source Baseline Date”, and therefore, the current federally-approved definition found in R307-101-2 would continue to apply as a federally enforceable provision in lieu of the State-adopted version. However, if prior to our final SIP rulemaking action, Utah submits a SIP revision to their PSD rule to make the definition of “Major Source Baseline Date” consistent with the Federal definition used in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14) EPA would then be able to approve an incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14).
        V. What action is EPA taking today?
        We propose to partially approve revisions to R307-405. (“Permits: Major Sources in Attainment or Unclassified Areas (PSD)”) and to approve revisions to R307-110-9. (“Section VIII, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of the Utah Air Quality Rules”) and Utah SIP Section VIII. EPA is proposing to disapprove R307-405-3.(3)(a)(i) because it defines “Major Source Baseline Date” in a manner inconsistent with the Federal definition found at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14). In all other respects we are approving the State's March 7, 2008 submitted revisions to R307-405, and the State's September 15, 2006 submitted revisions of R307-110-9, and Utah SIP Section VIII.
        VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

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

          Dated: November 24, 2008.
          Stephen S. Tuber,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

       [FR Doc. E9-48 Filed 1-6-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 680
        RIN 0648-AW97
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program

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

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

          SUMMARY:
          Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to require the Secretary of Commerce to approve the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program (CR Program). The CR Program allocates Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab resources among harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. Amendment 28 would modify the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (FMP) and the CR Program to allow unlimited post-delivery transfers of all classes of individual fishing quota and individual processing quota. This action is necessary to improve the flexibility to the fleet, reduce the number of violations for overages, reduce enforcement costs, and allow for more complete harvest of allocations. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments on the amendment must be received by November 25, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 0648-AW97,” by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the FederaleRulemaking Portal website at http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Mail: P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Fax: (907) 586-7557.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.

          All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may 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, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable document file (pdf) formats only.

          The proposed rule to implement Amendment 28 to the FMP was categorically excluded from the need to prepare an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act. Copies of Amendment 28, the categorical exclusion memorandum, the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) for this action, as well as the Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Crab Rationalization Program may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region at the address above or from the Alaska Region website at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7459, or Julie Scheurer, 907-586-7356.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. This notice announces that proposed Amendment 28 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs is available for public review and comment.
        The king and Tanner crab fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Amendments 18 and 19 amended the FMP to include the CR Program. Regulations implementing Amendments 18 and 19 were published on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174), and are located at 50 CFR part 680.
        The Council submitted Amendment 28 to the FMP for Secretarial review. Amendment 28 would make minor changes to the FMP to allow unlimited transfers of individual fishing quota (IFQ) and individual processing quota (IPQ) to cover overages.
        Under the CR Program, NMFS issued quota share (QS) to persons based on their qualifying harvest histories in the BSAI crab fisheries during a specific time period. Each year, the QS issued to a person yields an amount of IFQ in pounds of raw crab as a proportion of the total QS pool in a crab fishery. There are four types of IFQ: Class A, Class B, C shares, and catcher processor vessel owner IFQ. Similarly, crab processors were issued processor quota share that yields annual IPQ. Class A IFQ is subject to regional delivery requirements. Crab harvested with Class A IFQ must be delivered to processors with an equivalent amount of IPQ available. This proposed amendment would primarily affect holders of Class A IFQ.
        Under existing regulations, harvesters are prohibited from exceeding the amount of IFQ that is issued to them, either individually, or to their cooperative (see § 680.7(e)(2)), and processors are prohibited from receiving more IFQ than the amount of unused IPQ that they hold (see regulations at § 680.7(a)(5)). If a harvester delivers more crab than the amount of IFQ that he holds, he has violated existing regulations, commonly known as an overage. Overages can occur either through deliberate actions, or more commonly through unintentional errors. Generally, overages of less than 3 percent are subject to forfeiture of the overage, with larger or repeat violations subject to additional penalties at the discretion of NOAA Office for Law Enforcement.
        Amendment 28, if approved, would allow post-delivery transfers to cover overages of IPQ as well as all classes of IFQ. There would be no limit on the size of a post-delivery transfer or on the number of post-delivery transfers a person could undertake. However, a person could not begin a new fishing trip if any of the IFQ accounts of the IFQ permits used on a vessel were negative or zero, and no person could have a negative balance in an IFQ or IPQ account after June 30, the end of a crab fishing year. The Council recommended Amendment 28 to the FMP to improve flexibility to the fleet, reduce the number of violations for overages, reduce enforcement costs, and allow more complete harvest of allocations.

