        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2001-9816]
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Anchorage Systems

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.

          ACTION:
          Denial of petition for reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on child restraint anchorage systems requires vehicle manufacturers to install child restraint anchorage systems in passenger motor vehicles. The standard specifies “marking and conspicuity” requirements for the lower bars of a child restraint anchorage system to help users locate and use the bars and to inform or remind them that the anchorage system is present. The standard was amended to permit manufacturers to meet these requirements, for a limited period, by installing at least one anchorage bar so that it is visible, or by installing a guidance fixture or one seat marking feature that is visible to a person installing a child restraint test fixture. Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen of America, Inc. (Volkswagen) petitioned for reconsideration of the rule. Volkswagen had been providing guidance fixtures on an “as requested” basis, rather than providing them with each new vehicle. The petitioner requested NHTSA to defer the effective date of the requirement for a guidance fixture until the manufacturer could obtain a supply of guidance fixtures from its supplier. For the reasons provided in this document, we have denied the petition.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            For nonlegal issues: Mike Huntley, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, Special Vehicle and Systems Division (telephone 202-366-0029).

            For legal issues: Deirdre Fujita, Office of the Chief Counsel (202-366-2992).
          Both can be reached at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        NHTSA's March 1999 Final Rule
        On March 5, 1999, NHTSA published a final rule establishing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 225, “Child Restraint Anchorage Systems” (49 CFR 571.225), to require motor vehicle manufacturers to install child restraint anchorage systems that are standardized and independent of the vehicle seat belts (64 FR 10786) (Docket No. 98-3390, notice 2). Each new system has two lower anchorages and one tether anchorage. Each lower anchorage is a rigid round rod or bar onto which the connector of a child restraint system can be snapped. The bars are located at the intersection of the vehicle seat cushion and seat back. The upper anchorage is a fixture to which the tether of a child restraint system can be hooked.
        The final rule required vehicle manufacturers to begin phasing-in the tether anchorage of the child restraint anchorage system in the production year beginning September 1, 1999, with full implementation beginning September 1, 2000. Manufacturers were required to begin phasing-in the lower anchorages in the production year beginning on September 1, 2000, with full implementation beginning September 1, 2002.
        The final rule was based on technical specifications set forth in November 1996 and June 1998 drafts of a child restraint anchorage system standard being developed by a working group of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The technical specifications covered matters such as the design and configuration of the anchorage system, and the strength of each component of the system. While many concepts and requirements of the draft ISO standard were incorporated into the final rule on Standard No. 225, the final rule highlighted differences between the rule and the draft ISO standard with regard to the strength required of the anchorages, and well as to the marking of the anchorages and other requirements.
        NHTSA's August 1999 Response to Petitions for Reconsideration
        There were a number of petitions for reconsideration suggesting revisions to the March 1999 final rule. Most of the petitioners were vehicle manufacturers concerned about their ability to meet the strength requirements of the final rule, particularly within the given leadtime. The vehicle manufacturers stated that they had been designing child restraint anchorage systems to meet the strength requirements that were under consideration by the ISO for the lower anchorages and by Transport Canada for the tether anchorage, and were prepared to meet those requirements by the compliance date of the rule, but not the strength requirements that the rule had specified. In response to this concern, NHTSA published a final rule that permitted vehicle manufacturers to meet alternative requirements during an initial several-year period (64 FR 47566, August 31, 1999) (Docket No. 99-6160). We specified in that document that, from September 1, 2000 until August 31, 2002,1
           manufacturers installing the lower anchorage bars would have the option of meeting the requirements set forth in the March 1999 final rule, or requirements that were very similar, but not identical, to the June 1998 draft ISO standard.

            1 The date was later extended to September 1, 2004. 65 FR 46628.

        The March 1999 final rule had required a permanent mark on the vehicle seat back at the location of each lower bar location to help knowledgeable motorists locate and use the bars, and to inform or remind other motorists that the bars are present (S9.5). The mark would not be required, the rule had specified, if the lower bars were visible (S9.5(b)). In a April 16, 1999 petition for reconsideration of the rule, Volkswagen stated that a “guide device installed onto the anchorage at the seat bight” should be considered “as a marking device or an anchorage locator.” 2
           In the August 31, 1999 response to the petitions for reconsideration, the agency adopted alternative visibility requirements for the lower bars. They required that “at least one anchorage bar (when deployed for use), one guidance fixture, or one seat marking feature shall be readily visible to the person installing the [child restraint fixture] * * *” (S15.4).

            2 Volkswagen also stated in its petition that it supported the petition for reconsideration of the final rule submitted by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance). The Alliance's April 17, 1999 petition for reconsideration asked NHTSA to amend S9.5 to require marking of one, not two, of the anchorage bars, and did not specifically request that guidance fixtures be allowed to satisfy marking requirements. The Alliance later submitted an October 15, 1999 petition for reconsideration that included the request to allow guidance fixtures as an option.

        The Alliance's October 1999 Petition for Reconsideration
        NHTSA received a number of petitions for reconsideration of various provisions of the August 1999 final rule. The Alliance submitted an October 15, 1999 petition requesting reconsideration of a number of provisions, including the marking alternative in S15.4. The Alliance asked NHTSA to add a parenthetical phrase, “(when installed),” after “guidance fixture.” The petitioner said that the parenthetical should be added to S15.4 because “the intent of the S15 is to incorporate the provisions of the ISO Draft.” The Alliance did not specify which version (i.e., what date) of the draft ISO standard it was referring to.
        NHTSA's July 2000 Response to Petitions for Reconsideration
        In a July 31, 2000 response to petitions for reconsideration (65 FR 46628; July 31, 2000) (Docket No. NHTSA-7648), NHTSA declined to add the parenthetical “(when installed)” sought by the Alliance. We reasoned that adding the parenthetical would suggest, contrary to our intent, that manufacturers could satisfy marking requirements if they provided the guidance fixtures with a new motor vehicle without actually installing them in the motor vehicle. The agency's intent was that the guidance fixtures be installed prior to delivery to consumers to ensure that the consumer could see the anchorage system, its location, and its appearance when the fixtures are properly installed. We concluded that requiring manufacturers to install the guidance fixtures would result in the vehicle owner either leaving them attached and thus ready to use or taking some affirmative action to determine how to remove them and then actually removing them. We believed that, in either event, the owners would be more likely to notice and remember the fixtures than if the fixtures were simply provided with the vehicle, but not actually installed in it.
        In addition, we explained in the July 2000 final rule that NHTSA had permitted manufacturers the option of meeting draft ISO requirements to facilitate and thus accelerate the installation of child restraint anchorage systems in vehicles. We stated that manufacturers could meet the draft ISO requirements for strength and location of anchorages more expeditiously than they could meet the March 1999 final rule's requirements for strength and location. However, we concluded that guidance fixtures could be easily snapped on to the lower bars when the vehicles were offered for sale. Having to install them would not delay or impede introduction of child restraint anchorage systems in vehicles. We noted further that, in the June 1998 draft version of the ISO standard that we used in developing the March 1999 final rule, the parenthetical was not present. For all these reasons, we denied the request to add the parenthetical. Instead, to clarify S15.4, we added a sentence stating that “If guidance fixtures are used to meet this [marking] requirement, the fixture(s) (although removable) must be installed.”
        Volkswagen August 2000 Petition for Reconsideration
        On August 17, 2000, Volkswagen filed a petition for reconsideration concerning S15.4. Volkswagen indicated that it was surprised that NHTSA denied the Alliance's request to add the parenthetical. Volkswagen stated that it had been providing lower anchorages in some of its models beginning with the 1999 model year, but had not been providing the guidance fixtures. Volkswagen stated in its petition:

