        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 395
        [Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0336]
        Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; Agricultural Retailers Association

          AGENCY:
          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Application for exemption; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          FMCSA announces that the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) has requested an exemption on behalf of its members from the requirement that motor carriers and their drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) use an electronic logging device (ELD) to record the driver hours-of-service (HOS). ARA states that the ELD requirement imposes undue economic and other burdens on its member retailers and distributors of farm-related products and services. It asserts that ELDs fail to properly record the complex HOS data, are not properly certified by the FMCSA, and do not provide appropriate cyber-security safeguards. ARA also asserts that ELDs will not function properly in many locations in rural America because of poor internet and cellular connectivity. ARA states that the operations of its members under exemption from the ELD requirements will achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the proposed exemption. FMCSA requests public comment on ARA's application for exemption.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before January 29, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2017-0336 by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further information.
          • 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., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251

          • Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.

            Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For information concerning this notice, contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 614-942-6477. Email: MCPSD@dot.gov. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
        FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
        Submitting Comments
        If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2017-0336), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
        To submit your comments online, go to www.regulations.gov and put the docket number, “FMCSA-2017-0336” in the “Keyword” box, and click “Search.” When the new screen appears, click on “Comment Now!” button and type your comment into the text box in the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, 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. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
        II. Legal Basis

        FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the request.

        The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is granted. The document must also specify the effective period and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).
        III. Request for Exemption

        The hours of service (HOS) rules (49 CFR part 395) prescribe the duty-time limits and rest requirements for interstate drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), and provide various exceptions to the HOS rules for CMV drivers engaged in certain agricultural operations. Beginning December 18, 2017, most motor carriers and drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce will be required to use electronic logging devices (ELDs), not handwritten logbooks, to document their HOS duty status (49 CFR 395.8(a)(1)(i)). The HOS rules and the various agricultural exceptions will not change—only the manner of recording compliance with them.
        ARA applies for exemption from the ELD requirement on behalf of its member retailers and distributors of farm-related products and services. ARA members rely on CMVs to deliver their products and services to farms. ARA does not estimate the number of drivers that would be exempt if its application would be granted.
        ARA asserts that its members are not fully prepared to meet the December 18, 2017 deadline. It seeks exemption to obtain a postponement of the approaching deadline. ATA recommends that the time created by the postponement be used by FMCSA to correct what ARA perceives to be shortcomings of the ELD rule. ARA states that its members need additional information and guidance about the ELD rule, but also asserts that the ELD rule as currently constituted is unduly burdensome for its members. It asserts that ELD vendors and manufacturers do not offer ELD products that address the needs of ARA members. ARA explains that the ELD systems being offered do not accommodate the various exceptions from the HOS rules that agricultural drivers routinely employ. ARA also believes that FMCSA has complicated the search for quality ELDs by allowing ELD manufacturers to certify their products themselves; ARA believes the FMCSA should be certifying ELD devices.
        ARA asserts that poor internet and cellular service in certain parts of the country calls the technological feasibility of ELDs in the agriculture industry into question. In addition, ARA is concerned that ELDs are vulnerable to both cybersecurity attack and illicit monitoring of the movements of member CMVs, some of which transport hazardous materials. ARA also asserts that ELDs contribute to driver distraction and thus negatively affect safety. A copy of ARA's application for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice.
        ARA states that its application will achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the proposed exemption.

          Issued on: December 14, 2017.
          Larry W. Minor,
          Associate Administrator for Policy.

      [FR Doc. 2017-27884 Filed 12-27-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0320; FRL-9156-3]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Transportation Conformity Regulations

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

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

          DATES:
          Comments must be received in writing by June 28, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0320 by one of the following methods:
          A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          B. E-mail: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.

          C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0320, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Planning Programs, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
          D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0320. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI (or otherwise protected) through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an anonymous access system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the District of Columbia Department of Public Health, Air Quality Division, 51 N Street, NE., Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20002.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Martin Kotsch, (215) 814-3335, or by e-mail at: kotsch.martin@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register publication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

          Dated: May 17, 2010.
          William C. Early,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

      [FR Doc. 2010-12928 Filed 5-27-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Maritime Administration
        46 CFR Part 296
        [Docket No. MARAD-2004-18489]
        RIN 2133-AB62
        Maritime Security Program

          AGENCY:
          Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.

          ACTION:
          Notice of extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          The Maritime Administration is hereby giving notice that the closing date for filing comments on the Maritime Security Program interim final rule (Docket No. MARAD 2004-18489) has been extended to the close of business (5 p.m. e.t.) on August 30, 2004. The interim final rule was published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2004 (69 FR 43328).

          Dated: August 18, 2004.

          By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
          Joel C. Richard,
          Secretary, Maritime Administration.

      [FR Doc. 04-19322 Filed 8-23-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-81-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 36
        [CC Docket No. 80-286; FCC 17-22]
        Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint Board

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission proposes a further eighteen month extension of the current freeze of category relationships and allocation factors for price cap carriers and all allocation factors for rate-of-return carriers and seeks comment on several issues regarding the potential effects of the freeze extension.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before April 17, 2017. Reply comments are due on or before April 24, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St. SW., Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Rhonda Lien, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division at (202) 418-1540 or at rhonda.lien@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This a summary of the Commission Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released on March 20, 2017. The full text of this document may be accessed at the following internet address: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-22A1.docx.

        Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Section 1.415(b) of the Commission's rules does not establish a minimum time period for the Commission to receive comments on proposed rules. Rather, the rule states that a “reasonable time will be provided for submission of comments.” In this proceeding, because the current separations freeze will otherwise expire on June 30, 2017, and because we expect our proposal to extend the freeze will not generate controversy, we find that it is reasonable to allow 14 days after Federal Register publication for the filing of comments and seven days after that for the filing of any reply comments.

          Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

          Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
         Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

         All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

         Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

         U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

          Accessible Formats. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).

          Ex Parte Presentations. The proceeding this Further Notice initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

        We propose to extend the existing separations freeze for an additional eighteen months while we work to reform the separations rules. As with our prior freezes, we propose that the freeze extension be implemented as described in the 2001 Separations Freeze Order. Specifically, we propose to direct rate-of-return ILECs to continue to use the same frozen jurisdictional allocation factors, and the same frozen category relationships if they had opted previously to freeze those relationships. We seek comment on this proposal. Are there adjustments we should make on a going-forward basis to the current freeze?

        The policy changes adopted by the Commission in recent years, particularly those arising from the Commission's fundamental reform of the high cost universal service support program and intercarrier compensation systems in the USF/ICC Transformation Order and from our recent changes to the Part 32 accounting rules, will significantly affect the Commission's and the Joint Board's analysis of interim and comprehensive separations reform. We believe that extending the freeze for eighteen months will allow the Joint Board sufficient time to consider the impact of our recent reforms on the separations rules and will allow us the opportunity to fashion a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that benefits from the Joint Board's consideration of how best to approach separations reform. We seek comment on this proposed path forward, and invite commenters to identify alternative approaches.

