Section 5304 of title 5, United States Code, authorizes locality pay for General Schedule (GS) employees with duty stations in the United States and its territories and possessions.

Section 5304(f) of title 5, United States Code, authorizes the President's Pay Agent (the Secretary of Labor, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)) to determine locality pay areas. The boundaries of locality pay areas must be based on appropriate factors, which may include local labor market patterns, commuting patterns, and the practices of other employers. The Pay Agent must give thorough consideration to the views and recommendations of the Federal Salary Council, a body composed of experts in the fields of labor relations and pay policy and representatives of Federal employee organizations. The President appoints the members of the Council, which submits annual recommendations to the Pay Agent about the locality pay program. The establishment or modification of pay area boundaries must conform with the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553).

Based on recommendations of the Federal Salary Council, we have used Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSA) designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the basis for locality pay areas since locality pay began in 1994. Under current regulations, locality pay areas change automatically the January following any changes in applicable CBSA definitions made by OMB.

OMB typically makes substantial changes in the definitions of CBSAs after each census. When OMB redefined CBSAs in 2003, we temporarily delinked locality pay area boundaries from the revised definitions to allow the Federal Salary Council and the Pay Agent time to review the new definitions to determine if the new definitions were suitable for use in the locality pay program. Based on the Council's recommendations in 2003, the Pay Agent later approved using the new CBSA—Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) and Combined Statistical Area (CSA)—definitions for defining locality pay areas.

OMB plans to once again update CBSA definitions in 2013, and the Federal Salary Council has recommended that we again temporarily delink locality pay area definitions from the new MSA and CSA definitions to provide time for review. Therefore, the Pay Agent is proposing amending 5 CFR part 531 to link locality pay areas to existing MSAs and CSAs as defined in OMB Bulletin 10-02 of December 1, 2009. Under the proposed rule, pay areas would not change to conform to new CBSA definitions unless the Pay Agent decides later to adopt the new definitions. The Pay Agent will make its determination after receiving and considering the recommendations of the Federal Salary Council.

The Pay Agent will publish for comment any proposed changes in locality pay areas based on the new definitions, if they are adopted. Under this proposed rule, locality pay areas will not change automatically when OMB changes metropolitan area definitions in 2013.

The proposed rule will have no effect on existing locality pay area definitions but will prevent any changes that would otherwise occur when OMB updates MSA and CSA definitions in 2013.

The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this rule in accordance with E.O. 13563 and E.O. 12866.

I certify that these regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they would apply only to Federal agencies and employees.

Accordingly, OPM is proposing to amend 5 CFR part 531 as follows:

We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2011-0190, dated September 30, 2011 (AD No. 2011-0190), to correct an unsafe condition for the Eurocopter France EC 155, SA 366, SA 365, and AS 365 model helicopters, except those with certain modifications. EASA reports that the fuel tank drains were closed with plugs during production to maintain buoyancy during emergency landings in water. EASA states that this closing of the fuel tank drains with plugs “disregards compliance with an airworthiness certification requirement” and, in the event of a fuel leak in flight, creates “the risk of fuel accumulation and/or migration” to an adjacent area that may contain electrical equipment “susceptible of constituting a source of ignition.” EASA states that this condition, if not corrected, could result in ignition of fuel vapors, “resulting in a fire and consequent damage to the helicopter, or injury to its occupants.” As a result, EASA required modification of the fuel tank compartments' draining system.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

Eurocopter issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. EC155-53A031 for its B and B1 model helicopters, ASB No. AS366-53.11 for its G1 model helicopters, and ASB No. AS365-53.00.50 for its N, N1, N2 and N3 model helicopters. The ASBs were all dated May 3, 2011, and were all followed with Revision 1 dated September 21, 2011.

For helicopters not equipped with emergency buoyancy fixed parts, the ASBs describe procedures to modify the fuel tank draining system by removing drain plugs in the fuel tanks, to make draining possible. For helicopters equipped with emergency buoyancy fixed parts, the ASBs contain additional procedures to seal one drain plug per fuel tank compartment and to install new drain points and self-sealing drain valves in specified fuel tanks. EASA AD No. 2011-0190 classifies these ASBs as mandatory to ensure the airworthiness of these helicopters.

This proposed AD would require compliance with certain sections within paragraph 3.B.2 of the manufacturer's service bulletins. Helicopters equipped with emergency buoyancy fixed parts would be required to comply within six months, and helicopters not equipped with emergency buoyancy fixed parts would be required to comply within 110 hours time-in-service.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 46 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we would expect the following costs:

Sealing drain plugs, and installing new drain points and self-sealing drain valves at other locations on helicopters equipped with emergency buoyancy fixed parts would require 16 work-hours. Parts would cost $11,154 for a total cost of $12,514 per helicopter. For helicopters equipped with emergency buoyancy fixed parts and a sixth fuel tank, this work would instead require 17 work-hours for a total cost of $12,599 per helicopter.

Removing drain plugs on helicopters not equipped with emergency buoyancy fixed parts would require one work-hour and no parts for a total cost of $85 per helicopter. For helicopters not equipped with emergency buoyancy fixed parts but equipped with a sixth fuel tank, this work would instead require two work-hours for a total cost of $170 per helicopter.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On May 14, 2009, Embraer S.A. applied for a type certificate for their new Model EMB-550 airplane. The Model EMB-550 airplane is the first of a new family of jet airplanes designed for corporate flight, fractional, charter, and private owner operations. The aircraft has a conventional configuration with low wing and T-tail empennage. The primary structure is metal with composite empennage and control surfaces. The Model EMB-550 airplane is designed for 8 passengers, with a maximum of 12 passengers. It is equipped with two Honeywell HTF7500-E medium bypass ratio turbofan engines mounted on aft fuselage pylons. Each engine produces approximately 6,540 pounds of thrust for normal takeoff. The primary flight controls consist of hydraulically powered fly-by-wire elevators, ailerons, and rudder, controlled by the pilot or copilot sidestick.

The flight control system for the Model EMB-550 airplane does not have a direct mechanical link or a linear gain between the airplane flight control surface and the pilot's cockpit control device, which is not accounted for in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.349(a). Instead, a flight control computer commands the airplane flight control surfaces, based on input received from the cockpit control device. The pilot input is modified by the flight control computer before the command is given to the flight control surface.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Embraer S.A. must show that the Model EMB-550 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-127 thereto.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model EMB-500 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model EMB-550 airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

The Model EMB-550 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The Model EMB-550 airplane is equipped with an electronic flight control system that provides control of the aircraft through pilot inputs to the flight computer. Current part 25 airworthiness regulations account for “control laws” where aileron deflection is proportional to control stick deflection. They do not address any nonlinearities, i.e., situations where output does not change in the same proportion as input, or other effects on aileron actuation that may be caused by electronic flight controls.

These special conditions differ from current regulatory requirements in that they require that the roll maneuver result from defined movements of the cockpit roll control as opposed to defined aileron deflections. Also, these special conditions require an additional load condition at design maneuvering speed (V A ), in which the cockpit roll control is returned to neutral following the initial roll input.

These special conditions differ from similar special conditions previously issued on this topic. These special conditions are limited to the roll axis only, whereas other special conditions also included pitch and yaw axes. Special conditions are no longer needed for the yaw axis because 14 CFR 25.351 was revised at Amendment 25-91 to take into account effects of an electronic flight control system. No special conditions are needed for the pitch axis because the method that Embraer S.A. proposed for the pitch maneuver takes into account effects of an electronic flight control system. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model EMB-550 airplane. Should Embraer S.A. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model EMB-550 of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550 airplanes.

1. Design Roll Maneuver for Electronic Flight Controls.

In lieu of compliance to 14 CFR 25.349(a), the Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550 airplane must comply with the following.

The following conditions, speeds, and cockpit roll control motions (except as the motions may be limited by pilot effort) must be considered in combination with an airplane load factor of zero and of two-thirds of the positive maneuvering factor used in design. In determining the resulting control surface deflections, the torsional flexibility of the wing must be considered in accordance with 14 CFR 25.301(b).

(a) Conditions corresponding to steady rolling velocities must be investigated. In addition, conditions corresponding to maximum angular acceleration must be investigated for airplanes with engines or other weight concentrations outboard of the fuselage. For the angular acceleration conditions, zero rolling velocity may be assumed in the absence of a rational time history investigation of the maneuver.

(b) At V A , sudden movement of the cockpit roll control up to the limit is assumed. The position of the cockpit roll control must be maintained until a steady roll rate is achieved and then must be returned suddenly to the neutral position.

(c) At V C , the cockpit roll control must be moved suddenly and maintained so as to achieve a roll rate not less than that obtained in paragraph (b).

(d) At V D , the cockpit roll control must be moved suddenly and maintained so as to achieve a roll rate not less than one third of that obtained in paragraph (b).

The USPTO is considering means for collecting and disseminating information about the real-party(ies)-in-interest for patent applications and issued patents. It is increasingly clear that the completeness of the patent record, including the ownership of patent applications and patents, plays an essential role in the efficient functioning of innovation markets. Since intangible assets now make up over fifty percent of the value of business outputs of U.S. industry, intellectual property rights are one key mechanism by which such intangibles can be exchanged, providing profits for innovators and moving technologies to their most efficient uses in the economy.

To avoid business and legal risk, the clearing of intellectual property rights is often undertaken by manufacturers or distributors prior to production and marketing. In such cases, the clearance of intellectual property rights is often made more difficult and time-consuming, legally risky, and expensive because current ownership information on patent applications and issued patents is not available. An incomplete ownership record thus presents a significant barrier to competition and market efficiency. Markets operate most efficiently when buyers and sellers can find one another. Yet in our current system, fragmented ownership in the patent rights covering complex products leads to potential buyers facing difficulty finding sellers, and to potential innovators not understanding the nature of the marketplace they are considering entering.

To address the need for accurate ownership information for pending patent applications and issued patents, the USPTO is interested in providing more complete patent ownership information to the public, in accordance with the Office's duty under 35 U.S.C. 2(a)(2) of “disseminating to the public information with respect to patents.”

A more complete ownership record would produce a number of benefits. The public would have a more comprehensive understanding of what patent rights being issued by the United States are being held and maintained by various entities. The financial markets would have more complete information about the valuable assets being generated and held by companies. Inventors and manufacturers would better understand the competitive environment in which they are operating, allowing them to better allocate their own research and development resources, and more efficiently obtain licenses and accurately value patent portfolios and patent estates that they may seek to acquire.

Beyond providing these public benefits, accurate and up-to-date ownership information is needed to facilitate examination of patents by the USPTO, particularly in light of certain new provisions of the America Invents Act, Public Law 112-29 (Sept. 16, 2011) (“AIA”), that will become effective in March 2013. Courts have previously recognized that the USPTO has the authority to promulgate regulations that “shall govern the conduct of proceedings in the Office.” Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)); see also Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“To comply with section 2(b)(2)(A), a Patent Office rule must be `procedural'—i.e., it must `govern the conduct of proceedings in the Office.’ ”). Pursuant to this authority, the Office may require the submission of information that is reasonably necessary to proper examination or treatment of the matter at hand, provided that such requests are not arbitrary or capricious. See Star Fruits, 393 F.3d at 1283-84.

Furthermore, the USPTO seeks real-party-in-interest information in part to ensure that a “power of attorney” is current in each case. The USPTO has a strong interest in ensuring that current representatives in any proceeding before the USPTO are authorized by the current owner. See Lacavera v. Dudas, 441 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he PTO has broad authority to govern the conduct of proceedings before it and to govern the recognition and conduct of attorneys.”).