          Those anchorages are not visible and no seat marking feature is provided but a guidance fixture has been developed and is available for user installation consistent with the 1999 ISO draft. Immediately upon becoming aware of NHTSA's July 31, 2000 Notice, Volkswagen requested its supplier of guidance fixtures to furnish sufficient quantities for installation in production on a best effort basis but in no event later than August 30, 2000. Based upon information furnished by the supplier, Volkswagen is not certain that it can comply with S15.4 by the end of August * * *. Volkswagen therefore petitions that the effective date of S15.4 be deferred for an additional 30 days at which time Volkswagen will be certain that all vehicles can be delivered to consumers in strict compliance with the new regulations. Volkswagen will also conduct a mailing campaign to the owners of all Jetta, Golf, Cabrio and New Beetle vehicles manufactured since September 1, 1999 or later * * *.

        To justify the deferral, Volkswagen stated:

          Because guidance fixtures serve to identify existing anchorages in the vehicle only and are not essential to the safe use of the vehicle, and because child restraint systems using rigid attachments which are suitable for use with the guidance fixtures are not available in the market at this time, Volkswagen believes there is no detriment to motor vehicle safety which would be caused by the deferral of the effective date.

        II. Agency Decision
        NHTSA is denying the petition for the reasons set forth below.3

            3 NHTSA informed Volkswagen by telephone on August 30, 2000, that the petition would be denied (see memorandum in docket 2000-7648-3 describing the conversation).

        As discussed above, installation of guidance fixtures is not the sole means by which a manufacturer may comply with the marking and conspicuity requirements specified in the standard. While Volkswagen's request for an extension of time to provide the guidance fixtures was based on its uncertainty regarding the ability of a supplier of these fixtures to provide sufficient quantities of the fixtures in a time period that would enable Volkswagen to meet the requirements of the standard, we note that Volkswagen could have alternatively taken steps to mark the location of the lower anchorages on the vehicle seat in accordance with S9.5(a).
        The August 1999 response to petitions for reconsideration permitted manufacturers to use a guidance fixture to meet the marking and conspicuity requirements for a limited time. In interpreting the August 1999 rule, Volkswagen apparently concluded that a manufacturer relying on guidance features to comply with those requirements need not provide the guidance fixtures with each vehicle. Volkswagen apparently concluded that it was possible to comply with the requirements by offering the guidance fixtures to new vehicle purchasers on an “as requested” basis.

        We believe Volkswagen's interpretation of S15.4 was unreasonable. The language of S15.4, “Marking and conspicuity of the lower anchorages,” has stated since its adoption that “at least one anchorage bar (when deployed for use), one guidance fixture, or one seat marking feature” shall be readily visible. For each vehicle to meet the requirement that the bar, guidance fixture or seat marking feature be visible by means of guidance fixtures, the fixtures had to be provided with each vehicle. The agency notes that Volkswagen was the only manufacturer that indicated that it believed that the guidance fixtures could be provided on an “as requested” basis.
        It was also unreasonable of Volkswagen to conclude that the guidance fixtures need not be provided, given the reasons why the agency had required them. The preamble to the final rule establishing Standard No. 225 made clear that NHTSA considered the standard's marking and conspicuity requirements to be crucial elements contributing to the correct use of child restraint anchorage systems. Marking the lower anchorage bars and making them conspicuous helps knowledgeable motorists locate and use the bars and informs or reminds other motorists that the anchorage system is present.

          Consumers may not otherwise learn of the existence of a child restraint anchorage system in a particular vehicle or at a particular seating position in a vehicle without some type of visual reminder that the anchorage system is present. Even when they know the bars are present, they may not know precisely where in the seat bight to look for the bars.

        64 FR at 10802. It was unreasonable for Volkswagen to conclude that NHTSA would identify a need to make the anchorages conspicuous and would identify specific alternatives manufacturers may take to meet the need (mark the seat back, provide a guidance fixture, or place an anchorage where it is visible), then allow manufacturers the option of selling vehicles that do not meet any of the alternatives.
        Volkswagen believes there is no detriment to motor vehicle safety which would be caused by the deferral of the effective date because guidance fixtures serve to identify existing anchorages in the vehicle only and are not essential to the safe use of the vehicle, and because child restraint systems using rigid attachments which are suitable for use with the guidance fixtures are not available in the market at this time. To the contrary, we believe that anchorage bars that are not visible, marked with a circle or made conspicuous by a guidance fixture are not so likely to be noticed by consumers. This lower visibility would likely result in reduced overall use of the child restraint anchorage system. Installed guidance fixtures also clearly show the anchorage bars of a child restraint anchorage system to users, which can reduce the likelihood that users may mistakenly latch their child restraints on to an incorrect or unsuitable part of the vehicle structure. Because guidance fixtures increase the visibility and therefore likelihood of correct use of the anchorage bars, they are a benefit to all child restraint users, not just to owners of child restraints with rigid attachments. Further, since child restraint systems using rigid attachments which are suitable for use with the guidance fixtures will be available in the market in the future, we believe that during the life span of a vehicle equipped with an anchorage system, there is a high likelihood that the vehicle will be owned by someone having a child restraint with rigid attachments. As discussed, the guidance fixtures would facilitate use of the child restraint anchorage system throughout the life of the vehicle.
        For these reasons, NHTSA is denying Volkswagen's petition for reconsideration. The marking and conspicuity requirements of S15.4 apply to any child restraint anchorage system installed on a vehicle on or after September 1, 1999, including those voluntarily installed.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          Issued on May 31, 2001.
          Stephen R. Kratzke,
          Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