        One significant benefit of extending the freeze while we undertake reform will be to provide stability and regulatory certainty for ILECs during the reform process. As the Commission has observed, if the frozen category relationships and allocation factors were unfrozen, ILECs would be required to reinstitute their separations processes that have not been used since the inception of the freeze almost sixteen years ago. Reinstating these requirements would require substantial training and investment. Moreover, given the significant changes in technologies and investment decisions, as well as changes in regulatory approaches at both the state and federal levels, the existing separations rules are likely outdated. We anticipate that extending the jurisdictional separations freeze would provide rate-of-return ILECs with certainty in the near future as they continue apportioning costs as they have since the 2001 Separations Freeze Order, and would be preferable to re-imposing the burden of the separations rules. We seek comment on these on other benefits or drawbacks to a continued freeze.
        We also seek comment on the effect that our proposal to extend the freeze would have on small entities, and whether any rules that we adopt should apply differently to small entities. We seek comment on the costs and burdens of an extension on small ILECs and whether the extension would disproportionately affect specific types of carriers or ratepayers.
        The Joint Board has a pending referral to consider broadly any appropriate changes to the separations rules. We will evaluate whether other discrete issues should be referred to the Joint Board. We anticipate that the Joint Board will meet in July 2017 to consider reform of the separations process. We expect to receive the Joint Board's recommendations for comprehensive separations reform within nine months thereafter, that is, in April 2018.
        Procedureal Matters

          Paperwork Reduction Act. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

          Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document.
        Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
        In the 1997 Separations Notice, the Commission noted that the network infrastructure by that time had become vastly different from the network and services used to define the cost categories appearing in the Commission's Part 36 jurisdictional separations rules, and that the separations process codified in Part 36 was developed during a time when common carrier regulation presumed that interstate and intrastate telecommunications service must be provided through a regulated monopoly. Thus, the Commission initiated a proceeding with the goal of reviewing comprehensively the Commission's Part 36 procedures to ensure that they meet the objectives of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act). The Commission sought comment on the extent to which legislative changes, technological changes, and market changes might warrant comprehensive reform of the separations process. More than eighteen years have elapsed since the closing of the comment cycle on the 1997 Separations Notice, and more than fifteen years have elapsed since the imposition of the freeze. The industry has experienced myriad changes during that time, including reform of universal service and intercarrier compensation; therefore, we ask for comment on the impact of a further extension of the freeze. The purpose of the proposed extension of the freeze is to ensure that the Commission's separations rules meet the objectives of the 1996 Act, and to allow the Commission additional time to consider changes that may need to be made to the separations process in light of changes in the law, technology, and market structure of the telecommunications industry.
        Legal Basis
        The legal basis for the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201-205, 215, 218, 220, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules May Apply
        The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.9 million small businesses, according to the SBA.

          Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the SBA definition, a carrier is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 1,307 incumbent LECs reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most incumbent LECs are small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.

        We have included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. Because our proposals concerning the Part 36 separations process will affect all incumbent LECs providing interstate services, some entities employing 1,500 or fewer employees may be affected by the proposals made in this Further Notice. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on the Commission's analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        None.
        Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
        The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance and reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for small entities.
        As described above, more than fifteen years have elapsed since the imposition of the freeze, thus, we are seeking comment on the impact of a further extension of the freeze. We seek comment on the effects our proposals would have on small entities, and whether any rules that we adopt should apply differently to small entities. We direct commenters to consider the costs and burdens of an extension on small incumbent LECs and whether the extension would disproportionately affect specific types of carriers or ratepayers.
        We believe that implementation of the proposed freeze extension would ease the administrative burden of regulatory compliance for LECs, including small incumbent LECs. The freeze has eliminated the need for all incumbent LECs, including incumbent LECs with 1,500 employees or fewer, to complete certain annual studies formerly required by the Commission's rules. If an extension of the freeze can be said to have any effect under the RFA, it is to reduce a regulatory compliance burden for small incumbent LECs by relieving these carriers from the burden of preparing separations studies and providing these carriers with greater regulatory certainty.
        Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules
        None.
        Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Further Notice indicated on the first page of this document. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

        For further information regarding this proceeding, contact Rhonda J. Lien, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1520, or rhonda.lien@fcc.gov.

        Ordering Clauses
        Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201-205, 215, 218, 220, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201-205, 215, 218, 220, 410, this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED.

          It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

          It is further ordered that, pursuant to sections 1.4(b)(1) and 1.103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1), 1.103(a), this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking shall be effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register.

          List of Subjects
          Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Telephone; Uniform System of Accounts.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2017-06532 Filed 3-31-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 1834, 1841, 1846, 1851 and 1852
        RIN 2700-AE01
        NASA FAR Supplement Regulatory Review No. 1

          AGENCY:
          National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          NASA is updating the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) with the goal of eliminating unnecessary regulation, streamlining overly burdensome regulation, clarifying language, and simplifying processes where possible. This proposed rule is the first in a series and includes updates and revisions to five NFS parts. On January 18, 2011, President Obama signed Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review, directing agencies to develop a plan for a retrospective analysis of existing regulations. The revisions to this rule are part of NASA's retrospective plan under EO 13563 completed in August 2011.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit comments to NASA at the address below on or before June 17, 2013 to be considered in formulation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:

          Interested parties may submit comments, identified by RIN number 2700-AE01 via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be submitted to Leigh Pomponio via email at leigh.pomponio@NASA.gov. NASA's full plan can be accessed at: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/581545main_Final%20Plan%20for%20Retrospective%20Analysis%20of%20Existing%20Regulations.pdf.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Leigh Pomponio, NASA, Office of Procurement, email: leigh.pomponio@NASA.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background
        The NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) is codified at 48 CFR 1800. Periodically, NASA performs a comprehensive review and analysis of the regulation, makes updates and corrections, and reissues the NASA FAR Supplement. The last reissue was in 2004. The goal of the review and analysis is to reduce regulatory burden where justified and appropriate and make the NFS content and processes more efficient and effective, faster and simpler, in support of NASA's mission. Consistent with Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review, NASA is currently reviewing and revising the NFS with an emphasis on streamlining and reducing burden. Due to the volume of the regulation, the revisions to the regulation will be made in increments. This proposed rule is the first of three expected rules which together will constitute the NFS update and reissue. This rule includes revisions to parts 1834, 1841, 1846, 1851, and 1852 of the NFS. Further, this rule provides notice that no regulatory changes will be made to parts 1814, 1815 (exclusive of subpart 1815.4), 1818, 1822, 1824, and 1843.
        NASA analyzed the existing regulation to determine whether any portions should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed. Special emphasis was placed on identifying and eliminating or simplifying overly burdensome processes that could be streamlined without jeopardizing Agency mission effectiveness. Additionally, NASA sought to identify current regulatory coverage that is not regulatory in nature, and to remove or relocate such coverage to internal guidance. In addition to substantive changes, this rule includes administrative changes necessary to make minor corrections and updates. Specifically, the changes in this rule are summarized as follows:

          Part 1815: No regulatory changes to Part 15 but note that two corresponding clauses are revised. The pre-proposal clause at 1852.215-77 is revised to add additional information on security information required for attendance at conferences at NASA field locations. The clause entitled Proposal Page Limitations at 1852.215-81 is revised to clarify the maximum acceptable proposal page counts.