        The RIR/IRFA prepared for this action describes in detail the costs and benefits of the proposed amendment (see ADDRESSES for availability). All of the directly regulated entities would be expected to benefit from this action relative to the status quo because the proposed amendment would allow greater flexibility and a longer time period over which to account for overages.

        Public comments are being solicited on proposed Amendment 28 through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish in the Federal Register and seek public comment on a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 28, following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 28 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 28. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 28, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove the amendment. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the decision on the amendment. To be considered, comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the close of business on the last day of the comment period.

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

          Dated: November 19, 2008.
          Emily H. Menashes
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E8-28015 Filed 11-24-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 572
        [Docket No. 2005-22068]
        Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Denial of Petition for Consideration Regarding Amending the Side Impact Dummy (SID); Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Denial of petition for rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This notice denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by Ford Motor Company (Ford) on December 19, 2003, that asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to amend the Side Impact Dummy (SID) specifications in 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart F, for use in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, “Side Impact Occupant Protection,” and the Side Impact New Car Assessment Program (Side NCAP).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For technical issues: Mr. Sean Doyle, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards. Telephone: (202) 366-1740. Facsimile: (202) 366-7002.
          For legal issues: Ms. Dee Fujita, NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel.  Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Facsimile: (202) 366-3820.
          Both officials can be reached by mail at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        On October 30, 1990, NHTSA published a final rule (Federal Register Vol. 55, No. 210, Docket Number 88-06; Notice 8) to amend FMVSS No. 214, at the time titled, “Side Door Strength.” Prior to this final rule, a vehicle's side impact performance was determined solely by a static assessment of the ability of a door to resist forces imparted by a piston pressing a rigid steel cylinder against the door's outer surface. However, with the implementation of this final rule, effective September 1, 1993, vehicles were additionally required to undergo full-scale dynamic crash tests to assess occupant protection. Because of its acceptable reliability and durability during research testing conducted in support of the final rule, the agency chose the SID to measure the potential for injuries to an occupant's thorax and pelvis in a side impact crash (Federal Register Vol. 55, No. 210, Docket Number 88-07; Notice 3). To provide an assessment of the dummy's measured readings, NHTSA developed an injury metric called the Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI).1

            1 TTI is calculated by averaging the maximum filtered acceleration of the ribs (either the upper rib or the lower rib) and lower spine. The filter applied is a Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filter, which has a Passband frequency of 100 Hz, a Stopband frequency of 189 Hz, a Stopband gain of -50 db, and a Passband ripple of 0.0225 db.