      [FR Doc. 01-14880 Filed 6-12-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [Docket No. 120118050-2049-01]
        RIN 0648-BB49
        Marine Recreational Fisheries of the United States; National Saltwater Angler Registry and State Exemption Program

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to amend the regulations that implement section 401(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The amendments would eliminate duplicative permitting and registration requirements for holders of Main Hawaiian Islands Non-commercial Bottomfish Permits; allow states that exempt minors under the age of 17 from the state license or registration requirements to be eligible for Exempted State designation; allow the U.S. Virgin Islands to be designated as an Exempted State under the qualifying regional survey option of the rule; and clarify and update various provisions of the rule.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by April 6, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2007-0815, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2007-0815 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Ned Cyr, Director, Office of Science and Technology, NMFS, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Attn: Gordon Colvin.
          • Fax: (301) 713-1875; Attn: Gordon Colvin.

            Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to the NMFS Office of Science and Technology at the address above, and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-7285.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Gordon Colvin, phone: (301) 427-8118; fax: 301-713-1875; or email: gordon.colvin@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access

        This proposed rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register's Web site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html. Background information and documents are available at the NMFS Office of Science and Technology Web site at http://www.countmyfish.noaa.gov/index.html.

        Background
        The proposed action is to amend regulations at 50 CFR 600.1400 that implement the National Saltwater Angler Registry and State Exemption Program (NSAR). The rule established the requirements and procedures for anglers, spear fishers and for-hire fishing vessels to register with NMFS unless exempt from the registration requirement. The NSAR regulations also established the requirements and procedures whereby states may be designated as Exempted States. The anglers and for-hire fishing vessels licensed or registered by Exempted States, and those anglers and vessels that are not required to be licensed or registered under the laws of such states, are not required to register with NMFS.
        Based on its experience with administering NSAR and input from states, NMFS has determined that minor revisions to the final rule are needed to clarify and update certain provisions in order to address the following objectives: (1) Eliminate duplicative permitting and registration requirements for holders of Main Hawaiian Islands Non-commercial Bottomfish Permits; (2) allow states that exempt minors under the age of 17 from the state license or registration requirements to be eligible for Exempted State designation; (3) allow the U.S. Virgin Islands to be designated as an Exempted State under the qualifying regional survey option of the rule; and (4) clarify and update various provisions of the rule.
        A summary of the proposed changes and supporting statements follows:

          Objective 1: Amend § 600.1405(b)(8) to provide that holders of Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) Non-commercial Bottomfish Permits do not need to register under NSAR. The NMFS permit database already includes holders of MHI non-commercial bottomfish permits. This permit data can be added to the registry database without requiring the bottomfish permit holders to also register under NSAR. This would eliminate duplicative registration and fee payment by the approximately 50 holders of MHI Non-commercial bottom fish permits.

          Objective 2: Amend § 600.1416(b)(1) to allow a state to be eligible for Exempted State designation even if its licensing program excludes anglers under age 17. During development of the original rule for NSAR, NMFS determined that it is not necessary to require that minors be included in the lists of persons that must be registered. This is because surveys that sample from angler registry lists will contact the households of registrants and can request information regarding the fishing activity of minors residing in the same households. All states have exceptions to state license or registration requirements for minors, and the final rule provides that these exceptions do not disqualify the states from being designated as Exempted States due to the exclusion of minors. At the time the final rule was adopted, NMFS thought that specifying that an Exempted State may have a state license/registry exception for minors under age 16 would cover all of the states' exceptions. However, one state, Texas, excludes anglers under 17 years of age from its state licensing requirement. For the same reason that NMFS previously determined that state exceptions for minors under age 16 should not disqualify states from Exempted State designation, NMFS is proposing a state license exception for anglers under age 17 in the exceptions that are acceptable for Exempted State designation.
        In addition, the proposed rule would allow a state to be eligible for Exempted State designation even if it allows new anglers to fish for a day (a “free fishing day”) without a license. Many states engage in fishing promotion programs that are intended to recruit new anglers and license buyers. Exclusion from the registry of the limited number of participants that fish only that one time and do not continue to fish or purchase a license is not likely to adversely affect the quality and usefulness of the registry database.

          Objective 3: Amend § 600.1417(b) to separate the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) and Puerto Rico into separate regions for purposes of submission of regional surveys of recreational fishing catch. Section 600.1417 states that, to be designated as an Exempted State, a state may submit to NMFS a proposal describing the state's participation in a qualifying regional survey. The regulations currently provide that Puerto Rico and USVI are one region. The fisheries in USVI and Puerto Rico are different and utilize separate stocks. Due to the differences in the fisheries, and in differing cultural and logistical considerations in carrying out surveys, it may be appropriate to utilize survey designs in USVI that are different from the design in use at present in Puerto Rico. Separating Puerto Rico and USVI into two separate regions will facilitate development and implementation of regional surveys in the USVI and Puerto Rico that qualify for exempted state designation under § 600.1417.