          Part 1834:

        1. Administrative changes are made to policy on Earned Value Management System which correct nomenclature and Web site references.
        2. In Notice of Earned Value Management System provision at 1852.234-1, a requirement is added for offerors to provide a matrix that correlates each guideline in ANSI/EIA 748 (current version at time of solicitation) to the corresponding process in the offeror's written management procedures; the rule also updates Web site and references in the provision.
        3. In Earned Value Management System clause at 1852.234-2, administrative changes are made to correct nomenclature and add a Web site reference.

          Part 1841: Subpart 1841.5—Solicitation Provision and Contract Clauses, is deleted in its entirety. Clause text at 1852.241-70, Renewal of Contract, is removed. The prescription and clause are removed because the clause at FAR 52.217-9 is sufficient to provide for a contract extension or renewal. A NASA-unique clause to address extension and renewal in a utility contract is not necessary.

          Part 1846:

        1. Subpart 1846.6—Material Inspection and Receiving Reports, is revised to align with DFAR Appendix F, facilitating comparison of NASA and DoD practices and procedures with regard to DD Form 250, especially for contractors doing business with both agencies. Administrative changes are also made to this subpart to clarify DD Form 250 preparation instructions.
        2. The clause 1852.246-72, Material Inspection and Receiving Report, is revised slightly to clarify distribution requirements.

          Part 1851: Section 1851.102-70, Contractor acquisition of filing cabinets, is deleted because it is no longer relevant or necessary.

          Part 1852: Changes to clauses are discussed above according to corresponding NFS part.
        B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        NASA certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. because it mainly clarifies or updates existing regulations. In one instance, it adds new requirements to the Earned Value Management System Clause, but that clause is rarely applicable in contracts with small businesses. In several instances, this rule deletes requirements, but not to the extent that small entities would be significantly impacted.
        D. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The proposed rule contains a new information collection requirement that requires the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The collection is at 1852.215-77(c), Pre-proposal/pre-bid conference, wherein attendees at pre-proposal or pre-bid conferences will be required to submit personal identity information. NASA invites public comments on the following aspects of the proposed rule: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The following is a summary of the information collection requirement.

          Title: Security Checks for Attendance at Pre-proposal Conferences. NASA FAR Supplement 1852.215-77, Pre-proposal/Pre-bid Conference

          Type of Request: New collection.

          Number of Respondents: 30.

          Responses per Respondent: 12.

          Annual Responses: 360.

          Average Burden per Response: 0.25 hours.

          Annual Burden Hours: 90.

          Needs and Uses: This information collection requires contractors to supply personal identity information for attendees at pre-proposal conferences that are held at NASA facilities. The information includes, but is not limited to name, social security number, place of birth, and citizenship. NASA will utilize the information to perform security checks for entrance to NASA facilities. Without the collection of this information, NASA will be unable to permit entrance to NASA facilities for attendance at pre-proposal conferences.

          Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

          Frequency: On occasion.

        Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to NASA, Attn: Leigh Pomponio leigh.pomponio@NASA.gov. Comments can be received up to 60 days after the date of this notice.
        To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to NASA, Attn: Leigh Pomponio, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546-0001.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR 1834, 1841, 1846, 1851, and 1852.
          Government procurement.

          William P. McNally,
          Assistant Administrator for Procurement.

        Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1834, 1841, 1846, 1851, and 1852 are proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 1834—MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION

        1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).

          1834.201
          [Amended]

        2. Amend section 1834.201 to read as follows:
        a. Amend paragraph (a) introductory text by removing the word “acquisitions” in the first sentence and adding in its place the word “contracts”.
        b. Amend paragraph (a)(3) by adding the phrase “Earned Value Management” before the acronym EVM and adding parentheses around EVM.
        c. Amend the first sentence of paragraph (b), by removing the phrase “earned value management” with “EVM” and adding the phrase “a schedule management system” with “an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)”.

        d. Amend paragraph (d) by adding the phrase “and the applicable NASA Center EVM Focal Point (http://evm.nasa.gov/council.html)” between “office” and “in determining”.
        e. Amend paragraph (e) by removing “American National Standards Institute/Electronics Industries Alliance Standard” and the parentheses around the existing acronym ANSI/EIA.
        f. Add paragraph (f).
        The addition reads as follows:

          1834.201
          Policy.

          (f) As a minimum, and in accordance with NPD 7120.5, requirements initiators shall ensure that EVMS monthly reports are included as a deliverable in the acquisition package provided to the procurement office for implementation into contracts where EVMS applies. Additionally, the acquisition package shall include a Contract Performance Report (CPR), IMS and a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and the appropriate data requirements descriptions (DRDs) for implementation into the contract.

          1834.203-70
          [Amended]

        3. Amend section 1834.203-70 by removing “1834.201(a)(3)” and adding in its place “1834.201(c)” in the first sentence.

          PART 1841—ACQUISITION OF UTILITY SERVICES

        4. The authority citation for this section continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).

          Subpart 1841.5 [Removed and Reserved].

        5. Remove and reserve Subpart 1841.5.

          PART 1846—QUALITY ASSURANCE

        6. The authority citation continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).

        7. Add Subpart 1846.1 to read as follows:

          Subpart—1846.1 General

            1846.101
            Definitions.
            “Counterfeit goods” means an item that is an unauthorized copy or substitute that has been identified, marked, and/or altered by a source other than the item's legally authorized source and has been misrepresented to be an authorized item of the legally authorized source.
            “Legally authorized source” means the current design activity or the original manufacturer or a supplier authorized by the current design activity or the original manufacturer to produce an item.

            1846.102
            Policy.
            (f) See NPR 8735.2, Section 2.1, concerning quality assurance for critical acquisition items. Generally, the quality assurance requirements set forth in the NPR for critical acquisition items are not allowed under Part 12 procedures. See FAR 12.208.