Moreover, for patent proceedings before the Office, it is important for the USPTO to know the real party(ies) in interest in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest for judges and examiners alike. For example, “in the case of the Board, a conflict would typically arise when an official has an investment in a company with a direct interest in a Board proceeding. Such conflicts can only be avoided if the parties promptly provide information necessary to identify potential conflicts.” See Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions, 77 FR 48612, 48617 (Aug. 14, 2012). Like administrative patent judges at the Board, “[p]atent examiners are quasi-judicial officials.” Western Elec. Co., Inc. v. Piezo Tech., Inc., 860 F.2d 428, 431 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citing Butterworth v. United States ex rel. Hoe, 112 U.S. 50, 67 (1884)). Accordingly, a clear identification of the real-party-in-interest is important to ensure that officials are able to recuse themselves in view of any conflict-of-interest apparent from the disclosure. In addition, “[t]he identity of a real party in interest might also affect the credibility of evidence presented in a proceeding.” 77 FR at 48617.

Additionally, changes made by the America Invents Act to the categories of what constitutes prior art increase the need to have accurate and up-to-date ownership information about patent applications and issued patents in order to make determinations of novelty. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b). In particular, section 102(b)(2)(C) exempts as prior art those patent applications or issued patents that name different inventors where “the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person” (emphasis added). Because ownership of an earlier-filed patent application or issued patent may prevent its use as prior art against a later-filed patent application, patentability may depend not just on the content of the prior art patent application or issued patent, but also on who owns it.

Further, new section 102(b)(2)(C) differs from the previous statutory provision on which it was based, 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(1) (2011). While section 103(c)(1) (2011) concerned an exception to obviousness rather than an exception to what constitutes prior art, it otherwise recited virtually identical language to that of the current section 102(b)(2)(C) except that section 103(c)(1) stated that patentability was not precluded where “the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.” Under the earlier section 103(c)(1), whether earlier subject matter was prior art was established at the time when the claimed invention in the later-filed application was “made,” by considering whether the earlier subject matter was owned by the same entity that owned (or had a right to own) the claimed invention that was just made. In contrast, under new section 102(b)(2)(C), there may be an opportunity—in the period before the filing of the second application—for ownership to change in a way that affects whether the earlier patent or patent application is prior art for purposes of section 102(b). As a result, tracking ownership information for patent applications and issued patents is directly relevant to questions of novelty during prosecution and to mechanisms for challenging patents post-issuance.

In the prosecution context, the new section 102(b)(2)(C) presents the possibility that a greater amount of prior art might be subject to this exemption than under previous section 103(c)(1), which, in turn, could render the current method of handling the possibility of common ownership—the examiner presenting an initial rejection, and the applicant rebutting the rejection with proof of ownership, see MPEP section 706.02(1)(2)—inefficient in a manner that would undermine the principles of compact prosecution. See id. at section 706 (“The goal of examination is to clearly articulate any rejection early in the prosecution process so that the applicant has the opportunity to provide evidence of patentability and otherwise reply completely at the earliest opportunity.”).

In addition, the availability of new types of third-party proceedings that may be filed with the USPTO has created a need for the Office to collect and publish timely ownership information. Previously, many “proceedings in the Office” were initiated by patent applicants or applicants-turned-patentees. In the relatively recent past, third parties have become able to initiate ex parte reexamination proceedings (1981) as well as inter partes reexamination proceedings (1999). Such third party-initiated reexamination proceedings often arose out of disputes between the patentees and third-party requestors. Now, under the AIA, parties with no ownership interest in the patent, i.e., third parties, are entitled to request initiation of certain post-grant proceedings before the Office, including inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. 311 and post-grant review under 35 U.S.C. 321. Because of certain statutory deadlines imposing short time frames for action ( e.g., nine months after patent grant, see 35 U.S.C. 321(c)), it may often be impractical or impossible for third parties to discover ownership information through other means, such as through disputes arising between patentees and third parties. Accordingly, whether to initiate such proceedings is a decision that third parties will often have to make based primarily on the USPTO record, making it important for that record to contain ownership information that is as accurate and complete as possible.

In particular, both inter partes reexamination and post-grant review proceedings contemplate that challenges may be predicated on prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). See 35 U.S.C. 311(b) and 321(b) (allowing for use of prior art under, inter alia, section 102(b)(2)(C) in inter partes and post-grant review proceedings, respectively). But third parties will not necessarily be able to ascertain what is properly considered prior art under section 102(b)(2)(C) without access to accurate ownership information for patent applications and issued patents (including a record of whether and how ownership has changed). In part for this reason, the Office plans not only to collect such ownership information, but also to make it publicly available concurrently with the publication of patent applications or issued patents.

In addition, for patents that enter any kind of post-grant review proceedings, the Office requiring the submission of updated ownership information for that patent (or a confirmation that the ownership information has not changed) would facilitate reexamination for the reasons discussed previously in this notice. Furthermore, it would allow the Office to verify that a bona fide third party is making the request for inter partes review or post-grant review, as required by 35 U.S.C. 311(a) and 321(a), respectively; to verify that the petitioner applying for review of a covered business method patent is a real-party-in-interest or privy to an entity that has been sued or charged with infringement of that patent, as required by 37 CFR 42.302(a); and to verify that a bona fide patent owner is making the request for supplemental examination, as required by 35 U.S.C. 257(a).

Moreover, because the USPTO will be collecting and publishing this information, it also has an interest in ensuring that such public information remains as accurate and up-to-date as possible. This is consistent with several statutory provisions directing the Office to disseminate information to the public as well as those directing the Office to provide access to information through electronic means. See 35 U.S.C. 2(a)(2) (creating a duty of “disseminating to the public information with respect to patents”); section 10(a)(4) (providing for publication of information, including “annual indexes of * * * patentees”); section 10(b) (providing that the “Director may exchange * * * for publications desirable for the use of the [Office]”); and section 41(i) (creating a duty to provide access to information electronically).

The USPTO published a Request for Comments on November 23, 2011, regarding whether regulations should be promulgated for the collection of assignment and real-party-in-interest information for both applications and patents. See Request for Comments on Eliciting More Complete Patent Assignment Information, 76 FR 72372 (Nov. 23, 2011). Responses to this request for comments were more favorable towards the proposal than unfavorable. See http://www.uspto.gov/ patents/law/comments/patent_assignment_information.jsp.

The USPTO is now planning to conduct a roundtable at its Alexandria, Virginia, campus to discuss with the patent and innovation community whether—and, if so, how—the USPTO should require submission of real-party-in-interest information throughout the pendency of an application and the enforceable life of a patent. To focus the discussion, the USPTO provides the following description of what information it envisions collecting, and how such information will be collected and published:

The USPTO proposes to collect “real-party-in-interest” (“RPI”) information on patent applications and patents in order to facilitate examination before the Office and for the other reasons and benefits discussed above. The USPTO believes that these interests can be met through the collection of RPI information where RPI is defined in at least two different ways, described in more detail below. It is important to note that the Office would consider whatever definition is adopted for this purpose as not necessarily coinciding with how the term real-party-in-interest may be used elsewhere in the Office, or with the term “ownership” as that term is used in Title 35 and in the Office's implementing regulations. The Office welcomes comments on the definitions proposed here for RPI, as well as the suitability of other definitions or standards.

Under the first alternative definition, RPI would correspond to those entities having the legal right to enforce the patent, i.e., those parties that would be necessary and sufficient to bring a legal infringement action. See Vaupel Textilmaschinen KG v. Meccanica Euro Italia SPA, 944 F.2d 870, 875-76 (Fed. Cir. 1991); 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(1). As discussed above, this information is directly relevant to identifying conflicts of interest that might arise in examination contexts. Moreover, it is consistent with the need to make prior art determinations under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) because it identifies all parties that might have a claim to ownership of the patent application or issued patent. This definition would likely require disclosure of exclusive licensees in certain cases. This RPI information would be useful both to the Office and to the public by providing a clear idea of all the entities that have an interest in the patent application or issued patent as well as, for patents, a clear idea of the entity(ies) in possession of the legal right to exclude. See 35 U.S.C. 154.

Under the second alternative definition, the interested parties needing to be disclosed would be limited to the legal title holder(s) and “ultimate parent entity(ies)” of the patent application or issued patent. The term “ultimate parent entity” would be based on the definition (along with the accompanying examples) set forth in 16 CFR 801.1(a)(3), which defines it as “an entity which is not controlled by any other entity.” The rationale behind defining RPI in this manner is to limit the entities that need to be identified based on the assumption that although not every interested entity would be listed, information about these other parties (if needed) could, in most cases, be deduced or obtained from the information provided. For example, information provided about the ultimate parent entity would be likely to alert the examiner to a conflict of interest not otherwise disclosed in many cases, even if the actual conflict concerned a subsidiary entity that did not itself need to be disclosed. Focusing information collection on the ultimate parent entity could also facilitate searches for patent applications and issued patents having common ownership, which could be of benefit to the Office and public alike. Moreover, this narrower definition of RPI would have the benefit of potentially reducing administrative costs in collecting and updating RPI information. Exclusive licensee information would likely not need to be provided, and following section 801.1, the United States or foreign states would not need to be reported as ultimate parent entities (though they may still be legal title holders). Although the Office considers the definition in section 801.1 as a model, the Office welcomes any suggestions on how to modify the definition to be more suitable for use before the USPTO, and on whether the direct adoption of a well-established definition would itself be beneficial.

For purposes of facilitating examination and the ability of third parties to appropriately seek to challenge patents post-issuance, the USPTO aims to provide RPI information for patent applications and issued patents that is as up-to-date and accurate as possible. To this end, the USPTO envisions collecting such information at the time that an application is initially filed for internal examination purposes (though this information will be treated as confidential in accordance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 122); requiring applicants to notify the Office about any changes in RPI information during prosecution; and verifying on at least two occasions that the information on file is correct: immediately prior to 18-month publication (though patent applications would only be published in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 122), and prior to issuance. For issued patents, the Office will likewise require the information on file to be verified or updated when maintenance fees are paid and if the patent becomes involved in any post-issuance proceedings before the Office.

The Office plans to collect RPI information from applicants in the application data sheet (for example, Application Data Sheet, PTO/SB/14) instead of, or in addition to, the current “Assignee” information. Intervening updates would be submitted to the Office through the submission of an additional “change form.” An applicant would have a duty to update the RPI information within a reasonable time period of any change. See 37 CFR 1.56. The Office envisions that a reasonable period of time would be within three months of any reportable change, similar to the presumptive period of time in which applicants are expected to reply to any notice or action by the Office in the context of patent term adjustments under 37 CFR 1.704(b). The pre-18-month publication verification would likely necessitate the submission of a new form. For issuance, the Office envisions this process as simply including a statement that the applicant or owner “certifies that the RPI information on file at the USPTO is accurate and unchanged.” Any unreported changes at this time could be fixed by filling out the aforementioned change form and, as appropriate, any fees or explanation why such change had not been reported earlier. The USPTO welcomes feedback about how long a presumptive reasonable time period would be and about mechanisms for excusing late updates in appropriate circumstances. See, e.g., 37 CFR 1.137 (providing for revival of lapsed patents or patent applications where delay was unavoidable or unintentional).

After patent issuance, the USPTO intends to have RPI information verified at the time of maintenance fee payments using a procedure similar to that outlined for issuance of a patent (the inclusion of a statement verifying that the USPTO information is accurate, or the submission of a change form if not). The Office likewise plans to collect such information any time that an issued patent is involved in a proceeding before the Office post-issuance, including: reissue applications under 35 U.S.C. 251, supplemental examinations under 35 U.S.C. 257, reexaminations under 35 U.S.C. 302, inter partes reviews under 35 U.S.C. 311, post-grant reviews under 35 U.S.C. 321, and the transitional program for covered business method patents under 37 CFR part 42, subpart D.

In sum, the Office envisions collecting or verifying RPI information as follows:

The Office envisions this process applying to new applications filed after the date of any final rules coming into effect and after 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) becomes effective on March 16, 2013. For pending applications where there has already been submission of an application data sheet, applicants would be required to submit RPI information at the next event described above (prior to 18-month publication or prior to issuance, or in conjunction with any continuing applications), and would then be responsible for updating any changes thereafter, through patent issuance. For issued patents, RPI information would be required in conjunction with the payment of the next maintenance fee, and with any subsequent maintenance fee payments thereafter—or instead, verification that the RPI information on file is unchanged.