          Objective 4: Clarify and update various sections of 50 CFR 600. The amendments proposed under this objective are as follows:
        • Section 600.1400: For ease of making changes to the Definitions section in the future, we proposed to delete the paragraph labels (a) through (j), but retain all of the current definitions. The following definitions will be retained with no change: “Anadromous species”; “Angler”; “Authorized officer”; “Continental shelf fishery resources”; “Exempted state”; “For-hire fishing vessel”; “Indigenous people”; “Spearfishing”; “State”; “Tidal waters”.
        • Section 600.1400: Add a definition of “combination license”. Exempted States submit to NMFS lists of persons who hold any type of state license or registration that permits fishing in tidal waters, including combination licenses that allow the holders to engage in more than one type of fishing or hunting activity, as specified in the individual combination license. Section 600.1416(d)(3) requires Exempted States to identify tidal waters anglers within lists of persons who hold combination licenses. States issue multiple types of hunting and fishing license combination packages that could be construed to fall within this section's combination license umbrella provision. Many holders of combination licenses may never intend to fish in tidal waters, but purchase such a license that includes saltwater fishing in order to take advantage of combination license pricing discounts that include other activities they do intend to pursue. Lists of license holders that include many persons who do not intend to fish in tidal waters are not efficient for use in survey sampling. However, certain types of combination license holder lists can be effectively used for survey purposes if they are comprised predominantly of persons who fish in tidal waters. This definition identifies the kinds of combination license holder lists for which it is necessary to identify the tidal waters anglers in order to assure efficient survey use, as required in § 600.1416(d). For combination license packages that include primarily anglers who intend to fish in tidal waters, the entire list of license holders can be used for survey purposes.
        • Section 600.1400: Add a definition of “commercial fishing” that is consistent with the definition in § 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This will support the amendment to § 600.1405(b)(7) as described below.
        • Section 600.1405(b)(4): Correct the citation for the Pacific HMS permit, holders of which are not required to register their for-hire vessels with NMFS under NSAR.
        • Section 600.1405(b)(7): Clarify that the exception to the NSAR registration requirement for licensed commercial fishing vessels is only for commercial fishing and not for for-hire fishing. Some for-hire fishing vessels hold state-issued licenses that authorize commercial fishing and/or that are titled as commercial fishing licenses or permits. The amendment would ensure that such vessels would not be treated as a commercial fishing vessel under this paragraph while conducting for-hire recreational fishing. For-hire fishing vessels engaged in for-hire fishing trips are excepted from the NSAR registration requirement by § 600.1405(b)(4), and (b)(6).
        • Section 600.1416(a): Clarify the existing requirement that lists of licensed anglers/registrants submitted by Exempted States need to be updated at least annually.
        • Section 600.1416(a): Clarify the requirement that lists of for-hire vessels submitted by Exempted States include vessel names and identifying numbers and vessel owners'/operators' names, addresses and, to the extent available, telephone numbers and dates of birth. This will clarify that states must submit only name and vessel identification number for for-hire vessels. Address, telephone number and date of birth are required for vessel owners/operators, not for vessels.
        • Section 600.1416(c): Revise the omission of “registration” for consistency with the other references to “license or registration” throughout the rule.
        • Section 600.1416(c): Specify that a state may not be designated as an Exempted State if it has any exceptions to state license/registration requirements other than those listed in § 600.1416(b), unless the state can demonstrate that a given category of anglers is so small it has no significant probability of biasing estimates of fishing effort. The current regulations include a list of unacceptable exceptions, but NMFS cannot predict future exceptions that may be included in State license/registration programs. The proposed rule reinforces the purpose of the NSAR and will clarify that adopting any such exception will render the state ineligible for exempted state designation unless the state can demonstrate that it meets the test provided in § 600.1416(c).
        • Section 600.1416(d): Provide an extra year for states that need to enact legislation to remain qualified for Exempted State designation. States have indicated that state legislative cycles are such that there is often a long lead time between the identification of the need for legislation and its introduction and passage by a state legislature. This section allows for an extra year for the state resource agency to develop and enact of necessary legislation.

        • Section 600.1416(d)(1): Clarify that states must update registration data for excluded anglers over the age of 59 annually. As with the information for licensed/registered anglers and holders of lifetime licenses, this information must be updated annually to be current and useful for survey sampling purposes.
        • Section 600.1416(d)(1): Allow states that do not require persons who were born before June 1, 1940, to be licensed or registered to qualify for Exempted State designations if the state can demonstrate that the number of anglers so excluded is so small that exclusion of this group from a sample will not bias survey results. Some states exclude anglers whose dates of birth are prior to a specified date that assure that the group of excluded anglers is greater than 71 years of age. The size of this age group of anglers is small and will become smaller each year, and a state may be able to demonstrate that exclusion of the group from a sample frame will not bias sample data derived from use of the sample frame.
        • Section 600.1417(b)(3): Include mail and Internet surveys in the surveys for which registries may be used as sample lists. Mail and Internet surveys are likely to be used in addition to or instead of telephone surveys in the future.
        Classification
        The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        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. The small entities potentially affected by the proposed rule are fishing vessels that carry passengers for a fee to conduct recreational fishing. The proposed amendments to the rule will not affect the requirements for for-hire fishing vessels to register with NMFS under the NSAR. The proposed amendments will not directly result in any increase in the number of vessels that will be required to register or in the time and cost of registration for those vessels that are currently required to register. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

        This rule modifies a collection-of-information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0578. Approval for the modification will be requested from OMB. Public reporting burden for angler registration is estimated to average three minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by email to ORIA_Submission@omb.epp.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 600
          Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Statistics.

          Dated: February 1, 2012.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting 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 600 to read as follows:

          PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS
          1. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. et seq.

          2. Section 600.1400 is revised to read as follows:

            § 600.1400
            Definitions.
            In addition to the definitions in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and in § 600.10 of this title, the terms used in this subpart have the following meanings. For purposes of this subpart, if applicable, the terms used in this subpart supersede those used in § 600.10.

              Anadromous species means the following:

            American shad: Alosa sapidissima

            Blueback herring: Alosa aestivalus

            Alewife: Alosa pseudoharengus

            Hickory shad: Alosa mediocris

            Alabama shad: Alosa alabamae

            Striped bass: Morone saxatilis

            Rainbow smelt: Osmerus mordax

            Atlantic salmon: Salmo salar

            Chinook, or king, salmon: Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

            Coho, or silver, salmon: Oncorhynchus kisutch

            Pink salmon: Oncorhynchus gorbuscha

            Sockeye salmon: Oncorhynchus nerka

            Chum salmon: Oncorhynchus keta

            Steelhead: Oncorhynchus mykiss

            Coastal cutthroat trout: Oncorhynchus clarki clarki

            Eulachon or candlefish: Thaleichthys pacificus

            Dolly varden: Salvelinus malma

            Sheefish or inconnu: Stenodus leucichthys

            Atlantic sturgeon: Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhynchus

            Shortnose sturgeon: Acipenser brevirostrum

            Gulf sturgeon: Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi

            White sturgeon: Acipenser transmontanus

            Green sturgeon: Acipenser medirostris

              Angler means a person who is angling (see 50 CFR 600.10) in tidal waters.

              Authorized officer has the same meaning as in 50 CFR 600.10.