        8. Section 1846.670-1 is revised to read as follows:

          1846.670-1
          General.
          This subpart contains procedures and instructions for use of the DD Form 250, Material Inspection and Receiving Report (MIRR), (DD Form 250 series equivalents, and commercial shipping/packing lists used to document Government contract quality assurance (CQA).

        9. Section 1846.670-2 is revised to read as follows:

          1846.670-2
          Applicability.
          (a) This subpart applies to supplies or services acquired by or for NASA when the clause at 1852.246-72, Material Inspection and Receiving Report, is included in the contract.

        10. Section 1846.670-3 is revised to read as follows:

          1846.670-3
          Use.
          (a) The DD Form 250 is a multipurpose report used for—
          (1) Providing evidence of CQA at origin or destination;
          (2) Providing evidence of acceptance at origin or destination;
          (3) Packing lists;
          (4) Receiving;
          (5) Shipping; and
          (6) Contractor invoice support.
          (b) Do not use MIRRs for shipments—
          (1) By subcontractors, unless the subcontractor is shipping directly to the Government; or,
          (2) Of contract inventory.
          (c) The contractor prepares the DD Form 250, except for entries that an authorized Government representative is required to complete. The contractor shall furnish sufficient copies of the completed form, as directed by the Government Representative.

        11. Section 1846.670-5 is revised to read as follows:

          1846.670-5
          Forms.

          An electronic copy of the DD Form 250 may be downloaded from the General Services Administration's Forms Library at http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/100000.

        12. In 1846.672-1, paragraphs (a)(1), (b), and (c) are revised to read as follows:

          1846.672-1
          Preparation Instructions.

          (1) Dates shall include nine spaces consisting of the four digits of the year, the first three letters of the month, and two digits for the date (e.g., 2012SEP24).

          (b) Classified information. Do not include classified information on the MIRR. MIRRs must not be classified.
          (c) Block 1—PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION (CONTRACT NUMBER) Enter the ten-character, alpha-numeric procurement identifier of the contract.

          (h) Block 6—INVOICE.

          The contractor may enter the invoice number and actual or estimated date on all copies of the MIRR. When the date is estimated, enter an “E” after the date. Do not correct MIRRs to reflect the actual date of invoice submission.
          * * *
          (j) Block 8—ACCEPTANCE POINT. Enter an “S” for origin or “D” for destination as specified in the contract as the point of acceptance.
          (k) Block 9—PRIME CONTRACTOR. Enter the Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code and address.
          * * *
          In section 1846.672, the first sentence of paragraph (r)(1)(i) is amended by removing the phrase “Federal” and adding its place the phrase “national” and removing the phrase “(FSN)” and adding in its place the phrase “(NSN)”.
          j. In section 1846.672, paragraph (r)(3) is revised by replacing “Command” with “Agency”.
          k. In section 1846.672, paragraph (r)(4)(ii) is revised by replacing “FSN” with “NSN”.
          l. In section 1846.672, paragraph (r)(4)(v) is revised by replacing “FSN” with “NSN”.
          m. In section 1846.672, paragraph (r)(4)(xi) is revised by replacing “shall” with “will”.

          1846.672-5
          [Removed]

        13. Section 1846.672-5 is removed.

          1846.672-6 and 1846.672-7
          [Redesignated as 1846.672-5 and 1846.672-6]
          Sections 1846.672-6 and 1846.672-7 are redesignated as 1846.672-5 and 1846.672-6.

        14. Section 1846.674 is revised to read as follows:

          1846.674
          Contract clause.
          The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.246-72, Material Inspection and Receiving Report, in solicitations and contracts when there will be separate and distinct deliverables, even if the deliverables are not separately priced. The clause is not required for—
          (1) Contracts awarded using simplified acquisition procedures;
          (2) Negotiated subsistence contracts; or
          (3) Contracts for which the deliverable is a scientific or technical report. Insert number of copies and distribution instructions in paragraph (a).

          PART 1851—USE OF GOVERNMENT SOURCES BY CONTRACTORS

        15. The authority citation continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).

          1851.102-70
          [Removed and Reserved]

        16. Remove and reserve section 1851.102-70.

          PART 1852—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

        17. The authority citation continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).

        18. Section 1852.215.77 is amended by adding paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to read as follows:

          1852.215-77
          Preproposal/Pre-Bid Conference.

          PRE-PROPOSAL/PRE-BID CONFERENCE [XX/XX]

          (c) Offerors, individuals, or interested parties who plan to attend the pre-proposal/pre-bid conference must provide the Contracting Officer in writing, at a minimum, full name of the attendee(s), identification of nationality (U.S. or specify other nation citizenship), Lawful Permanent Resident Numbers in the case of foreign nationals, affiliation and full office address/phone number. Center-specific security requirements for this pre-proposal/pre-bid conference will be given to a company representative prior to the conference or will be identified in this solicitation as follows: (fill-in). Examples of specific identification information which may be required include state driver's license and social security number. Except for foreign nationals, the identification information must be provided at least (fill-in) working days in advance of the conference. This information shall be provided at least (fill-in) working days in advance of the conference for foreign nationals due to the longer badging and clearance processing time required. However, the Center reserves the right to determine foreign nationals may not be allowed on the Government site. The Government is not responsible for offerors' inability to obtain clearance within sufficient time to attend the conference. Due to space limitations, representation of any potential Offeror may not exceed (fill-in) company representatives/persons per Offeror. Any “lobbying firm or lobbyist” as defined in 2 U.S.C. 1602(9) and (10), or any Offeror represented by a lobbyist under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 shall be specifically identified.
          (d) Visitors on NASA Centers are allowed to possess and use photographic equipment (including camera cell phones) and related materials EXCEPT IN CONTROLLED AREAS. Anyone desiring to use camera equipment during the conference should contact the Contracting Officer to determine if the site(s) to be visited is a controlled area.
          (e) The Government will respond to questions regarding this procurement provided such questions have been received at least five (5) working days prior to the conference. Other questions will be answered at the conference or in writing at a later time. All questions, together with the Government's response, will be transmitted to all solicitation recipients via the government-wide point of entry (GPE). In addition, conference materials distributed at the preproposal/pre-bid conference will be made available to all potential offerors via the GPE using the NAIS Electronic Posting System.

          (End of provision)

        19 Section 1852.215-81 is amended by:
        a. Paragraph (a) is amended by removing the chart and replacing it to read;
        b. Paragraph (b) is amended by adding a sentence at the end of the paragraph.
        c. Paragraph (c) is revised.
        The revisions read as follows:

          1852.215-81
          Proposal Page Limitations.
          (a) * * *

              Proposal section
                (List each
                volume or
                section)

              Page limit(Specify limit)

              [Proposal subsection
                (List each
                subsection

              (e.g. Offeror's Subcontracting Plan should not exceed 20 pages)

           (b) * * * Other limitations/instructions identified as follows: (fill-in, if there are other limitations/instructions).