        FMVSS No. 214, renamed, “Side Impact Protection,” with the implementation of dynamic testing in 1990, was later amended on April 2, 1998 (Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 63, Docket Number NHTSA-98-3668). During sled tests conducted by the agency to evaluate the effect of adding spacer inserts to the SID lumbar spine, it was observed that, “the position of the damper piston in the SID ribcage prior to the [side impact] test had an appreciable effect on the thorax accelerations recorded by the SID.” NHTSA further found that, “the return spring on the damper did not always return the damper to its fully extended position.” Because, in such instances, the piston was not fully extended in the dummy's ribcage prior to impact, the agency observed internal collision of the damper piston at the onset of impact in some dummies. Subsequent testing showed that internal collision within the damper body would not occur if the damper piston were in the fully extended position prior to a side impact test. Therefore, FMVSS No. 214 was amended on April 2, 1998, to include specific dummy positioning procedures to solve this problem.
        Summary of the Petition
        In a letter dated December 19, 2003, Ford petitioned NHTSA to amend specifications for the SID in 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart F. Ford alleged that the damper in the SID dummy's thorax could induce erroneous, mechanical noise or ringing in the recorded data traces during side impact crash tests such as those conducted pursuant to FMVSS No. 214, “Side Impact Protection,” or Side NCAP. Consequently, Ford modified the SID's thorax to include a SID ribcage deflection potentiometer, which allowed the company to assess the displacement of the damper piston (compression/extension) in the SID's thorax during side impact tests. Ford claims “this mechanical “noise” or “ringing” is due to metal-to-metal contact between the SID ribcage damper piston and the damper body.” The noise is present when the ribcage “fully expand[s] allowing the damper piston to fully extend and bottom out on the damper body.” In particular, Ford asserts this condition is present in certain vehicles tested both with and without side air bags.
        Ford presented unfiltered data for three vehicles equipped with side air bags that the company asserted were affected by internal collision of the damper piston against the damper body. For two of these side airbag equipped vehicles, Ford indicated, “the SID thorax is initially loaded by the air bag positioning between the dummy and the vehicle door, then the thorax loading is relaxed due to the nature of the vehicle deformation and air bag kinematics, thereby allowing the damper piston to fully extend.” As the crash event proceeds, Ford noted, “the loading is re-applied to the thorax.” According to Ford, during this “loading/unloading/re-loading” progression, “the ribcage is initially compressed but then rapidly expands back to zero measured deflection indicating full extension of the damper piston.” It is at this time, approximately 50-60 milliseconds (ms) from the initiation of the crash event, that Ford alleges erroneous spikes are present in the unfiltered thoracic data curves. In the third vehicle, Ford stated that the internal collision occurred “late in the crash event when the dummy is in rebound” and “therefore does not influence * * * dummy performance.” Contrary to that which occurred for the other two vehicles, in this vehicle, the dummy's ribcage was continuously compressed until the loading subsided at the end of the crash event.
        Ford also presented unfiltered data from one vehicle that was tested without side air bags. In such a vehicle, the company contends, “the phenomenon can occur when the door structure of the vehicle initially loads the SID thorax as the FMVSS-214/LINCAP [Side NCAP] barrier intrudes, then the loading is relaxed due to the kinematics of the vehicle's deformation thereby allowing the internal “collision” of the piston and damper body.” This resulted in a sharp spike at 50 ms in the raw data traces. Ford further stated that the dummy's thorax is then reloaded “when the SID rotates outboard and contacts the door structure a second time during the crash event.”
        Ford maintained that if “the ribcage damper piston can fully extend during the dummy loading event, * * * the internal “collision” phenomenon can significantly affect the measured rib and spine accelerations by introducing data spikes “ even with the FVMSS-214 specified FIR [Finite Impulse Response] -filtering process.” Ford also stated, “the resulting data spikes in the SID responses can register a magnitude and duration such that the resulting Thoracic Trauma Index calculation can be unrealistically high, with the potential to result in a value exceeding FVMSS No. 214 limits and/or to reduce a vehicle's LINCAP rating by one or more stars.”
        In an attempt to mitigate the spikes, Ford asked Denton ATD, Inc. to develop modifications for the SID ribcage damper, which included the addition of both an internal 1-2 mm thick nylon washer and a 7 mm external steel spacer to the piston shaft. Ford claimed that the internal nylon washer “creates a more ‘compliant’ bottoming out surface on the piston shaft, thereby reducing the likelihood of mechanical ‘ringing’ due to metal-to-metal contact between the shaft and damper body.” Ford also stated that the external spacer would “provide more piston stroke length, thereby reducing the likelihood of bottoming out the piston against the damper body.” Ford believes that the above modifications “do not alter the SID response characteristics associated with FMVSS-214 compliance or LINCAP performance (except for reducing or eliminating the ringing from metal-to-metal contact), and will comply with all regulatory SID dummy response calibration requirements.” Therefore, Ford petitioned NHTSA to amend the SID specifications to incorporate the aforementioned modifications to the damper and accordingly, modify all SIDs used by contracting laboratories.

        In addition to the modifications discussed previously, Ford also requested that NHTSA add a ribcage deflection potentiometer to the SID specifications and the corresponding mounting bracket design that they currently use. Ford claims that this assembly “aids in the diagnosis and verification of the metal-to-metal contact condition.” Ford stated that the mounting bracket design presently used in their internal testing “was developed by NHTSA during the evolution of the bracket design associated with the [1986] NPRM” (Federal Register Vol. 53, No. 17, Docket Number 88-06; Notice 1). However, Ford stated that unlike the mounting bracket design that was proposed in 1986, this “modified design” precludes potential metal-to-metal contact.
        Analysis of Petition