While the USPTO would be able to use the information collected immediately for examination purposes, RPI information would be made available to the public in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 122, with RPI information being published in conjunction with the publication of a patent application or issued patent. The Office anticipates providing information about the current RPI as well as a history of any RPI changes in an accessible electronic format, such as on Public PAIR, in conjunction with a patent application or issued patent.

The number of participants in the roundtable is limited to ensure that all who are speaking will have a meaningful chance to do so. The USPTO plans to invite a number of participants from patent user, practitioner, industry, and independent inventor organizations, as well as academia, industry, and government to provide input. The USPTO also plans to have a few at-large participants based upon requests received in response to this notice to ensure that the USPTO is receiving a balanced array of views on possible requirements for patent ownership recordation.

The roundtable is open to the public, but participation in the roundtable is by request, as the number of participants in the roundtable is limited. While members of the public who wish to participate in the roundtable must do so by request, members of the public who wish solely to observe need not submit a request to attend. Any member of the public, however, may submit written comments for consideration by the USPTO on issues raised at the roundtable or on any issue pertaining to patent ownership recordation. Persons submitting written comments should note that the USPTO does not plan to provide a “comment and response” analysis of such comments, as this notice is not a notice of proposed rulemaking.

The USPTO plans to make the roundtable available via Web cast. Web cast information will be available on the USPTO's Internet Web site before the roundtable. The written comments and list of the roundtable participants and their associations will also be posted on the USPTO's Internet Web site.

VA published a proposed rule on November 5, 2012, implementing section 803 of Public Law 111-275, the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010, that amended subsection 3901(1)(A) of title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.), by reformatting the statute and adding “severe burn injury (as determined pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary)” as one of the disabilities that VA will consider when making a determination of eligibility for financial assistance in the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment. Pursuant to the authority granted to the Secretary in 38 U.S.C. 501(a) and 3901(1)(A)(iv), VA proposes to amend 38 CFR 3.808 to define the term “severe burn injury.” In the proposed amendment to 38 CFR 3.808, we redesignated current paragraph (b)(4) as (b)(5) and added a new paragraph (b)(4) to define “severe burn injury,” as one of the conditions that determines entitlement for a certificate of eligibility for financial assistance in the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment. We found that newly proposed paragraph (b)(4) contained grammatical errors. This document corrects those grammatical errors.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA proposes to correct 38 CFR part 3 as follows:

The Coast Guard encourages you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2010-0048), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. The Coast Guard recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that the Coast Guard can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert “USCG- 2010-0048” in the “Search” box. Click “Search.” Click on “Submit a Comment” in the “Actions” column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 ; 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.

The Coast Guard will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert “USCG-2010-0048” in the “Search” box. Click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Coast Guard has an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

The Coast Guard does not plan to hold a public meeting. You may submit a request for one to the docket using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES . In your request, explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If the Coast Guard determines that one would aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register .

On October 11, 2011, the Coast Guard published an interim rule titled, “Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization With International Standards” (interim rule) in the Federal Register . See 76 FR 62962. As part of that interim rule, which became effective on November 10, 2011, the Coast Guard issued new subparts of 46 CFR part 160, including subpart 160.115 addressing launching appliance winches, and subpart 160.133 addressing release mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats, which are approved to the requirements of the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended (SOLAS).

The Coast Guard issued an interim rule because in May 2011, the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) amended its international standards regarding release mechanisms. See 76 FR 62962.

Additionally in the interim rule, the Coast Guard announced plans to publish in a future Federal Register document proposed changes to Coast Guard regulations to implement the IMO amendments regarding performance requirements for lifeboat and rescue boat release mechanisms that the Coast Guard determines appropriate for purposes of harmonization and consistency with international standards, and to finalize the interim rule at the same time the Coast Guard issues any final rule for those proposed changes. 76 FR 62962.

The Coast Guard is issuing this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to address amendments to international standards affecting the design and performance of release mechanisms that were adopted by the IMO, and that will enter into force on January 1, 2013. The IMO amendments to the international standards affect 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.133. The interim rule removed longstanding separate subparts for release mechanisms (46 CFR 160.033) and lifeboats (46 CFR 160.035) approved strictly for domestic service. 76 FR 62975. Therefore, this SNPRM potentially affects any U.S.-flagged vessel required to carry a lifeboat after the finalization of this proposed rule.

As discussed in the “Basis and Purpose” section of the interim rule, the Coast Guard is charged with ensuring that lifesaving equipment used on vessels subject to inspection by the United States meets specific design, construction, and performance standards, including those found in SOLAS, Chapter III, “Life-saving appliances and arrangements.” See 46 U.S.C. 3306; 76 FR 62963. The Coast Guard carries out this charge through the approval of lifesaving equipment per 46 CFR part 2, subpart 2.75. The approval process includes pre-approving lifesaving equipment designs, overseeing prototype construction, witnessing prototype testing, and monitoring production of the equipment for use on U.S. vessels. See 46 CFR part 159. At each phase of the approval process, the Coast Guard sets specific standards to which lifesaving equipment must be built and tested.

The Coast Guard's specific standards for release mechanisms are found in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.133 (Release Mechanisms for Lifeboats and Rescue Boats (SOLAS)). Subpart 160.133 implements current SOLAS requirements for lifeboat release mechanisms by incorporating by reference the IMO standards referenced by Chapter III of SOLAS. The primary IMO standards referenced by Chapter III of SOLAS are the “International Life-saving Appliance Code,” IMO Resolution MSC.48(66), as amended (hereinafter “IMO LSA Code”), and the “Revised recommendation on testing of life-saving appliances,” IMO Resolution MSC.81(70), as amended (hereinafter “Revised recommendation on testing”). The IMO updates these standards by adopting MSC Resolutions promulgating amendments to these standards.

Subpart 160.133 incorporates by reference the latest published version of the IMO LSA Code and the Revised recommendation on testing. Sections 160.133-5(c)(2) and (c)(3) incorporate by reference the parts of IMO's publication “Life-saving Appliances, 2010 Edition” that include the IMO LSA Code and the Revised recommendation on testing. The “Life-saving Appliances, 2010 Edition” includes all amendments to the IMO LSA Code and Revised recommendation on testing adopted through 2010. These amendments are discussed in the NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2010, titled “Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization with International Standards.” See 75 FR 53458.

On May 20, 2011, IMO adopted two new MSC Resolutions further amending the IMO LSA Code and the Revised recommendation on testing: IMO Resolution MSC.320(89), “Adoption of amendments to the International Life-saving Appliance (LSA) Code,” and IMO Resolution MSC.321(89), “Adoption of amendments to the Revised Recommendation on Testing of Life-saving Appliances (Resolution MSC.81(70)), as amended.”

Resolution MSC.320(89) amends the IMO LSA Code and enters into force on January 1, 2013. This Resolution amends the design and performance requirements for release mechanisms by requiring—

• The hook portion to be “stable” such that when the hook is in the closed and reset position and under load from the lifeboat, no forces are transmitted back to the release handle;

• specific components within the system to be made of corrosion-resistant materials without the need for galvanizing;

• that, for moveable hook designs that are not of the “load over center” type (i.e., that are designed to rotate when a load is applied to the hook face), the moveable hook component is kept fully closed by the hook locking parts so that it is capable of holding its safe working load under any operational conditions until the hook locking part is deliberately caused to open by means of the operating mechanism;

• that if a hydrostatic interlock or similar device is provided to indicate that the lifeboat or rescue boat is waterborne, it automatically resets upon lifting the boat from the water;

• multiple actions to perform on-load release, including the deliberate destruction of a “break glass” or similar arrangement;

• operational capability of up to 100 percent of the release hook's design load under conditions of trim of up to 10 degrees and a list of up to 20 degrees either way;

• release mechanisms of the hook tail and cam type to remain closed and hold their design load through rotation of the cam of up to 45 degrees in either direction, or 45 degrees in one direction if restricted by design, from its locked position; and

• operating links and cables to be waterproof and not have exposed or unprotected areas.

Resolution MSC.321(89) amends the Revised recommendation on testing and enters into force on January 1, 2013. This Resolution specifies revisions to the prototype testing of release mechanisms supporting the amendments to the IMO LSA Code. The revisions to the testing include:

• a demonstration that the moveable hook component, when disconnected from the operating mechanism, remains closed while under a load equivalent to the B-weight of a lifeboat (see “Full load” definition in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.135-3) at a speed of 5 knots.

• a demonstration that a lifeboat release mechanism loaded at 100 percent of the design load of the release hook will successfully release under load 50 consecutive times, as well as simultaneously in the case of twin-fall systems;

• a demonstration that the moveable hook component, when disconnected from the operating mechanism, remains closed when tested 10 times with a cyclical loading from no load to 110 percent of the design load, or 1 percent to 110 percent of design load for load over center designs, at 10 seconds per cycle;

• a demonstration that the actuating force under the design load of the release mechanism is between 100 N and 300 N (22.5 lbf and 67.5 lbf); and

• prototype testing of a second unit, repeating the actuation force test before undergoing a tensile test at six times the design safe working load.

The Coast Guard proposes to revise subpart 160.133 to incorporate by reference IMO Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89). Beyond the obligations to adopt the changes to the IMO LSA Code and Revised recommendation on testing as a signatory to the SOLAS convention, the Coast Guard desires to incorporate by reference the amendments in IMO Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) because they provide a higher standard of safety and performance than that of the existing requirements incorporated by reference in § 160.133-5. Further, for manufacturers, harmonization with current international standards will facilitate marketing of their products internationally.

The United States actively participated in the negotiations that led to the development of these IMO standards. The Coast Guard considers these IMO standards to represent the best available standards for the design and performance of release mechanisms and to be appropriate for lifeboats and rescue boats subject to inspection by the United States. In order to facilitate international commerce with other contracting governments to SOLAS that follow IMO standards, and to achieve the benefits of the increased safety of adhering to these IMO standards, the Coast Guard has, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 3306 and 46 CFR 159.005-7(c), deemed compliance by U.S.-flagged ships with the IMO standards as compliance with Coast Guard domestic regulations.

The effect of this proposed change would be that all davit-launched lifeboats for Coast Guard approval under subpart 160.135, and SOLAS rescue boats and fast rescue boats for Coast Guard approval under subpart 160.156 (other than those fitted with automatic release hooks under approval series 160.170), would be required to have a release mechanism approved under this revised subpart 160.133. See § 160.135-7(b)(17) (“Each release mechanism must be identified at the application for approval of the prototype lifeboat and must be approved under 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.133”) and 160.156-7(b)(18) (“Each release mechanism fitted to a rescue boat, including a fast rescue boat, must be identified at the application for approval of the prototype rescue boat and must be approved under subparts 160.133 or 160.170 of this part.”). Davit-launched lifeboats and SOLAS rescue boats and fast rescue boats already installed prior to the implementation of this SNPRM will not be affected.

Beyond the new IMO Resolutions discussed above, the Coast Guard is also proposing amendments to § 160.115 to clarify the winch drum design requirements, and editorial amendments to correct non-substantive errors in 46 CFR part 160, subparts 160.133, 160.135, and 160.156.

The Coast Guard proposes to replace 46 CFR 160.115-7(b)(5)(i) with text that requires winch drums to either be grooved or otherwise designed to wind the falls evenly on and off each drum. The Coast Guard is proposing to make this change because winch drum designs are increasingly being shown to be effective at winding the falls on and off the drum without grooves, (i.e., winch drums with a smooth drum design instead of the traditional grooved drum design). The proposed change in § 160.115-7(b)(5)(i) does not modify the standard of design or performance for winch drums. Rather, the proposed change is intended to clarify the current regulation text which requires drums to be grooved “unless otherwise approved by the Commandant.” The primary standard by which the Coast Guard evaluates the design and performance of launching appliances, IMO LSA Code Chapter VI, “Launching and embarkation appliances” (referenced in § 160.115-7(a)(1)), does not require drums to be grooved, but requires the falls to wind evenly on and off the drum(s).