              Combination license means either:
            (1) A single state fishing license that permits fishing in fresh waters and tidal waters at one price; or
            (2) A single state license that permits a group of fishing and hunting activities, including fishing in tidal waters, at a price that is less than the sum of the cost of the individual licenses.

              Commercial fishing has the same meaning as in 16 U.S.C. 1802.

              Continental shelf fishery resources has the same meaning as in 16 U.S.C. 1802.

              Exempted state means a state that has been designated as an exempted state by NMFS pursuant to § 600.1415.

              For-hire fishing vessel means a vessel on which passengers are carried to engage in angling or spear fishing, from whom a consideration is contributed as a condition of such carriage, whether directly or indirectly flowing to the owner, charterer, operator, agent or any other person having an interest in the vessel.

              Indigenous people means persons who are documented members of a federally recognized tribe or Alaskan Native Corporation or persons who reside in the western Pacific who are descended from the aboriginal people indigenous to the region who conducted commercial or subsistence fishing using traditional fishing methods, including angling.

              Spearfishing means fishing for, attempting to fish for, catching or attempting to catch fish in tidal waters by any person with a spear or a powerhead (see 50 CFR 600.10).

              State has the same meaning as in 16 U.S.C. 1802.

              Tidal waters means waters that lie below mean high water and seaward of the first upstream obstruction or barrier to tidal action and that are subject to the ebb and flow of the astronomical tides under ordinary conditions.

            3. In § 600.1405, revise paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(7) and (b)(8) to read as follows:

            § 600.1405
            Angler registration.
            (b) * * *
            (4) Holds a permit issued by NMFS for for-hire fishing under §§ 622.4(a)(1), 635.4(b), 648.4(a), or 660.707(a)(1);

            (7) Holds a commercial fishing license or permit issued by NMFS or a state and is lawfully engaged in commercial fishing or in possession of fish taken under the terms and conditions of such license or permit;
            (8) Holds an HMS Angling permit under § 635.4(c) or a MHI Non-commercial Bottomfish permit under § 665.203(a)(2);

            4. In § 600.1416:
            a. Revise paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (c), introductory text (d) and (d)(1); and
            b. Add paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows:

            § 600.1416
            Requirements for exempted state designation based on submission of state license holder data.
            (a) A state must annually update and submit to NMFS, in a format consistent with NMFS guidelines, the name, address and, to the extent available in the state's database, telephone number and date of birth, of all persons and for-hire vessel operators, and the name and state registration number or U.S. Coast Guard documentation number of for-hire vessels that are licensed to fish, or are registered as fishing, in the EEZ, in the tidal waters of the state, or for anadromous species. The Memorandum of Agreement developed in accordance with § 600.1415(b)(2) will specify the timetable for a state to compile and submit complete information telephone numbers and dates of birth for its license holders/registrants. The waters of the state for which such license-holder data must be submitted will be specified in the Memorandum of Agreement.

            (b) * * *
            (1) Under 17 years of age;

            (7) Fishing on days designated as “free fishing days” by states. “Free fishing days” means fishing promotion programs by which states allow new anglers to fish for a specified day without a license.

            (c) Unless the state can demonstrate that a given category of anglers is so small it has no significant probability of biasing estimates of fishing effort if these anglers are not included in a representative sample, a state may not be designated as an exempted state if its licensing or registration program excludes anglers in any category other than those listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
            (d) Required enhancements to exempted state license-holder data. An exempted state must submit the following angler identification data by Jan. 1, 2012, or within two years of the effective date of the Memorandum of Agreement, whichever is later, and thereafter in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement. States that provide NMFS with notice that they are required to enact legislation to comply with this requirement must submit the data within three years of the effective date of the Memorandum of Agreement:
            (1) Name, address and telephone number, updated annually, of excluded anglers over age 59, unless the state can demonstrate that the number of anglers excluded from the license or registration requirement based on having a date of birth before June 1, 1940 is so small it has no significant probability of biasing estimates of fishing effort if these anglers are not included in a representative sample;

            5. In § 600.1417, revise paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) through (viii), and (b)(3), to read as follows:

            § 600.1417
            Requirements for exempted state designation based on submission of recreational survey data.
            (b) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (iii) Puerto Rico;
            (iv) U.S. Virgin Islands;
            (v) California, Oregon and Washington;
            (vi) Alaska;
            (vii) Hawaii; or
            (viii) American Samoa, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

            (3) Utilize angler registry data to identify individuals to be surveyed by telephone, mail or Internet if such regional survey includes a telephone survey component; and

      [FR Doc. 2012-2653 Filed 2-3-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Office of the Secretary
        49 CFR Part 23
        [Docket No. OST-2011-0101]
        RIN 2105-AE10
        Disadvantaged Business Enterprise: Program Improvements for Airport Concessions

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposes conforming amendments to the Department of Transportation's Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) regulation, consistent with recently issued amendments in the Department's regulation for the disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) program in highway, transit, and airport financial assistance programs.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule must be received by July 26, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments (identified by the agency name and DOT Docket ID Number OST-2011-0101) by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: 202-493-2251.

            Instructions: You must include the agency name (Office of the Secretary, DOT) and Docket number (OST-2011-0101) for this notice at the beginning of your comments. You should submit two copies of your comments if you submit them by mail or courier. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided and will be available to Internet users. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