          (c) Identify any exclusions to the page limits that are excluded from the page counts specified in paragraph (a) of this provision (e.g. title pages, table of contents) as follows: (fill-in). In addition, the Cost section of your proposal is not page limited. However, this section is to be strictly limited to cost and price information. Information that can be construed as belonging in one of the other sections of the proposal will be so construed and counted against that section's page limitation.

          (End of provision)

        20. Section 1852.234-1 is amended as follows:
        a. Paragraph (a) is amended by adding the phrase “(current version at time of solicitation).” After the word “Systems” at the end of the paragraph.
        b. Paragraph (b)(1)(iii) and paragraph (b)(1)(vii).
        The revisions read as follows:

          1852.234-1
          Notice of Earned Value Management System.
          (b) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (iii) Provide a matrix that correlates each guideline in ANSI/EIA 748 (current version at time of solicitation) to the corresponding process in the offeror's written management procedures;

          (vii) If the value of the offeror's proposal, including options, is $50 million or more, provide a schedule of events leading up to formal validation and Government acceptance of the Contractor's EVMS. Guidance can be found in the Department of Defense Earned Value Management Implementation Guide (https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=19557) as well as in the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) Earned Value Management Systems Acceptance Guide (http://www.ndia.org/divisions/divisions/procurement/pages/programsystemcommittee.aspx).

        21. Section 1852.234-2 is amended as follows:
        a. By revising paragraph (a)(2) ;
        b. The first sentence in paragraph (b) is amended by removing the phrase “cost/schedule control system” and adding “EVMS” in its place;

        c. Paragraph (c) is amended by adding the sentence “See the NASA IBR Handbook (http://evm.nasa.gov/handbooks.html) for guidance.” at the end of the paragraph:
        The revisions read as follows:

          1852.234-2
          Earned Value Management System.
          (a) * * *
          (2) Earned Value Management (EVM) procedures that provide for generation of timely, accurate, reliable, and traceable information for the Contract Performance Report (CPR) and the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) required by the data requirements descriptions in the contract.

          1852.241-70
          [Removed and Reserved]

        22. Remove and reserve section t 1852.241-70.
        23. In § 1852.246-72, Material Inspection and Receiving Report, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

          1852.246-72
          Material Inspection and Receiving Report.

          (a) At the time of each delivery to the Government under this contract, the Contractor shall prepare and furnish a Material Inspection and Receiving Report (DD Form 250 series). The form(s) shall be prepared and distributed as follows:

        (Insert number of copies and distribution instructions.)

      [FR Doc. 2013-06441 Filed 4-17-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 7510-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        Food and Drug Administration
        21 CFR Part 73
        [Docket No. FDA-2017-C-6238]
        Colorcon, Inc.; Filing of Color Additive Petition

          AGENCY:
          Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

          ACTION:
          Notification of petition.

          SUMMARY:
          The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that we have filed a petition, submitted by Colorcon, Inc., proposing that the color additive regulations be amended by expanding the permitted uses of synthetic iron oxide as a color additive to include use in dietary supplement tablets and capsules.

          DATES:
          The color additive petition was filed on October 3, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document into the “Search” box and follow the prompts, and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Molly A. Harry, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1075.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Under section 721(d)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1)), we are giving notice that we have filed a color additive petition (CAP 7C0308), submitted by Colorcon, Inc., 275 Ruth Rd., Harleysville, PA 19438. The petition proposes to amend the color additive regulations in § 73.200 (21 CFR 73.200) Synthetic iron oxide by expanding the permitted uses of synthetic iron oxide as a color additive to include use in dietary supplement tablets and capsules with a proposed limit of 5 milligrams, calculated as elemental iron, per day for labeled dosages.
        We have determined under 21 CFR 25.32(k) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

          Dated: November 6, 2017.
          Anna K. Abram,
          Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.

      [FR Doc. 2017-24421 Filed 11-8-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Definition of “Motorcycle”; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

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

          ACTION:
          Denial of petition for rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document denies a petition for rulemaking from GG Quad North America requesting that NHTSA redefine the term “motorcycle” so that the vehicle it seeks to import and sell, a four-wheeled vehicle with a motorcycle-like body, would be classified as a motorcycle and thus be subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for motorcycles. Currently, the petitioner's vehicle is classified as a passenger car. Since the initial FMVSSs were issued in 1967, the term “motorcycle” has been defined to exclude motor vehicles designed to travel on four wheels in contact with the ground.
          NHTSA is denying the petition because the petitioner has not shown that redefining “motorcycle” to include the petitioner's vehicle would be consistent with the safety purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Denial of the petition means that the petitioner's vehicle will remain classified as a passenger car. Before it can be imported, offered for sale or sold in the United States, it must meet all FMVSSs applicable to that type of motor vehicle.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For non-legal issues, you may call Ms. Gayle Dalrymple of the NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, at 202-366-5559.
          For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama of the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
          You may send mail to both of these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Petition for Rulemaking

        Today's document responds to a May 19, 2006 petition for rulemaking from GG Quad North America (GG Quad), which wishes to import and sell the “Quad” in the United States. The Quad is a motor vehicle manufactured in Switzerland by Gruter & Gut Motorradtechnik GmbH. The petitioner describes the Quad as being in every respect a motorcycle other than its fourth wheel. “The Quad is equipped with a BMW-motorcycle power plant.” It uses “motorcycle controls such as: foot-operated gear shifter, handlebar-mounted clutch, separately-operated front and rear brake systems, handle bars, saddles for the operator and tandem passenger, and the open operating environment associated with motorcycling.” The petitioner's Web site states that the top speed is 115 plus miles per hour. http://www.gg-quad-northamerica.com/SpecificationsAndOptions.htm.

        The petitioner states that the Quad meets all FMVSSs for motorcycles. However, since the Quad has four wheels, the petitioner notes that it “falls outside the current NHTSA definition of a motorcycle.”

        According to the petitioner's Web site, the Quad is authorized for on-road use in Europe, Russia, Japan, and Dubai. http://www.gg-quad-northamerica.com/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.htm.
          1

           The petitioner's Web site further indicates that the Quad has been in production since 2004 and that there are a total of 200 Quads in those four countries. http://www.gg-quad- northamerica.com/index.htm.

            1 According to its manufacturer's Web site, the Quad is authorized in Germany and Switzerland. http://www.gg-technik.ch/eng/frameset.html.