For many years, the Coast Guard has approved winches with smooth drums under approval series 160.115 as providing equivalent performance to grooved drums. However, there remains some confusion on the interpretation of existing § 160.115-7(b)(5)(i) with respect to the approval of winches without grooved drums. The Coast Guard believes this proposed change would reduce confusion about the Coast Guard's criteria for acceptance of non-grooved drums in launching appliance winches by providing manufacturers with clearer language regarding the intended design performance.

The Coast Guard proposes to add a new paragraph (4) to § 160.115-13(d), which would support the proposed revision to 46 CFR 160.115-7(b)(5)(i) by ensuring that any non-grooved drum design is still shown at the prototype testing phase to be as effective at evenly winding the falls on and off the drum surface as a grooved drum.

The Coast Guard proposes to amend the title of subpart 160.133 by removing “(SOLAS).” As stated in the interim rule published on October 11, 2011, the Coast Guard removed the standard for domestic release mechanisms under 46 CFR 160.033 and created one standard for release mechanisms under 160.133. Therefore the use of “SOLAS” in the title is unnecessary and may be misleading when installing release mechanisms approved under subpart 160.133 in lifeboats serving U.S. vessels only on domestic routes. Changing the title would make it consistent with other subparts affected by the interim rule. The Coast Guard also proposes changing the title of subpart 160.135, which will be discussed in the section below titled, “ Revisions to 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.135, and subpart 160.156.”

The Coast Guard proposes to correct the misspelling of “life-saving” in the title of the “Revised recommendation on testing of life-saving appliances” in § 160.133-5(c)(3) which was incorrectly spelled as “live-saving”.

The Coast Guard proposes to revise § 160.133-5(c) to incorporate by reference IMO Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) in new paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7), respectively. Because of the incorporation by reference of these Resolutions in § 160.133-5(c), references to the IMO LSA Code in §§ 160.133-3, 160.133-7(a)(1), 160.133-7(b)(8), and 160.133-7(b)(9) would be revised with “as amended by Resolution MSC.320(89),” and references to the Revised recommendation on testing in §§ 160.133-7(a)(2) and 160.133-13(d)(2) would be revised with “as amended by IMO Resolution MSC.321(89).” Revising these incorporations by reference would affect the provisions in §§ 160.133-7 and 160.133-13, which refer to the Revised recommendation on testing, as discussed in part IV above.

Because IMO Resolution MSC.320(89) requires “all components of the hook unit, release handle unit, control cables or mechanical operating links and the fixed structural connections in a lifeboat [to] be of material corrosion resistant in the marine environment without the need for coatings or galvanizing,” the current ASTM standard for structural carbon steel incorporated by reference in § 160.133-5 is a conflicting standard. This standard would no longer be appropriate because these steels require coatings or galvanizing to be corrosion resistant. Therefore, the Coast Guard proposes to remove § 160.133-5(b)(1), incorporating by reference ASTM A 36/A 36M-08, “Standard Specification for Carbon Structural Steel,” and to remove the accompanying standard for galvanizing in § 160.133-5(b)(5), incorporating by reference ASTM A 653/A 653M-08, “Standard Specification for Steel Sheet, Zinc-Coated (Galvanized) or Zinc-Iron Alloy-Coated (Galvannealed) by the Hot-Dip Process.” Because § 160.133-5 already contains three standards for stainless steel that meet the non-galvanized, corrosion-resistant material requirement of IMO Resolution MSC.320(89), the Coast Guard further proposes to retain and renumber § 160.133-5(b)(2), (3), and (4), incorporating by reference the three ASTM stainless-steel standards. The Coast Guard seeks public comment on other corrosion-resistant material standards for possible incorporation by reference in § 160.133-5(b).

The Coast Guard proposes to amend § 160.133-7(b)(3) to remove reference to ASTM A36 and ASTM A653, as these standards would no longer apply as described above. As proposed, the references to the ASTM standards would be replaced with language requiring each major structural component of each release mechanism to be constructed of corrosion-resistant steel that meets the standards for type 302 stainless steel in ASTM A 276, ASTM A 313, or ASTM A 314 (incorporated by reference, see § 160.133-5 of this subpart). The proposed language would also permit other corrosion-resistant materials to be used if accepted by the Commandant as having equivalent or superior corrosion-resistant characteristics without the need for coatings or galvanizing.

The Coast Guard proposes to remove § 160.133-7(b)(15), which requires each release mechanism to have mechanical protection against accidental or premature release that can only be engaged when the release mechanism is properly and completely reset. The Coast Guard recognized that the requirements in this paragraph were already addressed in the existing IMO LSA Code (incorporated by reference in § 160.133-5(c)(2)), paragraph 4.4.7.6.4, related to lifeboat fittings, and are not affected by IMO Resolution MSC.320(89) that amends the IMO LSA Code. Therefore, removing existing § 160.133-7(b)(15) would eliminate a redundancy with the incorporation by reference of the IMO LSA Code.

The Coast Guard proposes to remove § 160.133-13(d)(2)(iii), which contains a stipulation regarding galvanizing, because galvanizing is no longer an acceptable form of metal treatment for corrosion resistance under IMO Resolution MSC.320(89) and its removal is consistent with the proposed removal of ASTM A 653 in §§ 160.133-5 and 160.133-7 discussed above. The Coast Guard would re-number paragraphs consistent with the removal of these items. The Coast Guard proposes to remove the last two sentences in paragraph (e) of § 160.133-15, consistent with the proposed removal of ASTM A 653.

The Coast Guard proposes to amend § 160.133-15(e) by removing the last two sentences, which require each approved release mechanism to be constructed with non-corrosion-resistant steel that meets the coating mass and bend tests requirement specified under ASTM A 653 after galvanizing or other anti-corrosion treatment has been applied. This amendment is consistent with the changes to § 160.133-5, § 160.133-7 and § 160.133-13 discussed above as related to the use of galvanized steel.

The Coast Guard proposes to amend the title of § 160.135 by removing “(SOLAS).” As stated in the interim rule published on October 11, 2011, the Coast Guard removed the standard for lifeboats for merchant vessels under 46 CFR 160.035 and created one standard for lifeboats under 160.135. Therefore the use of “SOLAS” in the title is unnecessary and may be misleading when installing lifeboats approved under § 160.135 on U.S. vessels only on domestic routes. Regardless of domestic or international service, U.S. vessels must carry lifeboats approved under approval series 160.135. See 46 CFR 199.201 and 199.261. Changing the title to subpart 160.135 will make it consistent with the title of other subparts affected by the interim rule. The Coast Guard does not propose to remove “SOLAS” from the title of 46 CFR 160.156 for rescue boats and fast rescue boats because the Coast Guard retained the domestic, locally approved rescue boat standard in 46 CFR 160.056.

The Coast Guard proposes to amend § 160.135-15(e)(2) and § 160.156-15(e)(2) to include the reference to the Revised recommendation on testing part 2, paragraph 5.3 and to remove the redundant statement, “At a minimum, each [lifeboat/rescue boat] must be operated for 2 hours during which all [lifeboat/rescue boat] systems must be exercised.” Under existing § 160.135-15(e)(2) and § 160.156-15(e)(2), the Coast Guard expected all of the production tests of IMO Revised recommendation on testing part 2, paragraph 5.3, as applicable to the type of boat, to be performed on all approved lifeboats and rescue boats. By amending § 160.135-15(e)(2) and § 160.156-15(e)(2), the Coast Guard will make this requirement clear. The requirement to operate each production lifeboat and rescue boat for 2 hours is already included in the IMO Revised recommendation on testing part 2 (incorporated by reference in § 160.135-5 and § 160.156-5), paragraph 5.3, and thus the Coast Guard proposes removal of this sentence from § 160.135-15(e)(2) and § 160.156-15(e)(2). Because of the existing incorporation by reference of the Revised recommendation on testing in § 160.135-15 and § 160.156-15, these sections would be added as approved incorporations by reference in § 160.135-5(d)(4) and § 160.156-5(d)(4), respectively.

The Coast Guard also proposes to amend § 160.135-15(d), which sets forth independent laboratory responsibilities, by amending the reference to paragraph (e)(2) so that it references all of paragraph (e). This amendment would correct a typographical error; § 160.135-15(d) was intended to have the same language as 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.156-15(d), which correctly references paragraph (e) in its entirety. Without this correction, it may be misinterpreted that the independent laboratory does not have responsibility for witnessing the lifeboat in-process tests and inspections outlined in § 160.135-15(e)(1).

The Coast Guard proposes to amend § 160.135-15(e)(1)(iv) to correct the typographical error referencing § 160.135-13(c)(2)(i)(B), which does not exist, and replace it with the correct reference, which is § 160.135-11(c)(2)(i)(B).

Additionally, the Coast Guard proposes to correct typographical errors in § 160.156-7(b)(13), § 156-9(b)(22)(iv), and § 156-9(d)(2) by replacing the word “lifeboat” with the correct term, “rescue boat,” because § 160.156 applies to rescue boats only. The Coast Guard also proposes to amend § 160.156-15(e)(1) by removing the phrase “In accordance with the interval prescribed in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.” Part of the Coast Guard's original intent when drafting this rule was consistency of language throughout the affected subparts where possible. This phrase does not appear in any other subpart affected by the interim rule and inadvertently remained in 160.156-15(e)(1) when the interim rule was published. Removal of this phrase will also eliminate the typographical error in § 160.156-15(e)(1) by removing reference to § 160.156-15(d)(1), which does not exist.

Finally, the Coast Guard proposes to remove the cite to 49 CFR 1.46 in the authorities section of part 160 and part 164 because that authority applies to the Department of Transportation, under which the Coast Guard no longer operates. The Coast Guard currently operates under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security.

If these proposed changes to incorporate by reference IMO Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) are finalized, any manufacturer of SOLAS release mechanisms who wants to continue to manufacture such release mechanisms under a Certificate of Approval issued under existing subpart 160.133 would have to provide the Coast Guard with an application for pre-approval review in accordance with § 160.133-23 (Procedure for approval of design, material, or construction change). The application would have to indicate how the existing release mechanism, or a new or revised design, meets the requirements of proposed § 160.133-7 incorporating by reference the amendments to the IMO LSA Code from IMO Resolution MSC.320(89). If the information submitted in accordance with § 160.133-23, for changes to existing designs, or § 160.133-9, for new designs, is satisfactory to the Commandant, the manufacturer would be permitted to proceed with fabrication of the prototype release mechanism and the approval inspections and tests required under proposed § 160.133-13 incorporating by reference the amendments to the Revised recommendation on testing from IMO Resolution MSC.321(89). The Coast Guard would document compliance with Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) by means of amended Certificates of Approval under subpart 160.133.

Similarly, if these proposed changes are finalized, any manufacturer of davit-launched lifeboats and those manufacturers of SOLAS rescue boats or fast rescue boats with installed release mechanisms approved under existing subpart 160.133 who want to continue manufacturing such boats under a Certificate of Approval issued under subpart 160.135 or 160.156, respectively, would have to provide the Coast Guard with an application for pre-approval review in accordance with § 160.135-23 or § 160.156-23 (Procedure for approval of design, material, or construction change). This application would have to indicate the proposed installation of a release mechanism meeting the requirements of the proposed § 160.133-7 incorporating by reference the amendments to the IMO LSA Code from IMO Resolution MSC.320(89). If the information submitted in accordance with § 160.135-23 or § 160.156-23 is satisfactory to the Commandant, the manufacturer would be permitted to proceed with fabrication of the prototype lifeboat or rescue boat, and would be notified of the extent of any prototype testing needed for reissuance of the Certificate of Approval under 160.135 or 160.156. The Coast Guard would document compliance with Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) by means of amended Certificates of Approval under subparts 160.135 and 160.156 indicating installation of a release mechanism demonstrated to meet Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89).