            Docket: For Internet access to the docket to read background documents and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Background documents and comments received may also be viewed at the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E., Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, Room W94-302, 202-366-9310, bob.ashby@dot.gov or Wilbur Barham, Director National Airport Civil Rights Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, Room 1030, 202-385-6210, wilbur.barham@faa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On January 28, 2011, the Department published a final rule establishing several program improvements to the Department's DBE program rule (49 CFR part 26) for financial assistance programs (76 FR 5083). This NPRM proposes conforming amendments to the Department's companion rule for the ACDBE program (49 CFR part 23) for several of the Part 26 amendments. The rationales for the proposed conforming changes to Part 23 are very similar to those for the parallel Part 26 changes, and we refer readers to the preamble of the Part 26 final rule for information on the basis and purpose of the proposed changes.
        We note that it is not necessary to propose conforming changes to Part 23 parallel to all of the Part 26 changes. For example, it is not necessary to include a Part 23 provision parallel to the change to § 26.11, concerning the frequency of reports, since existing § 23.27(b) already states the appropriate reporting frequency for Part 23 reports.
        In addition, many of the Part 26 amendments apply automatically to Part 23, because of sections in Part 23 that incorporate provisions of Part 26. For example, existing § 23.23 incorporates the provisions of § 26.31, regarding directories, so the changes to § 26.31 apply in the Part 23 context without further amendment to Part 23. Existing § 23.31(a) states that, except where otherwise provided in Part 23, the certification provisions of §§ 26.61-26.91 apply to Part 23. Consequently, the amendments to §§ 26.71, 26.73, 26.81, 26.83, 26.84, and 26.85 automatically apply under Part 23 as well as Part 26. Finally, the existing § 23.25(e)(1)(iv) states that the administrative procedures applicable to contract goals in §§ 26.51-26.53 apply with respect to concession specific goals, so the amendment to § 26.51 and the amendment to § 26.53 automatically apply under Part 23 as well as Part 26.
        In the list that follows, we highlight the recent amendments to Part 26 that apply automatically under Part 23. When these Part 26 sections apply under Part 23, the terms “contractor” or “subcontractor” are understood to mean “concessionaire” or “subconcessionaire.”
        • Section 26.31: This amendment, requiring that the DBE directory include the list of each type of work for which a firm is eligible to be certified, applies to the ACDBE program as well.
        • Section 26.51: Applied in the ACDBE context, this amendment directs recipients who originally set all race-neutral goals to start setting race-conscious concession-specific goals if it appeared that the race-neutral approach was not working.
        • Section 26.53: As applied to ACDBEs, this amended section sets forth the circumstances in which a prime concessionaire has good cause to terminate an ACDBE firm.
        • Section 26.71: Under this amended section, the types of work an ACDBE firm can perform must be described in terms of the most specific available NAICS code for that type of work.
        • Section 26.73: This amended section provides that certification of a firm may not be denied solely on the basis that it is a newly formed firm, has not completed projects or contracts at the time of its application, has not yet realized profits from its activities, or has not demonstrated a potential for success.
        • Section 26.81: The requirements for Unified Certification Programs (UCPs) were amended to require the UCP to revise the print version of the Directory at least once a year.
        • Section 26.83: The amended procedures for making certification decisions apply in the ACDBE context. The amendments include a new subsection that addresses the procedure for a certification decision involving an application that was withdrawn and then resubmitted.
        • Section 26.84: This section was removed in the recently issued Part 26 final rule.
        • Section 26.85: This section has been removed and replaced with a section describing the process of interstate certification for a DBE firm. This includes the information the applicant must provide to the other state (“State B”), what actions State B must take when it receives an application, and appropriate reasons for making a determination that there is good cause to believe that the home state's, State A, certification of the firm is erroneous or should not apply in State B.
        Even though the Part 26 amendments listed above apply automatically to Part 23, it is important that these new Part 26 changes make sense in the ACDBE context. Therefore, the Department seeks comments on whether there are terms or concepts in these recently issued Part 26 amendments that need to be modified to conform to the Part 23 context.
        Amended § 26.39, concerning fostering small business participation, is focused on Federally-assisted contracting and associated issues such as “unbundling.” For this reason, the Department is not proposing at this time to include parallel provisions in Part 23, though we seek comments on whether additional small-business-related provisions are needed in the concessions context. The changes to § 26.45, concerning project goals, likewise apply only to DOT-assisted contracting, not concessions.
        In § 23.35, the Department would substitute $1.32 million for the current $750,000 as the personal net worth (PNW) standard. This parallels the revision of § 26.67, and is being proposed for the same reasons. The Part 23 PNW provision has been separate from the Part 26 PNW provision, so a specific Part 23 amendment is needed to maintain consistency between the two regulations.
        The Part 26 PNW definition differs from the Part 23 PNW definition in that Part 23 includes an exemption for “other assets that the individual can document are necessary to obtain financing or a franchise agreement for the initiation or expansion of his or her ACDBE firm (or have in fact been encumbered to support existing financing for the individual's ACDBE business), to a maximum of $3 million.” Some background regarding the $3 million (maximum) exemption for “other assets * * *” can be found in the preamble to 49 CFR Part 23, issued March 22, 2005.
        In determining whether to include the $3 million exclusion, the Department noted that one PNW standard for Part 23 and Part 26 would “* * * avoid concerns about overinclusiveness in the program by ensuring that persons who would fairly be perceived as too wealthy for a program aimed at assisting `disadvantaged' individuals do not participate”. The Department countered “[a]t the same time, the Department is sensitive to the concern of commenters that a PNW standard at this level [$750,000] could inhibit opportunities for business owners to enter the concessions field and expand existing businesses,” and it also said that “[i]n the different business context of concessions, the Department will add a third exclusion.”
        The Department recognized in the preamble that “[w]ithout unduly expanding the well-accepted $750,000 standard, this approach will take into account individual circumstances and avoid the `glass ceiling' effect of an across-the-board PNW standard about which commenters were concerned” and “prevent the eligibility standards from becoming too open-ended, resulting in the participation of individuals so wealthy that it would be difficult to justify their inclusion in a program aimed at disadvantaged individuals, we are adding a $3 million cap on this third exclusion * * *”

        The Department is aware that the $3 million exemption from PNW for assets used as collateral for a loan has been difficult to implement. For example, issues arise in applying the exemption when part of the loan has been paid down. Also, there has been inconsistent interpretation as to the necessary documentation to support this exemption. The Department seeks comment on whether this exemption should be retained in the definition of PNW, deleted altogether, modified, or replaced with a different but more workable provision aimed to achieve the same objective. We would also like comments on how to improve the definition of this exemption so if retained, the exemption can be implemented more effectively.
        In § 23.29, we propose to adopt the key change we made to § 26.37 concerning enhanced monitoring of the actual performance of work by DBEs or ACDBEs. Airports would be responsible for reviewing documents and actual on-site performance to ensure that ACDBEs were actually performing the work committed to them during the concession award process.
        This NPRM would revise § 23.57 to make its accountability provisions parallel to those of the recently amended § 26.47(c). Again, the rationale for doing so is the same as for Part 26. The Department seeks comment on whether any further modifications of the language of this provision would be useful for purposes of the ACDBE program.
        Regulatory Analyses and Notices
        Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        This is a non-significant regulation for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The proposals involve administrative modifications to several provisions of a long-existing and well-established program, designed to improve the program's implementation. The proposals, if made final, would not alter the direction of the program, make major policy changes, or impose significant new costs or burdens.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        A number of provisions of the NPRM would reduce small business burdens or increase opportunities for small business. The personal net worth change would allow some small businesses to remain in the ACDBE program for a longer period of time. Small recipients would not be required to prepare or transmit reports concerning the reasons for overall goal shortfalls and corrective action steps to be taken. Only the 30-50 airports receiving the greatest amount of FAA financial assistance or enplaning the greatest number of passengers would have to file these reports. The NPRM would not make major policy changes that would cause recipients to expend significant resources on program modifications. For these reasons, the Department certifies that the NPRM, if made final, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        Federalism
        A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under the Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism, since it merely makes administrative modifications to an existing program. It does not change the relationship between the Department and State or local governments, pre-empt State law, or impose substantial direct compliance costs on those governments.
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DOT has submitted the Information Collection Requests (ICRs) below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information and issue a control number, the public must be provided 30 days to comment. Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the collections of information in this rule should direct them to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information requirements contained in this rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.