        NHTSA acknowledges that the unfiltered peak acceleration traces for the upper rib, lower rib, and lower spine presented by Ford in the petition appear to show evidence of “mechanical noise,” and the most prominent spikes in these curves tend to occur around 45-60 ms after the initiation of the crash event. However, as Ford noted in the petition, the agency recognizes that internal collision of the piston against the damper body is possible, and that such contact could produce a ringing signal in the resulting data traces (Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 63, Docket Number NHTSA-98-3668). For that reason, in 1998, the agency amended the SID positioning procedure to fully extend the piston within the damper body prior to the side impact test to preclude the piston from bottoming out against the damper body at the onset of impact. However, Ford did not provide evidence to indicate that the SID positioning procedures outlined in the 1998 final rule were in fact followed for the tests discussed in this petition. Therefore, the agency cannot be certain that the “mechanical noise” documented by Ford is not a result of improper pretest SID positioning. Similarly, Ford did not provide data showing the effects on TTI with application of the FIR filter. Nevertheless, to ensure that the performance of the SID had not changed since its incorporation as a regulatory tool, NHTSA reviewed its own side impact test data.
        In analyzing Side NCAP test data spanning model years (MY) 1997-2004 and indicant 2
           FMVSS No. 214 test data spanning MY 2000-2004, NHTSA found only a few instances in which the upper rib, lower rib, or lower spine unfiltered data traces for the driver or rear passenger SID in vehicles tested show data spikes at approximately the same timeframe (~ 50 ms) indicated in the Ford petition.3
           However, NHTSA's analysis also showed that “noise” effects are considerably reduced, if not nullified, by application of the FIR filter. Therefore, the agency could not establish that the dummies' base acceleration response levels were elevated sufficiently to affect the TTI. Consequently, there is no evidence to suggest that the star ratings for Side NCAP vehicles were reduced because of mechanical noise. A similar review of thoracic data traces for the driver and rear passenger dummies in vehicles subjected to FMVSS No. 214 compliance tests from MY 1998-2003 uncovered a very limited number of vehicles in which a ringing signal was apparent between approximately 50-60 ms in the raw data traces. These spikes were significantly reduced once the FIR filter was applied. Hence, NHTSA has concluded that similar to the Side NCAP tests, the recorded TTIs for the dummies in the compliance tests were not affected to the extent that a vehicle would have exceeded the injury criteria imposed by FMVSS No. 214.

            2 Indicant FMVSS No. 214 tests are conducted by the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, but are performed at the Side NCAP test speed of 38.5 mph instead of 33.5 mph, as specified in the FMVSS No. 214 standard.

            3 Spikes occurring considerably later than typical peak acceleration magnitudes seen in side impacts (from approximately 150 milliseconds to approximately 200 milliseconds) were present in the agency's data as well. However, the agency has found that FIR filtering makes such spikes negligible compared to the peak acceleration at impact. Side NCAP vehicle test data is located in Docket No. 1998-3835.

        Ford additionally requested that the agency incorporate the ribcage deflection potentiometer and corresponding mounting bracket used in Ford's in-house tests to aid in the diagnosis and verification of metal-to-metal contact occurrence. Based on our analysis, NHTSA does not believe that these recommended changes are either needed or would serve the needs of safety. Therefore, the agency is choosing not to incorporate the ribcage deflection potentiometer and corresponding mounting bracket, or the internal washer and external spacer.
        Conclusion
        NHTSA did not find compelling evidence in the limited unfiltered data provided by Ford to suggest that the claimed erroneous acceleration data spikes are a cause of compliance problems or result in reduced Side NCAP star ratings. Furthermore, a review of the agency's own side impact test data did not reveal any instances in which data spikes affected TTI to the extent that a vehicle did not meet the FMVSS No. 214 compliance limits or was unjustly given a lower star rating. Consequently, NHTSA feels that the currently specified SID is sufficiently suitable for FMVSS No. 214 and Side NCAP objective testing and deems that the requested modifications are not needed. NHTSA is therefore denying the Ford petition for rulemaking.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.

          Issued on: September 13, 2005.
          Stephen R. Kratzke,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 05-18593 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Federal Emergency Management Agency
        44 CFR Parts 17 and 21
        RIN 1660-AA13
        Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement); Withdrawal

          AGENCY:
          Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

          ACTION:
          Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          On January 23, 2002, FEMA and other agencies published a common rule notice entitled “Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants),” (67 FR 3265). FEMA is now an agency under DHS, which will publish its own rule governing these matters; therefore, FEMA is withdrawing this notice of proposed rulemaking for this common rule.