Material proposed for incorporation by reference appears in proposed 46 CFR 160.133-5(c)(6) and (c)(7). You may inspect this material at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters where indicated under ADDRESSES . Copies of the material are available from the sources listed in paragraph (A) of that section.

Before publishing a final rule, the Coast Guard will submit this material to the Director of the Federal Register for approval of the incorporation by reference.

The Coast Guard developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below the Coast Guard summarizes its analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the 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). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

This SNPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the SNPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. A draft regulatory assessment follows:

The proposed rule would amend the existing regulations for release mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats in order to harmonize Coast Guard regulatory requirements with the international standards established by the IMO. The proposed rule specifically requires U.S. standards regarding design, construction, performance, and testing of release mechanisms to be harmonized to the IMO's standards. This harmonization is required—

• For the U.S. to comply with its treaty obligations as a contracting government to SOLAS by harmonizing Coast Guard requirements for release mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats with the international standards established by the IMO LSA Code; and

• To clarify requirements and remove inconsistencies between the requirements for SOLAS compliance and the sections of 46 CFR regulating release mechanisms on lifeboats and rescue boats.

In addition, the proposed rule would add wording to 46 CFR 160.115-7(b)(5)(i) that would clarify the Coast Guard's acceptance of non-grooved winch drums as an alternative to grooved drums on launching appliance winches. Currently that section states, “A winch must have grooved drums unless otherwise approved by the Commandant.” The section would be reworded to state, “Winch drums must either be grooved or otherwise designed to wind the falls evenly on and off each drum.” As such, this change clarifies requirements by specifying criteria used by the Coast Guard in historic approvals directly in the regulations, thereby reducing paperwork and regulatory uncertainty. The proposed change in § 160.115-7(b)(5)(i) would not modify the standard of design, performance, or testing for winch drums. Approval requests for non-grooved winch drums are a component of the application process for all winch drums (grooved and non-grooved), along with many other lifesaving appliances (i.e., davits, lifeboats, etc.), that must be approved by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard estimates that any time saved associated with this clarification to the winch drum approvals would be minimal. In addition, there are already manufacturers of non-grooved or smooth winch drums. For these reasons, there are no cost implications for industry from the rewording of § 160.115-7(b)(5)(i). The purpose of the modification of the wording in § 160.115-7(b)(5)(i) is to clarify the Coast Guard's criteria for acceptance of non-grooved or smooth winch drums as an alternative to grooved drums.

Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed rule's applicability, affected population, costs, and benefits. Each of these factors is discussed in greater depth in the sections following the table.

The proposed rule would potentially affect three groups. The first consists of U.S. manufacturers of release mechanisms, the second consists of vessels that are required to be equipped with lifeboats or rescue boats, and the third consists of U.S. manufacturers of non-grooved or smooth winch drums.

There is currently only one U.S. manufacturer of release mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats. 1 This manufacturer is, however, in the process of phasing out production of the release mechanisms manufactured from galvanized steel or its equivalent (as required under current regulations)  2 before January 1, 2013. This manufacturer, which is also the only known manufacturer of galvanized steel mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats in the U.S., will be manufacturing only stainless-steel release mechanisms, manufactured from corrosion-resistant materials and without the need for galvanizing (or its equivalent),  3 and complying with the latest IMO requirements, before that date. The manufacturer is planning this phase-out because it expects the market for galvanized steel mechanisms approved to the current requirements to disappear. 4 Because the manufacturer's phase-out will occur independently of whether the proposed rule is implemented, the manufacturer would experience no additional cost impact due to this proposed rule. If the proposed rule is implemented, the manufacturer, by the time of the proposed rule's implementation, will have already incurred the cost of the switchover from the galvanized steel mechanisms to those manufactured with corrosion-resistant material without the need for galvanizing. The decision will have been made based on expected changes in market conditions and will also be in compliance with the new IMO requirements.

There are a total of five potential manufacturers of non-grooved or smooth winch drums. 5 As stated previously, the proposed regulation would not modify production, design, or testing standards associated with these winch drums, nor would it change reporting and recordkeeping requirements surrounding their sale or use. Therefore, the Coast Guard does not expect there would be any cost or collection of information implications to U.S. manufacturers.

Based on data from the Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database, the Coast Guard estimates the total number of vessels affected by the proposed rule to be 391, of which 289  6 are SOLAS certified (hereinafter referred to as SOLAS vessels), and 102 are non-SOLAS.  7 This proposed rule would require these vessels to comply with new IMO requirements and use release mechanisms made from corrosion-resistant materials without the need for galvanizing (or regulatory equivalent), instead of a galvanized steel release mechanism (or regulatory equivalent) for any future replacements of on-load release mechanisms installed in existing life or rescue boats. Release mechanisms currently in place would not need to be replaced except in two limited circumstances. These are:

(1) Accidents that result in the damage of the mechanisms themselves or accidents that damage lifeboats and rescue boats seriously enough to require replacement. 8 A search was conducted of the MISLE database system for such accidents from 2003 through 2011. Based on accidents found during this period, six release mechanisms were estimated to need replacement on SOLAS vessels and six on non-SOLAS vessels. This yields an average of less than one release mechanism needing replacement per annum. In all of these accidents, there was only one accident that resulted in injuries, and these injuries were slight. 9

(2) Release mechanisms may need to be replaced due to their deterioration from normal wear and tear. However, both private sector and Coast Guard subject matter experts have stated that the lifespans of both galvanized and stainless-steel mechanisms generally exceed the lifespan of the lifeboats and rescue boats on which they are carried. Therefore, the Coast Guard does not expect any replacements resulting from deterioration or normal wear and tear. 10

Lifeboats and rescue boats installed on or after the implementation of the final rule by in-scope vessel owners and operators would need to meet the requirements in IMO resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) in order to obtain SOLAS certification. Therefore, the proposed rule would not have any additional cost impact to this class of vessels. The non-SOLAS vessels would have to upgrade to the non-galvanized, corrosion-resistant mechanisms compliant with the new requirements whenever they need to replace any mechanisms in the future for either of the reasons cited above, or for newly constructed lifeboats and rescue boats.

If release mechanisms meeting both the current and the new requirements were available, the Coast Guard assumes vessel owners and operators would purchase the less-expensive of the two, those meeting the current requirements. Release mechanisms approved to the current requirements (such as those made of galvanized steel) were found to be $1,500 less-expensive, per unit, than those meeting the new requirements (corrosion-resistant mechanisms). 11 As stated above, however, the one supplier of galvanized steel on-load release mechanisms is expected to stop manufacturing them before the proposed rule would take effect on January 1, 2013. Foreign entities that have manufactured these mechanisms have also, based on our research, discontinued manufacturing them. 12 Therefore, the galvanized steel mechanisms (or their equivalent) will no longer be available for purchase. Only the non-galvanized, corrosion-resistant mechanisms that are in compliance with the IMO requirements will be available. The single U.S. manufacturer is phasing out the galvanized steel mechanisms irrespective of whether the proposed rule is enacted. The single U.S. manufacturer is planning this phase-out because it no longer sees a future market for the galvanized steel mechanisms. 13 As a result, consumers will be able to purchase only the corrosion-resistant mechanisms.

The proposed rule would amend the existing regulations for release mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats in order to harmonize Coast Guard regulatory requirements with the international standards established by the IMO. The harmonization specifically requires U.S. standards regarding design, construction, performance, and testing of release mechanisms to be harmonized to the IMO's standards.

Benefits from the harmonization of the Coast Guard regulatory requirements to the IMO standards include the following:

(1) Fulfilling U.S. treaty obligations to the IMO;

(2) The Coast Guard and vessel owners and operators would face less uncertainty and more efficient Coast Guard inspections during vessel inspections because only one type of release mechanism would have to be inspected as opposed to two.

(3) The inclusion of performance criteria for approval of non-grooved or smooth winch drums to the language contained in § 160.115-7(b)(5)(i), and the addition of proposed new § 160.155-13(d)(4), reduces any uncertainty to U.S.-based manufacturers and users of such winch drums. If the proposed regulation is finalized, it will be clear that such products, when approved by the Coast Guard, will be equivalent to grooved winch drums in terms of performance.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast Guard has considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of fewer than 50,000.

There are three industries that may potentially face a direct cost resulting from the proposed rule. The first industry consists of the single U.S. manufacturer of release mechanisms. The second industry consists of the five manufacturers of winch drums. The third industry consists of owners and operators of vessels equipped with in-scope lifeboats and rescue boats. Based on data from the Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database, the Coast Guard estimates the total number of vessels affected by the proposed rule to be 391, of which 289  14 are SOLAS certified and 102 are non-SOLAS.  15 The Coast Guard has determined that a significant number of small entities in these three industries will not be substantially impacted and the explanation for this determination appears in the paragraphs that follow.

With respect to the single U.S. manufacturer of release mechanisms, the Coast Guard does not expect that there would be any cost impact because, as stated previously, prior to January 1, 2013, the only U.S. manufacturer of the galvanized steel mechanisms is planning to discontinue manufacturing them. 16 Based on our research (as of March 2012), there are no manufacturers of galvanized steel release mechanisms (or their equivalent) outside of the U.S. Therefore, the galvanized steel mechanisms (or their equivalent) will no longer be available for purchase. Only the non-galvanized, corrosion-resistant mechanisms that are in compliance with the IMO requirements will be available. The single U.S. manufacturer is phasing out the galvanized steel mechanisms irrespective of whether the proposed rule is enacted. The single U.S. manufacturer is planning this phase-out because it no longer sees a future market for the galvanized steel mechanisms. 17

With respect to the five U.S. manufacturers of winch drums, as stated previously, the proposed regulation will not modify the requirements regarding production, design, or testing standards for non-grooved and smooth winch drums. The proposed regulation will also not impose further reporting burdens on manufacturers. This is because there is no specific application, per se, regarding non-grooved and smooth drums that must be sent to the Coast Guard and processed by the Coast Guard. Approval requests for non-grooved winch drums are a component of the application process for all winch drums (grooved and non-grooved), along with many other lifesaving appliances (i.e., davits, lifeboats, etc.), that must be approved by the Coast Guard.

With respect to the in-scope owners and operators of vessels, the marginal additional cost stemming from the requirements to fulfill the proposed rule are expected to be minimal. This is because, as stated previously, regardless of whether or not the proposed rule is implemented (i.e., independent thereof), prior to the implementation of the proposed rule the cheaper galvanized steel release mechanisms will no longer be available in the market place. The single U.S. manufacturer will no longer be manufacturing galvanized steel release mechanisms. Thus vessel owners will only be able to purchase stainless steel release mechanisms.

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. George Grills, Commercial Regulations and Standards Directorate, Office of Design and Engineering Standards, Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-4), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-13851385, or email George.G.Grills@uscg.mil. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) nor would it adjust an existing collection of information.

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power among the various levels of government. The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under that order and has determined that it does not have implications for federalism. A summary of our analysis follows.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized the field preemptive impact of the Federal regulatory regime for inspected vessels. See, e.g., Kelly v . Washington ex rel Foss, 302 U.S. 1 (1937) and the consolidated cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 113-116 (2000). Therefore, the Coast Guard's view is that regulations issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3306 in the areas of design, construction, alteration, repair, operation, superstructures, hulls, fittings, equipment, appliances, propulsion machinery, auxiliary machinery, boilers, unfired pressure vessels, piping, electric installations, accommodations for passengers and crew, sailing school instructors, sailing school students, lifesaving equipment and its use, firefighting equipment, its use and precautionary measures to guard against fire, inspections and tests related to these areas, and the use of vessel stores and other supplies of a dangerous nature have preemptive effect over State regulation in these fields, regardless of whether the Coast Guard has issued regulations on the subject, and regardless of the existence of conflict between the state and Coast Guard regulation.