        The petitioner requests that the current definition in 49 CFR 571.3(a) of “motorcycle,”

          a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

        be revised to read as follows:

          a motor vehicle with motive power, other than a low-speed vehicle, having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on two, three or four wheels in contact with the ground provided that its curb weight is less than 1,000 pounds.2

            2 NHTSA defines the term “low speed vehicle” as follows:

            Low-speed vehicle (LSV) means a motor vehicle,
          (1) That is 4-wheeled,
          (2) Whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface, and
          (3) Whose GVWR is less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds).
          49 CFR 571.3(a).

        In the event that its petition is denied, the petitioner asked for guidance as to how it “may import and sell the Quad in the United States under the laws that it administers.”
        In support of its petition, the petitioner makes four principal arguments.
        First, the petitioner argues that the configuration of the Quad “makes it unreasonable, impracticable, and inappropriate for it to comply with the FMVSS that apply to passenger cars.”
        Second, the petitioner argues that the Quad is safer than any two-wheeled motorcycle because it is more stable (due to its low center of gravity and a wide track), has better stopping ability (due to its four-wheel disc brakes) and has quick response to steering input.
        Third, the petitioner argues that the Quad is safer than a three-wheeled motorcycle and offers the following reasons for that belief:
        • The petitioner states that the center of gravity of most sidecar and three-wheeled motorcycle configurations is much higher than that of the Quad. The Quad's lower center of gravity provides improved stability and safety.
        • The petitioner says that the center of gravity for a motorcycle with sidecar is located at a point between the axis of the two motorcycle wheels and the intersecting axis at 90 degrees of the sidecar wheel. The center of gravity point is not in line with the thrust line and “causes adverse yaw when accelerating the sidecar vehicle.” In contrast, according to the petitioner, the Quad lines up the center of gravity and thrust line by design, avoiding adverse yaw under acceleration and deceleration.
        • The petitioner states that most three-wheeled motorcycles use the “telescopic fork front suspension” of the base two-wheeled motorcycle. The petitioner asserts “[f]ront fork suspension does not respond well to input from bumps when loaded from the side” and that a side loading condition occurs when turning and causes binding in the sliding tubes. The petitioner states that the Quad overcomes such side load limitations by “using double, unequal length, a-arms or wishbone suspension with coil-over shocks in a fully four-wheel independent arrangement.”

        • The petitioner asserts that there are three-wheeled motorcycles designed with controls similar to those on passenger cars, such as a foot throttle, foot-operated brakes and clutch, steering wheel, and hand gear changer. The petitioner argues that its vehicle operates like a traditional motorcycle.
        • Finally, the petitioner says that many sidecars and three-wheeled motorcycles use motorcycle tires, which are “designed for leaning into a turn and keeping a constant sized rubber contact patch on the road while maneuvering a motorcycle.” According to the petitioner, since three-wheeled motorcycles and sidecars do not lean or bank, using “traditional motorcycle tires” on them limits available traction for three-wheeled motorcycles. The petitioner asserts: “The Quad is designed to use low profile, flat tread, DOT-certified tires.3
           A wider tire keeps a large footprint in contact with the road, maximizing traction during all conditions of operation.”

            3 Unlike the practice in many countries, in the U.S., the Federal government does not certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The responsibility for certifying that motorcycle tires meet applicable motorcycle tire safety standards is on the motorcycle tire manufacturer, and motorcycle manufacturer.

        Fourth, the petitioner argues that redefining “motorcycle” as it requests is in the public interest and offers three reasons for that belief.
        • The Quad can help reduce traffic congestion since it can be operated, as a motorcycle, in high occupancy vehicle or carpool lanes in most jurisdictions.
        • “Americans with disabilities” will be able to operate the Quad. The petitioner noted that drivers with leg disabilities are unable to operate a two-wheeled motorcycle because they cannot hold it upright at a stop. However, the Quad “has a provision of control modification” so that persons who cannot use foot controls can operate the Quad using hand controls. The petitioner also expressed the view that the Quad will “appeal to senior citizens in retirement communities, or to those who no longer feel confident in operating a two-wheeled motorcycle but enjoy the open environment that the Quad offers.”
        • The petitioner stated that the Quad provides environmental benefits, noting that the “fuel mileage is generally 35 mpg.”
        Agency Decision
        The agency has carefully considered this petition for rulemaking to redefine “motorcycle” to accommodate its product and denies it for the reasons set forth below.
        Statutory Background
        The purpose of the Vehicle Safety Act is “to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents.” 49 U.S.C. Section 30101. Given that purpose, Congress determined that it was necessary to “prescribe motor vehicle safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.” Id. Each standard is required to be “practicable,” “meet the need for motor vehicle safety,” and “be stated in objective terms.” 49 U.S.C. Section 30111(a). The Act provides further that in prescribing a motor vehicle safety standard, the Secretary shall—

          * * *
          (3) consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed; and
          (4) consider the extent to which the standard will carry out section 30101 of this title.

        49 U.S.C. 30111(b).
        Definitions and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for Different Types of Motor Vehicles
        Pursuant to the mandate to issue FMVSSs, NHTSA has defined a variety of types of motor vehicles, including motorcycles and passenger cars, and established standards for them. NHTSA defines the term “motorcycle” as: “a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.” 49 CFR 571.3(b). This definition was established at the same time as the initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in 1967,4
           and has not been amended. NHTSA defines “passenger car” as “a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle, multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less.” 5
           49 CFR 571.3(b). Thus, unlike the case of a motorcycle, whether a vehicle is a “passenger car” does not depend on the number of wheels it is designed to travel on in contact with the ground.

            4 32 FR 2408, at 2409 (February 3, 1967).

            5 NHTSA defines the term “low speed vehicle” as follows:

            Low-speed vehicle (LSV) means a motor vehicle,
          (1) That is 4-wheeled,
          (2) Whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface, and
          (3) Whose GVWR is less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds).
          49 CFR 571.3(a).

        Petitioner Has Not Shown That Redefining “Motorcycle” Would Be Consistent With the Interests of Motor Vehicle Safety
        Since the fundamental purpose of the Vehicle Safety Act is to promote vehicle safety, the agency seeks above all to promote that purpose, after due consideration of all relevant factors, in determining whether a particular action should be taken under the Act.
        This purpose also informs our interpretation of the Act. While the Act obligates the agency to consider whether a standard is appropriate for the types of vehicles to which it applies, the primary intended effect of that requirement is to require the agency to take care that its standards do not have the effect of eliminating existing vehicle types. It does not compel the agency to take actions to facilitate the proliferation of unusual vehicle designs, particularly those that present new, potentially significant safety risks.
        Thus, it is important that the agency take great care in even contemplating the possibility of revising its definitions of motor vehicle types so as to move some vehicles from the passenger car category, which is subject to a wide array of requirements for safety features and systems, to the motorcycle category, which is subject to significantly narrower array of safety requirements. From its earliest years, the agency has demonstrated concern that the combination of vehicle design trends and vehicle type definitional changes could have the effect of making some vehicles subject to less comprehensive arrays of safety requirements than those applicable to motor vehicle types like passenger cars and trucks. In the early 1970's, the agency issued a number of notices concerning the treatment of three-wheeled motorcycles and very light four-wheeled vehicles under the FMVSS.