        We will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this rule. The Department will not impose a penalty on persons for violating information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB control number, if required. The Department intends to obtain current OMB control numbers for the new information collection requirements resulting from this rulemaking action. The OMB control number, when assigned, will be announced by separate notice in the Federal Register.

        It is estimated that the total incremental annual burden for the information collection requirements in this rule is 13,855 hours.
        The following are the information collection requirements in this rule:
        Certification of Monitoring (49 CFR 23.29)
        Each recipient would certify that it had conducted post-award monitoring of contracts that would be counted for ACDBE credit to ensure that ACDBEs had done the work for which credit was claimed. The certification is for the purpose of ensuring accountability for monitoring which the regulation already requires.

          Respondents: 184 (i.e., airports with covered concessions).

          Frequency: 1,071 non-car rental concessions; 449 car rental concessions, for a total of 1520, or an average of 8.2 concessions per airport.

          Estimated Burden per Response:
          1/2 hour.

          Estimated Total Annual Burden: 6,230 hours.
        Accountability Mechanism (49 CFR 23.57)
        If a recipient failed to meet its overall goal in a given year, it would have to determine the reasons for its failure and establish corrective steps. Of the 184 airports covered by this rule, 35 large recipients would transmit this analysis to DOT; smaller recipients would perform the analysis but would not be required to submit it to DOT. We estimate that about half of recipients (92) would be subject to this requirement in a given year.

          Respondents: 92.

          Estimated Average Burden per Response: 80 hours + 5 additional hours for recipients sending report to DOT.

          Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 7535 (i.e., 7,360 [92 × 80] + 175 [35 × 5]).

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 23
          Administrative practice and procedure, Airports, Civil rights, Government contracts, Grant programs—transportation, Minority businesses, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

          Issued this 4th day of May 2011, at Washington DC.
          Ray LaHood,
          Secretary of Transportation.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Transportation proposes to amend 49 CFR part 23 as follows:

          PART 23—PARTICIPATION OF DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE IN AIRPORT CONCESSIONS
          1. The authority citation for Part 23 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
             49 U.S.C. 47107; 42 U.S.C. 2000d; 49 U.S.C. 322; Executive Order 12138.
            2. Revise § 23.29 to read as follows:

            § 23.29
            What monitoring and compliance procedures must recipients follow?

            As a recipient, you must implement appropriate mechanisms to ensure compliance with the requirements of this part by all participants in the program. You must include in your concession program the specific provisions to be inserted into concession agreements and management contracts, the enforcement mechanisms, and other means you use to ensure compliance. These provisions must include a monitoring and enforcement mechanism to verify that the work committed to ACDBEs is actually performed by the ACDBEs. This mechanism must include a written certification that you have reviewed records of all contracts, leases, joint venture agreements, or other concession-related agreements and monitored the work on-site in your State for this purpose. The monitoring to which this paragraph refers may be conducted in conjunction with monitoring of contract performance for other purposes (e.g., closeout reviews for a contract).
            3. In § 23.35, remove the number “$750,000” and add in its place “$1.32 million.”
            4. Revise § 23.45(i) to read as follows:

            § 23.45
            What are the requirements for submitting overall goal information to FAA?

            (i) If a new concession opportunity, the estimated average annual gross revenues of which are anticipated to be $200,000 or greater, arises at a time that falls between normal submission dates for overall goals, you must submit an appropriate adjustment to your overall goal to the FAA for approval at least six months before executing the concession agreement for the new concession opportunity.
            5. Revise § 23.57(b) and (c) to read as follows:

            § 23.57
            What happens if a recipient falls short of meeting its overall goals?

            (b) If the awards and commitments shown on your Uniform Report of ACDBE Participation (found in Appendix A to this Part) at the end of any fiscal year are less than the overall goal applicable to that fiscal year, you must do the following in order to be regarded by the Department as implementing your ACDBE program in good faith:
            (1) Analyze in detail the reasons for the difference between the overall goal and your awards and commitments in that fiscal year;
            (2) Establish specific steps and milestones to correct the problems you have identified in your analysis and to enable you to meet fully your goal for the new fiscal year;
            (3)(i) If you are an Operational Evolution Partnership Plan airport or other airport designated by the FAA, you must submit, within 90 days of the end of the fiscal year, the analysis and corrective actions developed under paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section to the FAA for approval. If the FAA approves the report, you will be regarded as complying with the requirements of this section for the remainder of the fiscal year.
            (ii) As an airport not meeting the criteria of paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, you must retain analysis and corrective actions in your records for three years and make it available to the FAA, on request, for their review.
            (4) The FAA may impose conditions on the recipient as part of its approval of the recipient's analysis and corrective actions including, but not limited to, modifications to your overall goal methodology, changes in your race-conscious/race-neutral split, or the introduction of additional race-neutral or race-conscious measures.
            (5) You may be regarded as being in noncompliance with this Part, and therefore subject to the remedies in § 23.11 of this part and other applicable regulations, for failing to implement your DBE program in good faith if any of the following things occur:
            (i) You do not submit your analysis and corrective actions to FAA in a timely manner as required under paragraph (b)(3) of this section;
            (ii) FAA disapproves your analysis or corrective actions; or
            (iii) You do not fully implement the corrective actions to which you have committed or conditions that FAA has imposed following review of your analysis and corrective actions.
            (c) If information coming to the attention of FAA demonstrates that current trends make it unlikely that you, as an airport, will achieve ACDBE awards and commitments that would be necessary to allow you to meet your overall goal at the end of the fiscal year, FAA may require you to make further good faith efforts, such as modifying your race-conscious/race-neutral split or introducing additional race-neutral or race-conscious measures for the remainder of the fiscal year.