While it is well settled that states may not regulate in categories in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, as these categories are within a field foreclosed from regulation by the states (see U.S. v. Locke, above), the Coast Guard recognizes the key role State and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally, Sections 4 and 6 of Executive Order 13132 require that for any rules with preemptive effect, the Coast Guard will provide elected officials of affected state and local governments and their representative national organizations the notice and opportunity for appropriate participation in any rulemaking proceedings, and to consult with such officials early in the rulemaking process. Therefore, the Coast Guard invites affected State and local governments and their representative national organizations to indicate their desire for participation and consultation in this rulemaking process by submitting comments to the docket using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the Coast Guard will provide a federalism impact statement to document (1) the extent of the Coast Guard's consultation with State and local officials that submit comments to this proposed rule, (2) a summary of the nature of any concerns raised by State or local governments and the Coast Guard's position thereon, and (3) a statement of the extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been met.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any 1 year. Although this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, the Coast Guard does discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in the preamble.

This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Coast Guard has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This proposed rule uses technical standards other than voluntary consensus standards:

• International Life-Saving Appliance Code, (IMO Resolution MSC.48(66)), as amended by IMO Resolution MSC.320(89);

• IMO Resolution MSC.81(70), Revised recommendation on testing of life-saving appliances, as amended by IMO Resolution MSC.321(89).

The proposed sections that reference these standards and the locations where these standards are available are listed in 46 CFR 160.133-5. They are used because we did not find voluntary consensus standards that are applicable to this rule. If you are aware of voluntary consensus standards that might apply, please identify them by sending a comment to the docket using one of the methods under ADDRESSES . In your comment, please explain why you think the standards might apply.

If you disagree with our analysis of the voluntary consensus standards listed above or are aware of voluntary consensus standards that might apply but are not listed, please send a comment to the docket using one of the methods under ADDRESSES . In your comment, please explain why you disagree with the Coast Guard's analysis and/or identify voluntary consensus standards not listed that might apply.

Section 608 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-281) adds new section 2118 to 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II (Vessels and Seamen), Chapter 21 (General). New section 2118(a) sets forth requirements for standards established for approved equipment required on vessels subject to 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II (Vessels and Seamen), Part B (Inspection and Regulation of Vessels). Those standards must be “(1) based on performance using the best available technology that is economically achievable; and (2) operationally practical.” See 46 U.S.C. 2118(a). This proposed rule addresses lifesaving equipment for Coast Guard approval that is required on vessels subject to 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II, Part B, and the Coast Guard has ensured that this proposed rule would satisfy the requirements of 46 U.S.C. 2118(a), as necessary.

The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under the “Public Participation and Request for Comments”' section of this preamble. This proposed rule involves regulations that are editorial, regulations concerning equipping of vessels, and regulations concerning vessel operation safety standards. This proposed rule is categorically excluded under Section 2.B.2, Figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(a) and (d) of the Instruction and under paragraph 6(a) of the “Appendix to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy” (67 FR 48243, July 23, 2002). The Coast Guard seeks any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 46 CFR parts 160 and 164 as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in IB Docket No. 12-299, FCC 12-125, adopted on October 10, 2012 and released on October 11, 2012. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The document also is available for download over the Internet at http://transition.fcc.gov/Dailylowbar;Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1011/FCC-12-125A1.pdf. The complete text also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), located in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI at its Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com, or call 1-800-378-3160.

Pursuant to §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated above. 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).

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS Web site at 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 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes 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.

1. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes changes to the criteria that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) considers in analyzing applications filed by foreign carriers or affiliates of foreign carriers for entry into the U.S. market for international telecommunications services and facilities pursuant to section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 2 of the Cable Landing License Act. The Commission seeks comment in the NPRM on proposals to eliminate or, in the alternative, simplify the ECO Test that applies to Commission review of (1) international section 214 applications, (2) cable landing license applications, and (3) notifications of foreign carrier affiliations. The ECO Test is a set of criteria designed to protect the U.S. telecommunications market from potential anticompetitive activities by foreign carriers or their affiliates with market power in their country. The Commission currently applies the ECO Test to applications filed by foreign carriers or their affiliates from countries that are not members of the WTO. The Commission also applies the ECO Test in the context of its rules requiring authorized U.S. international carriers and cable landing licensees to notify the Commission of their foreign carrier affiliations.

2. In the 1995 Foreign Carrier Entry Order, the Commission concluded that the public interest would be served by regulating the entry of foreign carriers or their affiliates into the U.S. market for international telecommunications and facilities under section 214 of the Communications Act. In that proceeding the Commission adopted rules that examined, as one factor in its overall public interest analysis of an application for international section 214 authority, whether “effective competitive opportunities” exist for U.S. carriers in the destination markets of foreign carriers seeking to enter the U.S. international services market through affiliation with a new or existing carrier. The Commission applied the ECO Test only to applications to provide service to foreign points where the affiliated foreign carrier had market power, and the Commission's analysis did not distinguish between World Trade Organization (WTO) countries and non-WTO Member countries. Although the Foreign Carrier Entry Order did not discuss application of the ECO Test to submarine cable applications, the Commission historically had applied an analysis similar to the section 214 ECO Test analysis on a case-by-case basis under the Cable Landing License Act.

3. The Commission, in its 1997 Foreign Participation Order, replaced the section 214 ECO Test adopted in the Foreign Carrier Entry Order, with an open entry standard for applicants from WTO Member countries. The Commission adopted a rebuttable presumption by which it presumes that foreign investment from WTO Member countries does not pose competitive concerns in the U.S. market. The Commission, however, retained the ECO Test with respect to foreign entrants from non-WTO Member countries, finding that circumstances that existed when it adopted the Foreign Carrier Entry Order had not changed sufficiently with respect to countries that were not members of the WTO, i.e., that non-WTO countries were not liberalized and presented legal and practical barriers to entry. The Commission concluded that its goals of increasing competition in the U.S. telecommunications service market and opening foreign telecommunications service markets would continue to be served by opening the U.S. market to applicants from non-WTO countries where the applicants can demonstrate that there are effective competitive opportunities for U.S. carriers in the foreign country. The Commission did not presume, however, that an application from a carrier in either a WTO or non-WTO country poses no national security, law enforcement, foreign policy or trade policy concerns, and accords deference to Executive Branch agencies in identifying and interpreting issues of concern related to these matters.

4. ECO Test Criteria for Section 214 Applications and Notifications: The ECO Test that applies to international section 214 authority applications filed by foreign carriers or certain of their affiliates is codified in section 63.18(k) of the Commission's rules. For section 214 applications, the Commission's rules require that a foreign carrier applicant from a non-WTO country must demonstrate: (1) The legal ability of U.S. carriers to enter the foreign market and provide facilities-based and/or resold international services, in particular international message telephone service (IMTS), (2) the existence of reasonable and nondiscriminatory charges, terms and conditions for interconnection to a foreign carrier's domestic facilities for termination and origination of international services or the provision of the relevant resale service, (3) the existence of competitive safeguards in the foreign country to protect against anticompetitive practices, (4) the existence of an effective regulatory framework in the foreign country to develop, implement and enforce legal requirements, interconnection arrangements and other safeguards, and (5) any other factors the applicant deems relevant to the ECO Test demonstration.

5. The Commission also applies the ECO Test in the context of its rules requiring authorized international section 214 carriers to notify the Commission of their foreign carrier affiliations. A U.S. authorized carrier that acquires or seeks to acquire an affiliation with a foreign carrier that is authorized to operate in a non-WTO country that the U.S. carrier is authorized to serve under section 214 must show, under the ECO Test requirements in § 63.18 of the Commission's rules, that its operations on the route for which it proposes to acquire an affiliation with the non-WTO foreign carrier continues to serve the public interest. If the U.S. carrier cannot make this showing, or demonstrate that the foreign carrier lacks market power in the non-WTO Member country, then the Commission may impose conditions necessary to address any public interest harms or may proceed to an immediate revocation hearing.

6. ECO Test criteria for Submarine Cable Applications and Notifications: The Commission's ECO Test as it applies to applications for submarine cable landing licenses filed by foreign carriers or certain of their affiliates is not codified in the rules. The test is similar, but not identical, to the analysis for international section 214 applications. The Commission examines: (1) The legal, or de jure, ability of U.S.-licensed companies to have ownership interests in submarine cables landing in the foreign market, and (2) if no explicit legal restrictions on ownership exist, the practical, or de facto, ability of U.S.-licensed companies to have ownership interests in cable facilities in the foreign market. The Commission also considers other public interest factors consistent with its discretion under the Cable Landing License Act that may weigh in favor of or against grant of a license, including any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy or trade policy concerns that may be raised by a particular application.

7. In addition, the Commission applies the ECO Text in the context of its rules requiring U.S. authorized cable landing licensees to notify the Commission of their foreign carrier affiliations. Under Commission rules, U.S. cable landing licensees have a continuing obligation to notify the Commission of an affiliation with a foreign carrier authorized to operate in a destination market where the U.S.-licensed cable lands. In certain circumstances, cable landing licensees have an obligation to obtain prior approval before acquiring an affiliation with a foreign carrier authorized to operate in a market where the U.S.-licensed cable lands. That is, the U.S. licensee must demonstrate in its notification either that the foreign carrier lacks market power in that country or that there are effective competitive opportunities for U.S.-licensed companies to land and operate submarine cables in that country. If the licensee is unable to make either showing, then the Commission may impose conditions on the authorization or proceed to an authorization revocation hearing.

8. Re-examining the ECO Test: The Commission now believes it is time to review the requirements of the ECO Test as it applies to section 214 authority applications, cable landing license applications, and foreign carrier affiliation notifications. There are now 156 countries that are Members of the WTO (in addition to the European Union), and 27 observer countries that are in the process of joining, or acceding to, the WTO. While this leaves approximately one-quarter of all countries outside the WTO that have not opened up their markets pursuant to WTO accords, the non-WTO Member countries represent a de minimis fraction, or approximately five percent of the world's gross domestic product. The detailed ECO Test requirements, as initially adopted in the Foreign Carrier Entry Order, were designed to be applied to countries that could support advanced regulatory regimes. Today, the ECO Test applies only to non-WTO Member countries, and these countries are small countries that may not have the necessary resources to support a regulatory framework that meets the detailed ECO Test requirements.

9. The Commission therefore proposes to re-examine current ECO Test requirements to either eliminate the ECO Test or modify ECO Test criteria it uses in review of section 214 applications, cable landing license applications, and foreign carrier affiliation notifications. If the ECO Test is maintained, the Commission proposes to codify that test in its rules governing submarine cable landing license applications. However, whether the ECO Test is eliminated or modified, the Commission proposes to continue to maintain its review of section 214 applications, cable landing license applications, and foreign carrier affiliation notifications under its dominant carrier safeguards and “no special concessions” rules. These rules, according to the Commission in previous rulings, help to prevent certain anticompetitive strategies that foreign carriers can use to discriminate among their U.S. carrier correspondents, such as refusal to interconnect and circuit blocking. Absent these rules, foreign carriers with market power could use their market power to discriminate in favor of certain U.S. carriers, including their own affiliates. Furthermore, applications for section 214 authority and cable landing licenses, and foreign affiliation notifications, that involve foreign carrier entry or investment will continue to be coordinated with the appropriate Executive Branch agencies, and the Commission will accord deference to their views in matters related to national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade policy that may be raised by a particular transaction.