          DATES:

            Effective Date: Effective May 3, 2004.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Edward Broyles, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Room 840, Washington, DC 20472, (phone) 202-646-3961, (facsimile) 202-646-4536, or (e-mail) Edward.Broyles@dhs.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On January 23, 2002, FEMA and other agencies published a common rule notice for proposed rulemaking entitled “Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants),” (67 FR 3265). FEMA is now an agency under DHS, which will publish its own rule governing these matters; therefore, FEMA is withdrawing this notice of proposed rulemaking for this common rule.

          Authority:
          41 U.S.C. 701 et seq.; E.O. 12549, 51 FR 6370, 3 CFR, 1986 Comp., p. 189; E.O. 12689, 54 FR 34131, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 235.

          Dated: April 27, 2004.
          Michael D. Brown,
          Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security.

      [FR Doc. 04-9984 Filed 4-30-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 402 and 424
        [Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2012-0096; FWS-R9-ES-2011-0072; 120106026-4518-02; 120106025-4514-02; 4500030114]
        RIN 1018-AX86; 1018-AX88; 0648-BB80; 0648-BB79
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Changes to the Definitions and Regulations for Designating Critical Habitat

          AGENCIES:
          U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior; National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rules; extension of comment periods.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively referred to as the “Services” or “we”), announce the extension of the public comment periods on our May 12, 2014, proposals to revise definitions and regulations regarding critical habitat. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of each final rule.

          DATES:

          We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before October 9, 2014. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the appropriate docket number; for the proposed revised definition of destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, use FWS-R9-ES-2011-0072, and for the proposed rule to amend the regulations for designating critical habitat, use FWS-HQ-ES-2012-0096. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!” Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.
          • U.S. mail:

          ○ Submit comments on the proposed revised definition of destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0072; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
          ○ Submit comments on the proposed rule to amend the regulations for designating critical habitat to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2012-0096; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.

          We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section, below, for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            For proposed revised definition of destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat: Patrice Ashfield, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Environmental Review, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 420, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703/358-2171; facsimile 703/358-1735; or Cathryn E. Tortorici, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Interagency Cooperation Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; telephone 301/427-8405; facsimile 301/713-0376. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800/877-8339.

            For the proposed rule to amend the regulations for designating critical habitat: Douglas Krofta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Conservation and Classification, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 420, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703/358-2527; facsimile 703/358-1735; or Marta Nammack, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; telephone 301/427-8469; facsimile 301/713-0376. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800/877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments

        We will accept written comments and information during this extended comment period on our proposed rule to revise the definition of destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat and our proposed rule to amend the regulations for designating critical habitat that were published in the Federal Register on May 12, 2014 (79 FR 27060 and 79 FR 27066, respectively). We will consider information we receive from all interested parties on or before the close of the comment period (see DATES).
        If you submitted comments or information on either proposed rule during the public comment period that began May 12, 2014, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final rules.

        You may submit your comments and materials regarding either proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
        If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
        Background

        On May 12, 2014, we published three related documents concerning designation and implementation of critical habitat under the Act: Two proposed regulation amendments and one draft policy. This notice extends the comment period for the two proposed regulation amendments, and a separate notice published elsewhere in today's issue of the Federal Register extends the comment period for the draft policy. The two proposed rules for which we are extending the comment period in this document propose to revise definitions and regulations regarding critical habitat.

        Specifically, the proposed rule to revise the definition of destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposes to amend title 50, part 402, of the Code of Federal Regulations, which implements the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Part 402 establishes the procedural regulations governing interagency cooperation under section 7 of the Act. The Act requires Federal agencies, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, to insure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such species. In 1986, the Services established a definition for “destruction or adverse modification” (§ 402.02) that was found to be invalid by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth (2001) and Ninth (2004) Circuits. We propose to amend part 402 to replace the invalidated definition with one that is consistent with the Act and the circuit court opinions.
        The proposed rule to revise the regulations for designating critical habitat proposes to amend portions of title 50, part 424, of the Code of Federal Regulations, which also implements the Act. Part 424 clarifies, interprets, and implements portions of the Act concerning the procedures and criteria used for adding species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants and designating and revising critical habitat. Specifically, we propose to amend portions of part 424 that clarify procedures for designating and revising critical habitat. The proposed amendments would make minor edits to the scope and purpose, add and remove some definitions, and clarify the criteria for designating critical habitat.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Endangered Species Program, Headquarters Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

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

          Dated: June 17, 2014.
          Michael J. Bean,
          Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
          Dated: June 17, 2014.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2014-14774 Filed 6-25-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P; 3510-22-P