      [FR Doc. 2011-13187 Filed 5-26-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 00-647, MM Docket No. 00-56, RM-9839]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Eastman, GA

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Clyde and Connie Lee Scott, d/b/a EME Communications, seeking the allotment of Channel 221A to Eastman, GA, as the community's second local FM and third local aural service. Channel 221A can be allotted to Eastman in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 13.1 kms (8.2 miles) west, at coordinates 32-10-20 NL; 83-18-49 WL, to avoid a short-spacing to Station WKKZ, Channel 224C2, Dublin, GA.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before May 15, 2000, and reply comments on or before May 30, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: EME Communications, 293 JC Saunders Road, Moultrie, GA 31768 (Petitioner).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-56, adopted March 15, 2000, and released March 24, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.
        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

        Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio broadcasting.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          John A. Karousos,
          Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 00-8168 Filed 4-3-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 01-249, MM Docket No. 01-30, RM-10042]
        Digital Television Broadcast Service; Bozeman, MT

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by KCTZ Communications, Inc., licensee of station KBZK(TV), NTSC channel 7, Bozeman, Montana, seeking the substitution of DTV channel 13 for station KBZK(TV)'s assigned DTV channel 16. DTV Channel 13 can be allotted to Bozeman, Montana, in compliance with the principal community coverage requirements of Section 73.625(a) at reference coordinates (45-40-24 N. and 110-52-02 W.). As requested, we propose to allot DTV Channel 13 to Bozeman with a power of 160 and a height above average terrain (HAAT) of 305 meters. However, since the community of Bozeman is located within 400 kilometers of the U.S.-Canadian border, concurrence by the Canadian government must be obtained for this proposal.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before March 26, 2001, and reply comments on or before April 10, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Scott S. Patrick, Low, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC, 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036-6802.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 01-30, adopted February 1, 2001, and released February 2, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

        Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Television, Digital television broadcasting.

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

          PART 73—TELEVISION BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and 336.

            § 73.622
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments under Montana is amended by removing DTV Channel 16 and adding DTV Channel 13 at Bozeman.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            Barbara A. Kreisman,
            Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 01-3047 Filed 2-5-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        48 CFR Parts 3001, 3002, 3004, 3024, 3039 and 3052
        [Docket No. DHS-2017-0006, DHS-2017-0007, DHS-2017-0008]
        RIN 1601-AA76; 1601-AA78; 1601-AA79
        Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR); Safeguarding of Controlled Unclassified Information (HSAR Case 2015-001); Information Technology Security Awareness Training (HSAR Case 2015-002); Privacy Training (HSAR Case 2015-003)—Extension of Comment Periods

          AGENCY:
          Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          DHS is extending the comment periods for the following three notices of proposed rulemaking (proposed rules) published on January 19, 2017: “Safeguarding of Controlled Unclassified Information,” “Information Technology Security Awareness Training,” and “Privacy Training.” DHS is extending the comment period by 30 days to ensure the public has sufficient time to review and provide comment on these proposed rules.

          DATES:

          The comment periods for the proposed rules published in the Federal Register of January 19, 2017 (81 FR 6425, 81 FR 6429, and 81 FR 6446), are extended. Comments on the proposed rules should be submitted in writing to one of the addresses shown below on or before April 19, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by HSAR Case 2015-001, Safeguarding of Controlled Unclassified Information; HSAR Case 2015-002, Information Technology Security Awareness Training; and HSAR Case 2015-003, Privacy Training using any of the following methods:
          • Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Fax: (202) 447-0520.

          • Mail: Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Acquisition Policy and Legislation, ATTN: Ms. Candace Lightfoot, 245 Murray Drive, Bldg. 410 (RDS), Washington, DC 20528.

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

          To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ms. Candace Lightfoot, Procurement Analyst, DHS, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Acquisition Policy and Legislation at (202) 447-0882 or email HSAR@hq.dhs.gov. When using email, include HSAR Case 2015-001, HSAR Case 2015-002, or HSAR Case 2015-003 in the “Subject” line.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

        We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.
        A. Submitting Comments
        If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for the applicable rulemaking (DHS-2017-0006, DHS-2017-0007, or DHS-2017-0008), indicate the specific section of each document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online, by fax or mail, but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
        To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the applicable docket number (DHS-2017-0006, DHS-2017-0007, or DHS-2017-0008) in the “Search” box. Click on “Submit a Comment” in the “Actions” column. If you submit your comments by mail, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the proposed rules based on your comments.
        B. Viewing Comments and Documents

        To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the applicable docket number (DHS-2017-0006, DHS-2017-0007, or DHS-2017-0008) in the “Search” box. Click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column.
        II. Regulatory History and Information
        On January 19, 2017, DHS published the following three proposed rules: “Safeguarding of Controlled Unclassified Information (HSAR Case 2015-001),” “Information Technology Security Awareness Training (HSAR Case 2015-002),” and “Privacy Training (HSAR Case 2015-003)” (82 FR 6429, 82 FR 6446, and 82 FR 6425 respectively). The three rules propose to amend the HSAR in the following ways: (1) Ensure contractors understand their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding controlled unclassified information (CUI); (2) ensure contractor and subcontractor employees complete information technology (IT) security awareness training before DHS provides them with access to DHS information systems and information resources or contractor-owned and/or operated information systems and information resources where CUI is collected, processed, stored or transmitted on behalf of the agency; (3) ensure that contractor and subcontractor employees sign the DHS Rules of Behavior before DHS provides them with access to DHS information systems, information resources, or contractor-owned and/or operated information systems and information resources where CUI is collected, processed, stored or transmitted on behalf of the agency; and (4) ensure contractor and subcontractor employees complete privacy training before accessing a Government system of records; handling personally identifiable information (PII) and/or sensitive PII information; or designing, developing, maintaining, or operating a system of records on behalf of the Government.
        Comments on these proposed rules were originally due by March 20, 2017. However, a number of parties have requested additional time to review the proposed rules and submit comments. Thus, to ensure the public has sufficient time to review the proposed rules and submit comments, DHS is extending the comment periods by 30 days.

          Dennis Smiley,
          Deputy Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Homeland Security.

      [FR Doc. 2017-05510 Filed 3-17-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P