10. Proposals to Eliminate the ECO Test: The Commission seeks comment on elimination of the ECO Test for section 214 authorizations, cable landing licenses and foreign carrier affiliation notifications. If the ECO Test is eliminated, the Commission would maintain the distinction in its rules between carriers or affiliates from WTO and non-WTO Member countries. Non-WTO applicants for section 214 authorizations would no longer be required to demonstrate compliance with the ECO Test. Instead, the Commission would rely on its authority to analyze potential anticompetitive harm on a case-by-case basis to make a public interest determination as to whether U.S. carriers are experiencing competitive problems in that market, and whether the public interest would be served by authorizing the foreign carrier to enter the U.S. market. The case-by-case analysis would require applicants to submit the information to us required by our rules applicable to section 214 applications and cable landing license applications. The applications would not be eligible for streamlined processing, and the foreign carrier affiliation notifications would continue to be subject to a 45-day notification prior to consummation of the transaction. Existing section 214 carriers and cable landing licensees would still have to provide information showing that it is, or is seeking to become affiliated with, a foreign carrier with market power in a non-WTO country. The Commission could consult with the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and other agencies as to any anticompetitive problems that may exist for U.S. companies in the country of the applicant. U.S. carriers would also have an opportunity to file comments as to whether they have experienced problems in entering the relevant market of a non-WTO country. The Commission would have the flexibility to request additional information, if needed, which may be similar to the type of information required by the current ECO Test. If the Commission finds that U.S. carriers are experiencing competitive problems in that market, then it would have the flexibility to seek additional information from the applicant relating to U.S. carrier ability to enter the foreign market of the applicant and impose, if necessary, appropriate conditions on the authorization or license.

11. The Commission requests comment on eliminating an ECO Test determination from our rules and policies applicable to U.S.-licensed companies and applicants under section 214 of the Communications Act and under the Cable Landing License Act. Specifically, commenters should address whether the Commission's dominant carrier safeguards and the “no special concessions” rules provide adequate protection against anti-competitive harm, or whether additional safeguards are necessary to protect U.S. carriers from competitive harm in their provision of U.S. international services and facilities on routes between the United States and non-WTO countries.

12. In proposing elimination of the ECO Test, the Commission seeks comment on to what extent eliminating the ECO Test would reduce costs incurred by carriers by the review of applications involving an ECO Test determination, and whether there may be benefits in retaining the ECO Test criteria that outweigh the costs and burdens associated with it.

13. Alternative Proposal to Modify the Section 214 ECO Test: If the Commission maintains the ECO Test, it seeks comment on ways to simplify and improve its application. First, under a modified approach, the Commission proposes retaining—either in a rule or by application on a case-by-case basis under our broad authority—the first prong of the section 214 ECO Test that requires the Commission to determine whether U.S. carriers have the legal, or de jure, ability to enter the foreign destination market and provide international facilities-based services and/or resold services. The Commission requests commenters to identify and comment on known legal barriers to entry in markets of non-WTO Member countries that may continue to exist, and more specifically of how laws, regulations, policies, and practices known to commenters prevent U.S. carriers from competing in a particular foreign market should this legal requirement be removed.

14. In modifying the ECO Test, the Commission also proposes to eliminate certain criteria that it considers to determine whether there are practical, or de facto, effective competitive opportunities for U.S. carriers to enter the foreign destination market. Specifically, the Commission proposes to eliminate (1) the requirement that applicants show that there is an effective regulatory framework in the foreign country to develop, implement, and enforce legal requirements, interconnection arrangements and other safeguards, and (2) the requirement that applicants must show whether competitive safeguards exist in the foreign country to protect against anticompetitive practices, with the exception of retaining a competitive safeguard that requires timely and nondiscriminatory disclosure of technical information needed to interconnect with carriers' facilities. Therefore, the Commission would continue to require applicants to show that there are reasonable and nondiscriminatory charges, terms, and conditions for interconnection to a foreign carrier's domestic facilities for termination and origination of international services. The Commission seeks comment on whether there is a practical basis for retaining these requirements based on carriers' experiences interconnecting to a foreign carrier's domestic facilities for termination and origination of international services. Further, the Commission also seeks comment on whether there is a policy basis for retaining current ECO Test criteria that apply to remaining non-WTO markets, and whether fewer criteria or additional criteria are required for either type of authorization.

15. Codification of the Submarine Cable ECO Test: The ECO Test for submarine cable landing licenses is not codified in the Commission's rules. Whether or not the ECO Test is eliminated or modified, the Commission proposes to amend the cable licensing rules to include certifications concerning foreign carrier affiliations in a manner similar to section 214 authorization rules. If the Commission retains the ECO Test, then the Commission proposes to codify in the cable landing license rules an ECO Test that contains criteria similar to the section 214 ECO Test criteria proposed in the alternative rules. Under this approach, the Commission seeks comment on proposed rules that would require applicants from non-WTO countries to demonstrate that U.S. carriers have both the legal, or de jure, and practical, or de facto, ability to own and operate submarine cables in a country where a cable lands. To demonstrate de facto ability, the applicant would have to show that U.S. carriers would have the ability to collocate facilities, provide or obtain backhaul capacity, access technical network information, and interconnect to the public switched telephone network. These proposed rules would also apply to notifications filed by a cable landing licensee that becomes, or seeks to become, affiliated with, a foreign carrier possessing market power in a non-WTO Member country where the cable lands. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.

16. The Commission also requests comment on the benefits and costs of the current ECO Test with respect to cable landing license applications and notifications. Specifically, is there an incentive for non-WTO countries to open their markets to U.S. carriers under the current test, or are there any other benefits to U.S. carriers in modification of the ECO Test? Conversely, what are the costs an applicant incurs in providing information under the current ECO Test? The Commission encourages commenters to discuss all aspects of this proposal as well as practical problems cable landing license applicants face in complying with the current ECO Test requirements.

17. This document contains proposed new and modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

18. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information collections are due December 26, 2012. Written comments must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before January 25, 2013. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, a copy of any comments on the information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via email to Judith.BHerman@fcc.gov and to Kim A. Johnson, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via email to Kim_A._Johnson@omb.eop.gov.

19. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission certifies that that an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the proposals considered in this NPRM is not warranted, and that a regulatory flexibility certification is appropriate for the reasons stated below.

20. First, the ECO Test rules that the Commission proposes to either eliminate or modify in this NPRM affect only applications filed by foreign carriers or their affiliates that hold market power in a country that is not a member of the WTO. Based on statistics available, there are currently 156 WTO Member countries (in addition to the European Union), and we calculate, based on 2010 World Bank gross domestic product (GDP) data, that the remaining non-WTO Member countries represent approximately five percent of the world's GDP. The ECO Test requirements are detailed and were designed to be applied to countries that could support advanced regulatory regimes. Most of the non-WTO Member countries are countries that may not have the necessary resources to support a regulatory framework that meets the ECO Test requirements. In this NPRM the Commission is proposing either to completely eliminate or modify the current ECO Test criteria that will result in lessening the economic impact on applicants from non-WTO Member countries requesting an ECO Test determination.

21. The Commission believes that the proposal and other options on which it seeks comment in this NPRM will reduce costs and burdens currently imposed on applicants, carriers, and licensees, including those that are small entities, and accelerate the authorization and licensing process, while continuing to ensure that the Commission has the information it needs to carry out its statutory duties. Therefore, the Commission certifies that the proposals in this NPRM, if adopted, will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including the certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

22. It is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i) and (j), 201-205, 208, 211, 214, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 201-205, 208, 211, 214, 303(r), and 403, and the Cable Landing License Act, 47 U.S.C. 34-39 and Executive Order No. 10530, section 5(a), reprinted as amended in 3 U.S.C. 301, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1 and 63, and propose alternative rules to those parts as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Public Notice in WT Docket No. 10-254, DA 12-1745, released November 1, 2012. The full text of the Public Notice is available for public inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Copies may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, 202-488-5300 or 800-378-3160 (voice), 202-488-5562 (TTY), 202-488-5563 (fax), or you may contact BCPI at its Web site: http://www.BCPIWEB.com. When ordering documents from BCPI, please provide the appropriate FCC document number, for example, DA 12-1745. The Updated Information and Comment Sought on Review of Hearing Aid Compatibility Regulations Public Notice is available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/document/hearing-aid-compatibility-review-additional-comments-sought and related documents are also available by using the search function for WT Docket No. 10-254 on the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) Web page at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. To request information in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice) or 202-418-0432 (TTY).

1. By the Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) seeks updated comment on the operation and effectiveness of the Commission's rules relating to hearing aid compatibility of wireless handsets, found at 47 CFR 20.19. In December 2010, the Bureau issued a public notice to initiate a comprehensive review of the wireless hearing aid compatibility regulations ( 2010 Review PN ), 76 FR 2625, January 14, 2011. Due to intervening market, technical, and regulatory developments since the 2010 Review PN, the Bureau seeks updated and additional comment on these matters.

2. In the Hearing Aid Compatibility Policy Statement and Second Report and Order released on August 5, 2010, 75 FR 54508, Sept. 8, 2010, the Commission reiterated its intention, first stated in 2008, to initiate a review of the hearing aid compatibility rules for digital wireless services and handsets in 2010. Shortly thereafter, on October 8, 2010, the Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA, Pub. L. 111-260) became law, ensuring that individuals with disabilities have access to emerging Internet Protocol-based communications and video programming technologies in the 21st Century. Among other provisions, the CVAA extended hearing aid compatibility requirements to customer premises equipment “used with advanced communications services that is designed to provide 2-way voice communications via a built-in speaker intended to be held to the ear in a manner functionally equivalent to a telephone.” The CVAA preserved the exemption of mobile handsets from the requirement that all telephones be hearing aid-compatible, while maintaining the Commission's authority to revoke or limit such exemption.

3. In December 2010, the Bureau released the 2010 Review PN, which sought comment on numerous questions relating to the operation of the current hearing aid compatibility rules and their success in making a broad selection of wireless phones accessible to people who use hearing aids and cochlear implants, as well as in making information about those phones available to the public. In particular, the 2010 Review PN sought comment on several substantive issues.

4. First, the Bureau sought comment on the availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets. Specifically, the Bureau requested comment on whether the Commission's deployment benchmarks appropriately ensure that hearing aid-compatible handsets are available to all consumers. The Bureau also asked whether the rules have succeeded in making hearing aid-compatible phones available to consumers with a full range of different feature sets, and whether the rules appropriately account for the challenges facing smaller service providers. In addition, the Bureau requested comment on whether the M3 and T3 technical standards contained in American National Standards Institute Technical Standard C63.19 (ANSI Standard C63.19), which is incorporated in the Commission's rules, appropriately ensure that users of hearing aids and cochlear implants will be able to access wireless communications.

5. The Bureau also sought comment on whether sufficient information about hearing aid-compatible phones is being made available to the Commission and the public. In particular, the Bureau asked whether the Commission's reporting system is collecting appropriate information in an efficient way, and whether that information is being made available to the public in an accessible manner. The Bureau further sought comment on whether manufacturers' and service providers' Web sites are providing useful and accessible information, whether point-of-sale and packaging disclosures are appropriately informing consumers, and whether the in-store testing requirement is effective. The Bureau also asked what actions the Commission might take to provide better information to consumers with hearing loss who obtain handsets from sources other than service providers.

6. The Bureau also sought comment on technical issues. Specifically, the Bureau asked whether additional measures are needed to facilitate acoustic coupling compatibility. The Bureau asked about the effects on hearing aid compatibility of display screens, wireless headsets, and simultaneous transmission capabilities in handsets. The Bureau also asked what actions the Commission might take to facilitate better interoperability of hearing aids and cochlear implants with handsets.

7. In addition, the Bureau sought comment about the state of innovation in solutions to enable people with hearing loss to access wireless technology and whether the Commission's rules appropriately facilitate such innovation, investment, and competition. Finally, the Bureau asked what the Commission should do to promote collaboration among consumers with hearing loss, the communications industry, and the hearing aid industry.