        Given the steadily rising death toll among motorcyclists, it is particularly important for the agency to exercise great caution in taking any action that would create a new variety of vehicles with motorcycle-like bodies. In June 2006, NHTSA issued a report, Recent Trends in Fatal Motorcycle Crashes: An Update,6

           which reported that since 1997, motorcycle rider fatalities have increased by 89 percent from 2,116 to 4,008 in 2004: “The latest 2004 data show that motorcycle rider fatalities increased for the seventh year in a row since 1997.” This report was subsequently updated on August 22, 2006, when NHTSA issued a press release 7
           announcing that motorcycle fatalities rose 13 percent from 4,028 in 2004 to 4,553 in 2005, meaning that motorcycle rider fatalities have increased for the eighth year in a row since 1997. The press release provided the following additional information about motorcycle rider fatalities:

            6 DOT HS 810 606 Technical Report published by NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis.

            7 NHTSA 07-06, Tuesday August 22, 2006.

        • In 2005, the annual number of motorcycle rider fatalities was 10.5 percent of all motor vehicle traffic crash fatalities for that year, compared to 5.0 percent in 1997.
        • Motorcycle rider fatalities and motorcycle registrations have both been on the rise since 1997. However, in most of these years, the rate of increase in motorcycle rider fatalities has been higher than the rate of increase in motorcycle registration (as reflected in the rate increase).
        • In 2005, motorcycle rider fatalities increased for every age group. The largest percentage increase was in the 50 and over age group, followed by the 20-29 and 30-39 age groups.

        With these considerations in mind, the agency assessed the potential impact of allowing the Quad to meet the FMVSSs for motorcycles instead of those for passenger cars. The Quad is substantially less crashworthy than conventional four wheeled vehicles, given their enclosed occupant compartment, or even convertibles. For example, the Quad has limited structure for absorbing crash energies and does not have any safety belts or inflatable protective devices. While the Quad may have some advantages over a motorcycle (of either the two or three-wheeled variety), e.g., it appears to be more stable, it does not appear to be markedly more crashworthy than a conventional motorcycle.
        The net effect on vehicle safety of granting this petition would depend in part on the vehicle purchasing choices that Quad purchasers would have made in the absence of the availability of a Quad subject only to motorcycle FMVSSs. The petitioner suggests that as some motorcyclists age, they would switch from a motorcycle to a Quad instead of switching to a conventional vehicle like a passenger car. To the extent that granting this petition would have this result, there would be a lessening of safety. Likewise, to the extent that aging motorcyclists would purchase and operate Quads at higher speeds than they would two or three wheeled motorcycles, this too could reduce safety.
        Based on the foregoing, NHTSA declines to redefine its longstanding definition of “motorcycle.” As stated in the background section, NHTSA's statutory mandate is to “reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents.” We see no safety benefit in encouraging more of a vehicle type with the safety record outlined above. Although petitioner asserts that its particular four-wheeled vehicle is safer alternative to two-or three-wheeled motorcycles, it nevertheless does not appear to meet any of the FMVSSs applicable to other four-wheeled vehicles, notably the passenger car standards. The agency recognizes that the number of Quads on the road is so limited that generation of meaningful crash data is not possible. Nevertheless, the agency has no data to allay its concerns described above. It does not have any data from any country where the four-wheeled vehicles are used in combined traffic with motorcycles, passenger cars, and other vehicle types as to the crash experience of four-wheeled “motorcycles” compared with the other vehicle types.
        We also note that a redefinition of “motorcycle” to include four-wheeled vehicles would not apply only to the petitioner's products. Such a redefinition would encourage many (particularly lower-end) vehicle manufacturers to manufacture products that do not meet passenger car or multipurpose passenger vehicle safety standards, but to manufacture four-wheeled “motorcycles.” Permitting such an easy means to evade the more stringent passenger car or multipurpose passenger vehicle standards would not meet the need for motor vehicle safety.
        Although the petitioner suggests a number of ways in which granting the petition might be in the public interest, the agency does not believe that those public interest arguments are sufficient to outweigh the agency's safety concerns. While agency has on at least one occasion adjusted its vehicle type definitions to allow a new class of vehicles (low speed vehicles) to come into being, it did so for vehicles that have very low speed capability and were expected to be operated in controlled environments, like gated communities, on roads with low posted speed limits. In addition, there were more substantial countervailing public interest arguments for permitting the LSV category than for permitting the Quad. In the final rule establishing the low speed vehicle category, the agency noted:

          This final rule responds to a growing public interest in using golf cars and other similar-sized, 4-wheeled vehicles to make short trips for shopping, social and recreational purposes primarily within retirement or other planned communities with golf courses. These passenger-carrying vehicles, although low-speed, offer a variety of advantages, including comparatively low-cost and energy-efficient mobility. Further, many of these vehicles are electric-powered. The use of these vehicles, instead of larger, gasoline-powered vehicles like passenger cars, provides quieter transportation that does not pollute the air of the communities in which they are operated.

        (63 FR 33194; June 17, 1998)
        NHTSA notes that persons with disabilities are not excluded from using motorcycles. Those who cannot use one or both of their legs currently ride three-wheeled motorcycles or two-wheeled motorcycles with a side car. The foot brake on a motorcycle can also be modified for hand use. For those who “no longer feel confident in operating a two-wheeled motorcycle but enjoy the open environment that the Quad offers,” convertible passenger cars provide a safe means of travel.
        For these reasons, especially given the consistent rise in motorcycle deaths since 1997, NHTSA is unwilling to take chances with the lives of American motorists, and therefore declines to permit a new permutation of a vehicle type that is already contributing to a rise in the highway death rate.
        Finally, the petitioner has asked that if NHTSA denies its petition, we provide advice on how it may import and sell the Quad in the United States. The denial of this petition means that before the Quad can be sold in the United States, the petitioner must ensure and certify that the Quad meets all applicable passenger car standards (See 49 CFR Part 571).
        In accordance with 49 CFR Part 552, this completes the agency's review of the petition. The agency has concluded that there is no reasonable possibility that the amendment requested by the petitioner would be issued at the conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding. Accordingly, the petition is denied.

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

          Issued on: November 17, 2006.
          Ronald L. Medford,
          Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.

       [FR Doc. E6-19824 Filed 11-22-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 120321209-2162-01]
        RIN 0648-BC08
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 5

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement Framework Adjustment 5 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (MSB FMP), which was developed and adopted by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and submitted to NMFS for approval. This action proposes broadening the scope of individuals and entities approved to complete vessel fish hold capacity certifications for vessels issued Tier 1 and 2 limited access Atlantic mackerel permits.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on October 22, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, including the Framework Document, are available from: Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The Framework Document is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov.