8. On April 9, 2012, the Bureau and the Office of Engineering and Technology released the Hearing Aid Compatibility Third Report and Order, 77 FR 41919, July 17, 2012, which adopted the 2011 revision of ANSI Standard C63.19 as an applicable technical standard for evaluating the hearing aid compatibility of wireless phones. The 2011 ANSI Standard expands the range of frequencies over which hearing aid compatibility can be tested to 698 MHz—6 GHz and it establishes a direct method for measuring the radio frequency (RF) interference level of wireless devices to hearing aids, thereby enabling testing procedures to be applied to operations over any RF air interface or protocol. The 2011 ANSI Standard also exempts from testing certain low power transmitters that are unlikely to cause unacceptable RF interference to hearing aids. Under the recently adopted rules, beginning August 16, 2013, newly introduced multi-band and multi-mode handset models that include operations not covered under ANSI Standard C63.19-2007 must be tested under ANSI Standard C63.19-2011 in order to be considered hearing aid-compatible. The Commission's deployment benchmarks will become applicable to operations over frequency bands and air interfaces that are newly covered under the 2011 revision of the standard on August 16, 2014, for manufacturers and nationwide carriers and on November 16, 2014, for other service providers.

9. During the period since the record closed on the 2010 Review PN, technologies and markets for both wireless handsets and hearing assistance devices have continued to evolve. For example, manufacturers have introduced many new handset models, including models that both do and do not meet hearing aid compatibility technical standards, as evidenced by the most recent annual reports filed by manufacturers on July 15, 2012. Many of these handsets offer 3G and 4G broadband capability as well as other advanced and innovative features. At the same time, increasing numbers of hearing aids are equipped with telecoils. The Bureau seeks comment on how this and other developments affect any of the matters addressed in the 2010 Review PN. For example, do the Commission's rules continue to ensure that a full range of hearing aid-compatible handsets is available to all consumers? Have developments in the marketplace posed new challenges, or relieved pre-existing challenges, to smaller providers? Are consumers adequately informed about the capabilities of the new handsets and their functionality with hearing aids and cochlear implants? In particular, are consumers informed about the functioning of handsets that have a separate menu-driven mode for operation with telecoils, and that activating this mode may affect the phone's acoustic coupling performance? Do the existing technical standards adequately and completely measure the new handsets' hearing aid compatibility? With the introduction of devices in new sizes and form factors, is it sufficiently clear whether a device is “typically held to the ear in any of its ordinary uses” and therefore covered under the hearing aid compatibility rules? The Bureau encourages commenters to address these and any other effects of technological and market developments.

10. The Bureau also seeks comment on the impact of the newly adopted 2011 revision of ANSI Standard C63.19. In particular, because the direct measurement methodology made it possible to eliminate certain conservative assumptions, it is approximately 2.2 dB easier under the new standard for a GSM phone to receive an M3 rating. In light of this development, is it still necessary and appropriate to allow phones operating over GSM at 1900 MHz to achieve an M3 rating by means of a user-controlled power reduction? Do the new standard or the rules implementing that standard affect any other issues addressed in the 2010 Review PN ? The Bureau also notes that the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) has released new and revised standards relating to volume control and amplification for wireline phones, including digital cordless phones, which include revised measurement procedures as well as a new metric based on conversational gain. Although ASC C63® has not addressed these procedures and metrics in the context of mobile phones, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau has recognized their value in promoting accessibility to wireline services for people with hearing loss, and the Bureau invites comment on their potential relevance and benefits in the mobile context.

11. The Bureau encourages commenters, to the extent feasible, to include specific, quantifiable information regarding the costs and benefits of the Commission's hearing aid compatibility reporting and enforcement regime. Under the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act, the Commission is required to revoke or limit the exemption of phones used with public mobile services from hearing aid compatibility requirements if (i) Such revocation or limitation is in the public interest; (ii) continuation of the exemption without such revocation or limitation would have an adverse effect on hearing-impaired individuals; (iii) compliance with hearing aid compatibility requirements is technologically feasible for the telephones to which the exemption applies; and (iv) compliance with hearing aid compatibility requirements would not increase costs to such an extent that the telephones to which the exemption applies could not be successfully marketed. However, the statute leaves the Commission substantial discretion to implement the mechanisms that most cost-effectively ensure compliance with these requirements. Accordingly, the Bureau invites further comment on the costs and benefits of these mechanisms, particularly as applied to small entities. For example, what are the costs to small entities of accurately and timely completing FCC Form 655 and of responding to the Commission's enforcement inquiries? What are the benefits to consumers of having the information in the hearing aid compatibility reports available from the smallest service providers as well as the major national and regional carriers? Are there alternative approaches that would achieve substantially the same benefits in a more cost-effective manner?

12. The Bureau also welcomes comment on any other new or changed circumstances relevant to the operation and effect of the hearing aid compatibility rules.

13. Pursuant to §§ 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).

• 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 four copies 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 (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes 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 mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

One copy of each pleading must be delivered electronically, by email or facsimile, or if delivered as paper copy, by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (according to the procedures set forth above for paper filings), to the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., at FCC@BCPIWEB.COM or (202) 488-5563 (facsimile).

On October 29 and 30, 2012, Hurricane Sandy struck the Northeast region of the United States causing significant damage, flooding, and loss of power. Many passenger railroads in the Northeast region were affected by Hurricane Sandy and are still making efforts to resume normal service. Due to these extraordinary circumstances, FRA is reopening the comment period and extending the deadline for the NPRM so that the railroads impacted by Hurricane Sandy have an adequate opportunity to submit comments. The comment deadline is reopened and extended from November 6, 2012 to December 7, 2012.

Interested parties should be aware that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any agency docket by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov or you may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

For a detailed description of Federal actions concerning the Preble's, please refer to the May 13, 1998, listing under the Act (63 FR 26517); the July 10, 2008, final rule amending the listing determination for the Preble's (73 FR 39790); and our August 5, 2011, reinstatement of listing protections for the Preble's (76 FR 47490).

On December 23, 2003, we received two nearly identical petitions, one from the State of Wyoming's Office of the Governor and the second from Coloradans for Water Conservation and Development, seeking to remove the Preble's from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (Freudenthal 2003; Sonnenberg 2003). The petitions maintained that Preble's should be delisted based on the taxonomic revision suggested by Ramey et al. (2003) and new distribution, abundance, and trends data that suggested the subspecies was no longer endangered or threatened (Freudenthal 2003, p. 1; Sonnenberg 2003, p. 1).

On July 10, 2008, we published a final rule amending the listing for the Preble's by removing protections for the Preble's in Wyoming (73 FR 39790). In that rule, we determined that the Preble's was not threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion of its range located in Colorado represented a “significant portion of the range” (SPR) where the Preble's should retain its threatened status.

On June 23, 2009, a petition for review of the 2008 amendment to the listing was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The petitioners challenged, among other things, our interpretation of SPR as applied to the Preble's decision. The Service filed a motion for voluntary remand and vacatur of the 2008 Preble's amended listing decision. On July 7, 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted this motion and ordered the 2008 amended listing decision vacated and remanded as of August 6, 2011 ( Center for Native Ecosystems, et al. v. Salazar, et al., 09-cv-01463-AP-JLK, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72664). On August 5, 2011, the Service issued a final rule complying with the court order and reinstating the regulatory protections under the Act for the Preble's in Wyoming, effective August 6, 2011 (76 FR 47490).

The court also ordered that by June 1, 2013, the Service must complete its status review of the Preble's and publish a 12-month finding in the Federal Register for the petitions submitted by the State of Wyoming and Coloradans for Water Conservation and Development to delist the Preble's.

On December 9, 2011, we published a notice of our draft policy (76 FR 76987) to establish a joint interpretation and application of SPR with the National Marine Fisheries Service that reflects a permissible reading of the law and its legislative history, and minimizes undesirable policy outcomes, while fulfilling the conservation purposes of the Act. To date, our draft policy on SPR has not been finalized.

The Preble's is recognized as 1 of 12 subspecies of meadow jumping mouse ( Zapus hudsonius ), a species that ranges from the Pacific Coast of Alaska to the Atlantic Coast and from the northern limit of forests south to New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Georgia (Hafner et al. 1981, p. 501; Hall 1981, p. 843; Krutzsch 1954, pp. 420-421). Meadow jumping mice are small rodents with long tails, large hind feet, and long hind legs. Total length of an adult is approximately 7 to 10 inches (187 to 255 millimeters), with the tail of 4 to 6 inches (108 to 155 millimeters) comprising about 60 percent of that length (Krutzsch 1954, p. 420; Armstrong et al. 2011, p. 189).

The Preble's is found along the foothills in southeastern Wyoming southward along the eastern edge of the Front Range of Colorado to Colorado Springs in El Paso County, Colorado (Hall 1981, p. 844; Clark and Stromberg 1987, pp. 184-188; Armstrong et al. 2011, p. 189; Clippenger 2002, pp. 14-15, 20). Typical habitat for the Preble's is comprised of well-developed riparian vegetation with adjacent, relatively undisturbed grassland communities and a nearby water source (Bakeman 1997, pp. 22-31). Preble's are typically captured in areas with multi-storied cover with an understory of grasses or forbs or a mixture thereof (Bakeman 1997, pp. 22-31; Schorr 2001, pp. 23-24). The shrub canopy is often willow ( Salix spp.), although other shrub species may occur (Shenk and Eussen 1998, p. 9-11). Trainor et al. (2007, pp. 471-472) found that high-use areas for the Preble's tended to be close to creeks and were positively associated with the percentage of shrubs, grasses, and woody debris. Hydrologic regimes that support Preble's' habitat range from large perennial rivers, such as the South Platte River, to small drainages only 3 to 10 feet (1 to 3 meters) in width.

Meadow jumping mice are primarily nocturnal or crepuscular (active during twilight), but also may be active during the day. The Preble's uses uplands at least as far out as 330 feet (100 meters) beyond the 100-year floodplain (Shenk and Sivert 1999, p. 11; Ryon 1999, p. 12; Schorr 2001, p. 14; Trainor et al. 2012). While Preble's dispersal capabilities are thought to be limited, in one instance a Preble's was documented moving as far as 0.7 mile (1.1 kilometers) in 24 hours (Ryon 1999, p. 12). The Preble's typically enters hibernation in September or October and emerges the following May (Whitaker 1963, p. 5; Meaney et al. 2003, p. 621).

For additional information on the biology of this subspecies, see the May 13, 1998, final rule to list the Preble's as threatened (63 FR 26517) and the October 8, 2009, proposal to revise critical habitat for the Preble's in Colorado (74 FR 52066).

To ensure our determination is based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on the Preble's from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We are seeking any new information including:

(1) Data from any systematic surveys for the Preble's, as well as any studies that may show distribution, status, population size, or population trends;

(2) Information concerning the taxonomic status of the Preble's;

(3) Quantitative information regarding the life history, ecology, and habitat use of the Preble's;

(4) Information on the current and foreseeable threats faced by the Preble's in all or a significant portion of its range in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended [16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ]);

(5) Information regarding the effects of current and foreseeable land management on the status of the Preble's;

(6) Specific information on the potential effects of climate change on the Preble's and its habitat;

(7) Information demonstrating what, for the Preble's, might constitute an SPR in light of our December 9, 2011, draft policy on SPR (76 FR 76987); and

(8) Information regarding contact and interaction among Preble's populations or other information relevant to a distinct population segment analysis (see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996).

You may submit information concerning the status review or the 5-year review by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

Information and supporting documentation we receive and use in preparing a 12-month finding and 5-year review will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Pertinent information received, developed, or analyzed since our July 10, 2008, final rule amending the listing determination for the Preble's (73 FR 39790) is available for review on the Service's Web site http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/preble/, or by contacting the Field Supervisor, Colorado Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). This information includes both scientific publications and selected unpublished reports. Compilations of data, correspondence, and other information are also available on the Service's Web site. See the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2012-0095) for additional information we receive during the comment period opened by this document.

A complete list of all the references is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Field Supervisor, Colorado Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Colorado Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.