          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0103, by any one 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-2012-0103 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 to NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Dr. Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on MSB Framework Adjustment 5.”
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Lindsey Feldman;

            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 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.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Lindsey Feldman, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-675-2179, fax 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        Amendment 11 to the MSB FMP (76 FR 68642, November 7, 2011) implemented a three tiered mackerel limited access program in which all qualifiers were required to have possessed a valid permit on March 21, 2007. A vessel must have landed at least 400,000 lb (181.44 mt) in any one year 1997-2005 to qualify for a Tier 1 permit; at least 100,000 lb (45.36 mt) in any one year March 1, 1994-December 31, 2005, to qualify for a Tier 2 permit; or at least 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) in any one year March 1, 1994-December 31, 2005, to qualify for a Tier 3 permit. Trip limits for each tier are established annually through the specification process. The trip limits approved for 2012 are unlimited for Tier 1; 135,000 lb (61.23 mt) for Tier 2; and 100,000 lb (45.36 mt) for Tier 3.
        The tiered limited access program went into effect on March 1, 2012, and permit applications are being accepted through February 28, 2013. Vessel owners whose vessels are issued Tier 1 and 2 mackerel permits (the tiers with the highest access) are required to obtain a certification of the capacity of the vessel's fish hold(s). The final rule implementing Amendment 11 provided that a fish hold capacity certification must be made by an individual credentialed as a Certified Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the National Association of Marine Surveyors, or by an individual credentialed as an Accredited Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors. Vessel owners who have received a certification of their vessel's fish hold capacity by the Maine State Sealer of Weights and Measures also meet the fish hold capacity requirement. Vessel owners are required to submit documentation in support of their vessel's certified fish hold capacity to NMFS by December 31, 2012, or their first vessel replacement or upgrade, whichever comes first. The certified fish hold capacity will be considered a new baseline specification to control future vessel upgrades for vessels with Tier 1 and 2 mackerel permits. In addition to limiting vessel upgrades to 10 percent above the baseline gross registered tonnage, net tonnage, and length overall and 20 percent above the baseline horsepower, future upgrades to Tier 1 and 2 mackerel permits will be limited to 10 percent above the certified baseline fish hold capacity. Council staff and the Council developed the original credentialing requirements through background research, advisory panel meetings, input from several marine surveyors in the Mid-Atlantic and New England, and input during several rounds of public comment on the amendment. Since publication of the final rule for Amendment 11, two marine professionals commented that additional qualified individuals or entities should be approved to complete fish hold capacity certifications. Industry representatives suggested that individuals other than those with the credentials approved in Amendment 11 may be qualified to complete fish hold capacity certifications. To address this concern, the Council adopted Framework 5 on April 12, 2012, and submitted it to NMFS on April 18, 2012, for review and approval.
        This action proposes revising the fish hold capacity certification requirement to allow additional individuals or entities beyond those with credentials approved in Amendment 11 to complete fish hold capacity certifications. This framework action would expand the range of individuals and entities that are approved to complete hold capacity certifications and allow them also to be completed by employees or agents of a classification society approved by the Coast Guard pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 3316(c), Maine State Sealer of Weights and Measures, a professionally-licensed and/or registered Marine Engineer, or a Naval Architect with a professional engineer license. NMFS invites the public to comment on whether this expanded list is too broad or there are other individuals who should be added to this list because they have credentials reflecting their competence to make a fish hold certification of which NMFS is currently unaware. In addition, we invite public comment on whether there is a need for additional mechanisms to ensure that individuals and/or entities are qualified to perform fish hold capacity certifications. This list could be expanded in the final rule to include such individuals if NMFS determines it has a reasonable basis upon which to assess an individual's competence to make a fish hold certification. This action also proposes extending the date that vessels are required to submit fish hold capacity measurements by one year. Due to a delay in rulemaking, vessels with mackerel Tier 1 and 2 permits would be required to submit fish hold capacity measurements by December 31, 2013, instead of December 31, 2012.
        Classification

        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP, other provision 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 Council 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. For the reasons described below, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this framework action and none has been prepared.
        The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business in the commercial fishing sector as a firm with receipts (gross revenues) of up to $4.0 million. Party/charter small businesses are included in NAICS code 487210 and are defined as a firm with gross receipts of up to $7 million. Depending on the year, all 74 of the vessels required to complete hold certifications may qualify as small businesses, or a few may be above the 4.0 million dollar threshold depending on their landings in a given year. However, this action will not negatively impact any fishery participants, regardless of size.
        Amendment 11 analyzed the impacts from requiring Tier 1 and 2 mackerel vessels to obtain fish hold capacity measurements from an individual credentialed as a Certified Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the National Association of Marine Surveyors, from an individual credentialed as an Accredited Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors, or with certification by the Maine State Sealer of Weights and Measures. This action proposes to broaden the scope of individuals who are approved to complete the fish hold capacity measurement, but does not have any impact on small entities outside of the scope of those analyzed in Amendment 11. Although vessel owners will have more flexibility for obtaining a fish hold capacity measurement completed by a qualified individual under this action, this action is not expected to result in any change in the cost associated with obtaining the certification.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: September 17, 2012.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
          1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

          2. In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(5) (iii)(H)(1) is revised to read as follows:

            § 648.4
            Vessel permits.
            (a) * * *
            (5) * * *
            (iii) * * *
            (H) Vessel baseline specification. (1) In addition to the baseline specifications specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(H) of this section, the volumetric fish hold capacity of a vessel at the time it was initially issued a Tier 1 or Tier 2 limited access mackerel permit will be considered a baseline specification. The fish hold capacity measurement must be certified by one of the following qualified individuals or entities: An individual credentialed as a Certified Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the National Association of Marine Surveyors (NAMS); an individual credentialed as an Accredited Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors (SAMS); employees or agents of a classification society approved by the Coast Guard pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 3316(c); the Maine State Sealer of Weights and Measures; a professionally-licensed and/or registered Marine Engineer; or a Naval Architect with a professional engineer license. Owners whose vessels qualify for a Tier 1 or Tier 2 mackerel permit must submit a certified fish hold capacity measurement to NMFS by December 31, 2013, or with the first vessel replacement application after a vessel qualifies for a Tier 1 or Tier 2 mackerel permit, whichever is sooner. The fish hold capacity measurement submitted to NMFS as required in this paragraph (a)(5)(iii) must include a signed certification by the individual or entity that completed the measurement, specifying how they meet the definition of a qualified individual or entity.

      [FR Doc. 2012-23364 Filed 9-20-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P